Thread: Fal$e Teacher$ 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=029190
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Apologies if this has already been posted but I've found this great song about the so called 'prosperity gospel' by Christian rapper Shai Linne called "Fal$e Teacher$"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYsruRT0d4
Enjoy
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Hi Bibliophile,
I know this isn't your first post, but welcome again to the ship!
Do you have anything you want to bring up to discuss here? Purgatory is for topics to be discussed. Otherwise if you'd rather make fun of bad theology, that might be fun too, but a host should probably move this to Heaven. (If you mainly wanted to show us the link, thanks but this is probably not the place.)
Gwaihir,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Hi Bibliophile,
I know this isn't your first post, but welcome again to the ship!
Do you have anything you want to bring up to discuss here? Purgatory is for topics to be discussed. Otherwise if you'd rather make fun of bad theology, that might be fun too, but a host should probably move this to Heaven. (If you mainly wanted to show us the link, thanks but this is probably not the place.)
Gwaihir,
Purgatory Host
Thanks
Well perhaps to start a discussion I could list the false teachers named in the song
Joel Osteen
Creflo Dollar
Benny Hinn
TD Jakes
Joyce Meyer
Paula White
Fred Price
Kenneth Copeland
Robert Tilton
Eddie Long
Juanita Bynum
Paul Crouch
and ask if people here agree with the description of these people as false teachers and agree with the artist publicly identifying them by name as such in this way?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think we can all look at that list and agree there are aspects of their ministries and theology which we disagree with, and probably even in error. Of course, that could just be a recognition that they're human beings and like the rest of us are not perfect and get it wrong at times.
The implication from the song (and, in particular the use of $ to replace S) is that they're deliberately being false inorder to con people out of money. That is something I would not go so far as to say, and it's the sort of thing we should all be very careful about - none of us as individuals or the Ship as an entity can afford to face a defamation or libel law suit.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I am amazed at Joyce Meyer's continuing popularity, especially with women's conferences.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Never heard of any of them apart from Hinn.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of any of them apart from Hinn.
Joel Osteen is an American televangelist who regularly fills huge auditoriums by the thousands. Your first impression upon looking at him is that he has too many teeth.
Creflo Dollar likewise, except for the teeth. Personally I can't get past his name, and that of his wife Taffy Dollar.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am amazed at Joyce Meyer's continuing popularity, especially with women's conferences.
Here snarky, angry edge always troubles me as much as the prosperity gospel thing. I too am baffled by the appeal.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, a number of theological teachers - and not just frothing at the mouth ultra-Reformed types, came out in the 1990s and roundly declared that the atonement theories espoused by the likes of Copeland and Hagin were definitely heretical ...
Like Alan Cresswell, I would be wary of suggesting that the people on the list the song references are 'only in it for the money' - but I'd have no hesitation in stating that their theology is fundamentally flawed in many important respects - and with some it topples over into the heretical -- however we cut it - from a generally accepted small o orthodox position ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder if the rapper has allowed that youtube channel to use their audio? It would be ironic if not, given that there is a revenue-sharing ad at the beginning of the vid.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ha ha ha ...
Meanwhile, I think there's a certain unhelpful pragmatism in some charismatic evangelical circles. If something is seen to 'work' or attract a crowd then people want some of the action - irrespective of how bad or how questionable it is.
I think that accounts for the popularity of some of these figures - even among people who are wary of their theology.
'They're successful in what they do, they must be doing something right ...'
That's the unspoken assumption.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
It's interesting to consider where the boundary is between "false teacher" and someone you happen to disagree with.
I've not heard of the majority of those named, but for those I have (Osteen, Hinn, Jakes, Meyer) I can't say I have much fondness for what I've read/heard. A lot of this dislike, though is though is due to the sheer hype and razzamatazz laid on what is a pretty bland self-help message in a christian garb.
I'm not sure they're any more false, though, than the likes of the of Sea of Faith advocates, or those who propagated the sale of indulgences.
I just wouldn't be keen to read their books or hear them speak. There are plenty of alternatives for these itching ears to attend to.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ha ha ha ...
Meanwhile, I think there's a certain unhelpful pragmatism in some charismatic evangelical circles. If something is seen to 'work' or attract a crowd then people want some of the action - irrespective of how bad or how questionable it is.
I think that accounts for the popularity of some of these figures - even among people who are wary of their theology.
'They're successful in what they do, they must be doing something right ...'
That's the unspoken assumption.
Yes, sadly. The other factor is entertainment. If someone is entertaining-- particularly if they are funny we'll tolerate a host of theological sins. I remember going to a women's retreat once at a very conservative evangelical church. The outside speaker was clearly MUCH more liberal than the attendees, saying things I would never get away with-- e.g. implicitly questioning the divinity of Jesus. Had I tried that I woulda been run outta town. But the speaker did so in a very clever, funny & entertaining way-- the women were laughing and having a good time. Which apparently was all the spoonful of sugar needed to get a little heresy down.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It's interesting to consider where the boundary is between "false teacher" and someone you happen to disagree with.
I've not heard of the majority of those named, but for those I have (Osteen, Hinn, Jakes, Meyer) I can't say I have much fondness for what I've read/heard. A lot of this dislike, though is though is due to the sheer hype and razzamatazz laid on what is a pretty bland self-help message in a christian garb.
I'm not sure they're any more false, though, than the likes of the of Sea of Faith advocates, or those who propagated the sale of indulgences.
I just wouldn't be keen to read their books or hear them speak. There are plenty of alternatives for these itching ears to attend to.
There's an interesting documentary here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iETg-9K51Wc
detailing some of the more extreme heresies taught by some of these people. These ideas (e.g. that Christians are 'little gods', that christians can speak things into existence, that Christ was united in nature with sin and Satan on the cross). These are not just little errors.
These heresies are not just incidentally linked to the 'prosperity gospel'/gospel of greed. They are its basis.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we can all look at that list and agree there are aspects of their ministries and theology which we disagree with, and probably even in error. Of course, that could just be a recognition that they're human beings and like the rest of us are not perfect and get it wrong at times.
The implication from the song (and, in particular the use of $ to replace S) is that they're deliberately being false inorder to con people out of money. That is something I would not go so far as to say, and it's the sort of thing we should all be very careful about - none of us as individuals or the Ship as an entity can afford to face a defamation or libel law suit.
Well the song came out a couple of years ago and no one has sued so far. In any case the $ signs could just be a reference to the 'prosperity gospel' message itself rather than the motives of the preachers themselves.
Here are a couple of short Youtube videos about a couple of the false teachers listed. The first about Creflo Dollar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLsDNxZcOa8
which features the infamous audio clip of him fantasising about shooting non tithe payers with Uzi machine guns.
and here is a short clip of Robert Tilton in his prime demanding money from his viewers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unhqk-sAtZ4
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ha ha ha ...
Meanwhile, I think there's a certain unhelpful pragmatism in some charismatic evangelical circles. If something is seen to 'work' or attract a crowd then people want some of the action - irrespective of how bad or how questionable it is.
I think that accounts for the popularity of some of these figures - even among people who are wary of their theology.
'They're successful in what they do, they must be doing something right ...'
That's the unspoken assumption.
Another Youtube video here, this one a short video of a young woman talking about how she became homeless as a teenager after her mother gave all her money away to greedy creeps like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8bkFJBJ6V8
might that be an example of 'what works'?
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I don't know what is the objection to Joel Osteen. Of course I live a long way from Houston in another country, so I have only heard him speak on the radio a few times, but it was nothing like what I think of as the prosperity gospel.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Joel Osteen is somewhat different - insofar that this emphasis isn't always so overt in what he says -- from what I can gather.
I've heard that Osteen tends to avoid controversial topics, so, by and large, what he preaches is a fairly 'beige' feel-good-factor type Gospel. It's quite aspirational and so on, but doesn't involve the kinds of rants that one might expect from this particular stable.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I don't know what is the objection to Joel Osteen. Of course I live a long way from Houston in another country, so I have only heard him speak on the radio a few times, but it was nothing like what I think of as the prosperity gospel.
I know next to nothing about him, but another name on the list, Joyce Meyer, hardly seems like a prosperity gospeller either. Reading about her on wiki, she does appear to be a very rich woman, but she seems to have been clean of any impropriety, seems no worse than, say, the purpose driven Warren, and one friend of mine, who has a pretty sharp nose for spiritual BS, speaks highly of her books, and clearly thinks she's well within the bounds of orthodoxy. I've not read any of her work, but I do know who she is, unlike anyone else on the list, apart from the bizarrely coiffured Hinn, a man for whom I have no time whatsoever.
[ 10. June 2015, 19:43: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Bibliophile - I think it was aboard Ship at some point that someone posted a link to a You Tube video of a Canadian or North West USA (I forget which, I'm sorry) news story about a girl with severe disabilities who had been turned away from the 'healing line' at a Benny Hinn meeting.
It's well-known that Hinn and other 'healing evangelists' have teams who vet the people who go up onto the stage and they tend to turn away anyone who looks like a 'difficult case'.
Anyway, the report showed her and her 'mom' coming to terms with that and the girl going on to learn the piano to a high level and have a fulfilling life despite her condition and the sense of 'rejection' she'd suffered at the hands of the health-wealth mob.
It was fairly cheesy on one level, but quite heart-warming nevertheless.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Again, I think Joyce Meyer lies towards the more 'acceptable' end of the 'prosperity-gospel' spectrum - and her books do seem to be popular and have a following beyond that immediate constituency.
I'm still uncomfortable with anything that remotely smacks of any connection with that particular stable ... but as with anything else there are shades and nuances.
Not all the preachers and congregations influenced by these particular teachers go in for everything that they teach or proclaim.
For my money (ha ha), I'd draw up a sliding scale of respectability / orthodoxy if you like -- with some near the bottom of it and others towards the top end.
These things aren't always clear-cut. If they were so obviously off-the-wall on all points and aspects then they'd never get a hearing at all.
Even with the more 'acceptable' ones, I'd suggest that people who engage this stuff tread very carefully indeed as there are very subtle (and some not so subtle) emphases that can lead even quite savvy people out of whack ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I really think we are scraping the barrel here. Some rapper doesn't like a bunch of visible wealthy Christians. OK. So?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, but it's not just about the money but the theology. With some it's simply a more exaggerated version of US-style self-help ideology in Christianised form.
With others it veers into out and out heresy by aanyone's standards.
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith and so on - but there are plenty of people who'd reject Sea of Faith who'd fall for some of the more extreme 'word of faith' nonsense.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I really think we are scraping the barrel here. Some rapper doesn't like a bunch of visible wealthy Christians. OK. So?
I don't think it's about the fact that they are wealthy. There are others I'd throw under the bus if that were the case (yes, Waltons, I'm looking at you). It's specifically about prosperity gospel-- which is very problematic theologically, and has led to some real problems-- particularly in the developing world. I apologized to the seminary students I taught in central Africa, telling them it was one of our worst exports to them.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I like the list. Religion can be big hellish business. If you see these guys in heaven, best make sure it's heaven that you're in and request a transfer to that other place.
Benny Hinn, Benny Hill. I like Hill better.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of any of them apart from Hinn.
Joel Osteen is an American televangelist who regularly fills huge auditoriums by the thousands. Your first impression upon looking at him is that he has too many teeth.
Which reminds me of that phenomenon where believers got gold fillings. A sort of divine national health service dentistry.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech
I nearly fell off my chair with surprise! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith .
Sea of Faith isn't a wealthy organisation and its leaders risk their jobs in some dioceses. No comparison.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Hmm - I've been lent a Meyer book called something like "The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word", which sounded more like magic than Christianity to me. Reading a few bits of it didn't shake my initial response.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm - I've been lent a Meyer book called something like "The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word", which sounded more like magic than Christianity to me. Reading a few bits of it didn't shake my initial response.
Indeed. The 'word of faith' is very similar to the occult idea of 'law of attraction. When you consider other aspects of this theology e.g. focus on the self, the idea that people are 'little gods' the similarities with occultism become more obvious.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm - I've been lent a Meyer book called something like "The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word", which sounded more like magic than Christianity to me. Reading a few bits of it didn't shake my initial response.
Indeed. The 'word of faith' is very similar to the occult idea of 'law of attraction. When you consider other aspects of this theology e.g. focus on the self, the idea that people are 'little gods' the similarities with occultism become more obvious.
"Occultism" is a broad and ill-defined term, covering anything that "looks a bit weird". Word of Faith stuff does put me in mind of some aspects of ritual magic, specifically, where invoking spiritual powers using the right words and in the right way forced a particular result. But then you could argue that about the Eucharist as well the way some people talk.
I certainly wouldn't these days go as far as Hunt and McMahon did (anyone remember 'The Seduction of Christianity'?), but then from where I sit one bunch of fundamentalists with a bee in their bonnet is as alien as another.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Joel Osteen is somewhat different - insofar that this emphasis isn't always so overt in what he says -- from what I can gather.
I've heard that Osteen tends to avoid controversial topics, so, by and large, what he preaches is a fairly 'beige' feel-good-factor type Gospel. It's quite aspirational and so on, but doesn't involve the kinds of rants that one might expect from this particular stable.
Watering down sewerage makes it more marketable, he wouldn't be so popular if he was as blatant as the likes of Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton, but water mixed with sewage is still sewage.
quote:
From Your Best Life Now: “If you want success, if you want wisdom, if you want to be prosperous and healthy, you’re going to have to do more than meditate and believe; you must boldly declare words of faith and victory over yourself and your family.” God will make you prosperous if only you “declare words of victory.”
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/09/04/joel-osteen-wife-heretics-thats-america-loves/
This is the same self centred, occultic, heretical nonsense that people like Ken Copeland, Benny Hinn and indeed Joyce Meyer teach.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of any of them apart from Hinn.
Joel Osteen is an American televangelist who regularly fills huge auditoriums by the thousands. Your first impression upon looking at him is that he has too many teeth.
Oh Grandma, what nice shiny white teeth you have!
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
As it so happens, husband en rouge and I were discussing Benny Hinn over dinner last night. He was telling me how he once harshed Benny Hinn’s mellow.
Back in the day, husband en rouge was a member of a large charismatic church in Paris (it still exists, but I believe it’s quite a lot smaller than it once was). He was the keyboard player/worship leader. This was in the days when collapsing on the floor was all the vogue, about the late 90s.
Benny Hinn’s big Parisian event was hosted by this particular church and his team were praying for a “special anointing” on the musicians. At this point the whole worship band sank to the ground in a stupor… with the honourable exception of husband en rouge, who stayed standing up, looking annoyed (he had already been less than impressed with the preaching). When he was prevailed upon to collapse, he declaimed in a suitably loud voice, “I am not falling over. I am a standing up Christian.” He reckons it wrecked the event for them.
(I just thought you’d enjoy the story.)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith .
Sea of Faith isn't a wealthy organisation and its leaders risk their jobs in some dioceses. No comparison.
Heresy is heresy even if the false teacher doesn't get rich spouting it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - good story La Vie en Rouge.
@Bibliophile - whilst I agree with you about the toxicity of the prosperity-gospel and the word-of-faith malarkey -- it's a form of carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity -- I do think there is a danger of people becoming fixated with it in the opposite way ie. developing an unhealthy obsession with going around trying to debunk and expose it.
I'm not suggesting you are doing so, nor am I suggesting it shouldn't be debunked and exposed but I've seen a number of people who've become so obsessed with distancing themselves from this side of things and in exposing it to show how 'sound' and sensible they are by contrast with it that they get themselves all het up and hot and bothered ...
That can't be healthy either.
Yes, the influence of these people can be pernicious and one of the things that bothered me back in the '80s and '90s was the extent to which it was beginning to influence mainstream evangelical and charismatic circles ... and the Toronto thing gave a bit of a boost for that to an extent ...
I've even picked up some echoes and influences within Anglican charismaticism ... although it's less of an issue there than in some other settings. Or at least, it was ...
That said, I do wonder how prevailing an influence there's been ... these guys are quite visible on the Christian TV networks and so on but they haven't really come to the attention of the wider public. Here in the UK, people would be aware that there's a history of odd and whacky TV evangelicalism - but they wouldn't necessarily have been exposed to it.
I've met people who've watched some of this stuff on US TV channels when they've been on holiday in Florida or wherever -- but by and large I don't think most Brits - or continental Europeans for that matter - would be very aware of this sort of thing.
As for the influence of it within Christian circles ... I suspect it comes and goes in cycles and varies according to where you happen to be.
I don't see a lot of this stuff these days as I don't move in full-on charismatic circles so much - although I have friends and contacts who do.
It certainly doesn't feel as prevalent as it did at one time - but that simply be because I'm not rubbing shoulders with people who are into this sort of thing. It might be different where you are, Bibliophile.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith .
Sea of Faith isn't a wealthy organisation and its leaders risk their jobs in some dioceses. No comparison.
No comparison except in the misrepresenting God and the Bible stakes. Then there's 100% convergence - albeit in different ways.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It certainly doesn't feel as prevalent as it did at one time - but that simply be because I'm not rubbing shoulders with people who are into this sort of thing. It might be different where you are, Bibliophile.
No, it's not around as much.
It tends to be a bit Bill Johnson/Bethel type stuff or the Alan Hirsch Missional-Intentional (add al to any word you like), new emerging congregations. Conferences aren't what they were and even the BU Assembly is down to one day. There tends to be a lot more local stuff done these days and less denominational too.
The trouble with the preachers mentioned is that they buy into the American Dream of continuing improvement and stuff going well. Life isn't like that and perhaps the church could understand that more. It's a theology of healing and suffering alongside a theology of hope and challenge. We have to deal with the times when seemingly God does not appear to be intervening.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We have to deal with the times when seemingly God does not appear to be intervening.
Alternatively, He is intervening, and we just don't like it.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Speaking as an ex-Christian, it's probably as well to keep in mind that the religion's long history includes many, many differing (sometimes wildly so) manifestations, right from the get-go -- Gnostics, Manicheans, and all the rest. That continues into the present day. And many Christians, also right from the get-go, have seen various of these manifestations as an enormous threat to the faith (whatever that 'faith' is, or however defined).
Yet here we all are, 2,100 years later, with Christianity claimed by a vast number of the planet's human inhabitants as the monotheism-of-choice, and I suspect that the process will continue long after we're all dust, and the whole monotheistic enterprise has somehow resolved itself into a kind of Judachrislam pretty much both embraced and ignored in equal measure (as Christianity basically is now by its adherents) by pretty much everybody.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I like the list. Religion can be big hellish business. If you see these guys in heaven, best make sure it's heaven that you're in and request a transfer to that other place.
Benny Hinn, Benny Hill. I like Hill better.
There is of course a 2 for 1 offer available
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
As it so happens, husband en rouge and I were discussing Benny Hinn over dinner last night. He was telling me how he once harshed Benny Hinn’s mellow.
Back in the day, husband en rouge was a member of a large charismatic church in Paris (it still exists, but I believe it’s quite a lot smaller than it once was). He was the keyboard player/worship leader. This was in the days when collapsing on the floor was all the vogue, about the late 90s.
Benny Hinn’s big Parisian event was hosted by this particular church and his team were praying for a “special anointing” on the musicians. At this point the whole worship band sank to the ground in a stupor… with the honourable exception of husband en rouge, who stayed standing up, looking annoyed (he had already been less than impressed with the preaching). When he was prevailed upon to collapse, he declaimed in a suitably loud voice, “I am not falling over. I am a standing up Christian.” He reckons it wrecked the event for them.
(I just thought you’d enjoy the story.)
Thank you for that. I did. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - good story La Vie en Rouge.
@Bibliophile - whilst I agree with you about the toxicity of the prosperity-gospel and the word-of-faith malarkey -- it's a form of carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity -- I do think there is a danger of people becoming fixated with it in the opposite way ie. developing an unhealthy obsession with going around trying to debunk and expose it.
.
Good point.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith .
Sea of Faith isn't a wealthy organisation and its leaders risk their jobs in some dioceses. No comparison.
No comparison except in the misrepresenting God and the Bible stakes. Then there's 100% convergence - albeit in different ways.
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
There is of course a 2 for 1 offer available
Does that mean we can tell them all to "BOG OFf!"?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
When he was prevailed upon to collapse, he declaimed in a suitably loud voice, “I am not falling over. I am a standing up Christian.”
"Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus" (or collapse as you are able).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Sipech that it's no worse than Sea of Faith and so on - but there are plenty of people who'd reject Sea of Faith who'd fall for some of the more extreme 'word of faith' nonsense.
And vice-versa, I expect. Plenty of people would see through the obvious con of the prosperity gospel but be taken in by the post-modernist wafflings of the sea of faith.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Anybody preaching a version of Christianity compatible with atheism is a false teacher. Sea of Faith isn't debunking anything. The clergy holding on to their positions while rejecting the beliefs they uphold are cowards. John Shelby Spong holds some of the same beliefs as Sea of Faith and has made quite a bit money promoting those views. Is he a false teacher simply because he is making money from his heresy?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... Is he a false teacher simply because he is making money from his heresy?
I thought what makes a person a false teacher is if what they are saying is false, untrue, a lie, a travesty.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Leo said that Sea of Faith wasn't a wealthy organization so there was no comparison with Osteen and company. I was responding to that. Frankly, Osteen's uses his pulpit to preach a gospel of self-help. It's not really heresy but neither is it uniquely Christian. Osteen occupies the same position as Norman Vincent Peale and everybody adored him. He was a nice well educated Protestant clergyman not one of those crazy yokels with a tent.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Benny Hinn, Benny Hill. I like Hill better.
There is of course a 2 for 1 offer available
Well done! Thank you for that!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Beeswax wrote:
quote:
Osteen occupies the same position as Norman Vincent Peale and everybody adored him. He was a nice well educated Protestant clergyman not one of those crazy yokels with a tent.
Well, speaking as a Canadian Gen Xer, I'd say it's been at least forty years since the general public had anything beyond the skethchiest idea of who Peale was.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I knew about Graham, Falwell, Swaggart, and Oral Roberts. Peale was someone I might have seen on the cover of a "positive thinking" book at the drugstore a couple of times, and even on that score, by the late 70s he had been pretty seriously overshadowed by about a dozen other writers in the field.
And in his heyday, he did actually carry some aura of disrepute in respectable middle-class liberal circles...
"I find Paul appealing..."
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - good story La Vie en Rouge.
@Bibliophile - whilst I agree with you about the toxicity of the prosperity-gospel and the word-of-faith malarkey -- it's a form of carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity -- I do think there is a danger of people becoming fixated with it in the opposite way ie. developing an unhealthy obsession with going around trying to debunk and expose it.
I'm not suggesting you are doing so, nor am I suggesting it shouldn't be debunked and exposed but I've seen a number of people who've become so obsessed with distancing themselves from this side of things and in exposing it to show how 'sound' and sensible they are by contrast with it that they get themselves all het up and hot and bothered ...
That can't be healthy either.
I would agree with most of that. Identifying false teachers is an important topic but of course it shouldn't be the central focus. The one thing I would disagree with is that the 'prosperity gospel/word of faith' is 'a form of carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity'. As far as I can see it isn't Christian at all.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
As it so happens, husband en rouge and I were discussing Benny Hinn over dinner last night. He was telling me how he once harshed Benny Hinn’s mellow.
Back in the day, husband en rouge was a member of a large charismatic church in Paris (it still exists, but I believe it’s quite a lot smaller than it once was). He was the keyboard player/worship leader. This was in the days when collapsing on the floor was all the vogue, about the late 90s.
Benny Hinn’s big Parisian event was hosted by this particular church and his team were praying for a “special anointing” on the musicians. At this point the whole worship band sank to the ground in a stupor… with the honourable exception of husband en rouge, who stayed standing up, looking annoyed (he had already been less than impressed with the preaching). When he was prevailed upon to collapse, he declaimed in a suitably loud voice, “I am not falling over. I am a standing up Christian.” He reckons it wrecked the event for them.
(I just thought you’d enjoy the story.)
Great story, I very much approve.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Trouble is, Bibliophile, plenty of Christians are deceived by it - so claiming it's not Christian at all might be going too far - a distorted form of Christianity is still Christianity to some extent.
It depends where we draw the line. I've come across people who don't believe that Calvinists are Christians, for instance - others who don't believe that Catholics are ...
I'm always wary of bandying the 'h' word - but I do believe that Copeland, Hagin, Hinn and others have crossed that line.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Anybody preaching a version of Christianity compatible with atheism is a false teacher. Sea of Faith isn't debunking anything.
I wonder how much Cuppitt you have actually read. Miuch of his writing about the sorts of god that are human projections mirror the great mystics and he also writes about the dark nioght of the soul.
I doubt that you would say that S. John of the Cross was an heretic.
To use the word 'atheist' to describe Sea of Faith is too simplistic - though I grant you that the likes of Spong deserve the accusation. I always get the feeling with Spong that he isn't very bright and misunderstands the stuff he writes when he comes to embrace a new position.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I went to a Benny Hinn thing a few years back, aware I knew him only by rumor, he's in the area, it's free, why not go make my own judgment of him?
It was, er, interesting.
Both the theology and the extensive appeal for money.
I have friends who were on the mission field, no job, when they spoke in churches at home they never asked for money at the end of a talk, believing it's God who supports them. They never missed a meal. They also didn't have a multi-million dollar house.
Not saying their model is right for all, not saying asking for money is inherently wrong, but 45 minutes of "give me $1,000 and get this beautiful gold-plated pin of my logo, for 10k you get one with a tiny diamond" is not my cup of tea.
Neither is, in the midst of a "God will heal you" speech "God won't heal you if you are over 70" because the Bible says man's years are 3 score and 10 so it's downhill from there. Huh?
OTOH some friends who scorn Benny Hinn LOVE Joyce Meyers. I am not familiar with her. But one thing women in the conservative churches seem to crave is affirmation of women, which may explain the popularity of Beth Moore (who is good but like anyone not always right) and Joyce Meyers - popular *because* they are women addressing women affirmatively, their theology less important than that life-giving affirmation in the "women are secondary to men" churches.
Which raised a question, who is more to be shunned, those who know how to market books affirming the worth of the downtrodden, or those many "unknown" who get into a position of minor local power and use it to downtrod half the population?
So, no I don't see the list as valid, it needs more nuance than just "Christians who market their ideas are inherently wrong." Or is it wealth that is "inherently wrong"? That would kick out a few saints and Billy Graham, who also was not perfect but did some good work.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That would kick out a few saints and Billy Graham, who also was not perfect but did some good work.
Arguably not Billy, who was fairly circumspect in his financial affairs, taking a relatively modest salary (compared to the company we're discussing here) rather than a % of the large amounts of $$ donated to his ministry. The same can not be said for his son, Franklin, but that's another rant.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
The Billy Graham apologists really take some beating. Sure he was a bigoted anti-semite and used his missionaries in Vietnam to supply information for a plan of mass murder he flogged to Nixon—he did some good stuff too!
K.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
So, no I don't see the list as valid, it needs more nuance than just "Christians who market their ideas are inherently wrong." Or is it wealth that is "inherently wrong"? That would kick out a few saints and Billy Graham, who also was not perfect but did some good work.
Its not the fact that they market their ideas and its not the fact that they are wealthy. Its the fact that every single one of the people named on the list are part of the 'prosperity gospel'/'word of faith'
movement.
The huge ethical and theological problems with this form of religion have been discussed on this thread. The fact that people like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer are a bit more subtle in their promotion of this form of religion than the likes of Benny Hinn or Robert Tilton doesn't really make them better.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The Billy Graham apologists really take some beating. Sure he was a bigoted anti-semite and used his missionaries in Vietnam to supply information for a plan of mass murder he flogged to Nixon—he did some good stuff too!
K.
Without wanting to turn into a Billy Graham apologist here can you think of a better plan that could have been achieved for defeating the communist aggression in Vietnam?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The Billy Graham apologists really take some beating. Sure he was a bigoted anti-semite and used his missionaries in Vietnam to supply information for a plan of mass murder he flogged to Nixon—he did some good stuff too!
K.
Without wanting to turn into a Billy Graham apologist here can you think of a better plan that could have been achieved for defeating the communist aggression in Vietnam?
My response would be too far off the topic of this thread and apparently disagree with you. If you want to discuss it, start a thread on the topic of USA's habit of brutal aggression and see if anyone shows up.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Anyone getting rich from Christianity is a false teacher, a heretic.
ANYONE.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Anybody preaching a version of Christianity compatible with atheism is a false teacher. Sea of Faith isn't debunking anything.
I wonder how much Cuppitt you have actually read. Miuch of his writing about the sorts of god that are human projections mirror the great mystics and he also writes about the dark nioght of the soul.
I doubt that you would say that S. John of the Cross was an heretic.
To use the word 'atheist' to describe Sea of Faith is too simplistic - though I grant you that the likes of Spong deserve the accusation. I always get the feeling with Spong that he isn't very bright and misunderstands the stuff he writes when he comes to embrace a new position.
If you think John of the Cross was an atheist, I doubt how much John of the Cross you have actually read.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Anybody preaching a version of Christianity compatible with atheism is a false teacher. Sea of Faith isn't debunking anything.
I wonder how much Cuppitt you have actually read. Miuch of his writing about the sorts of god that are human projections mirror the great mystics and he also writes about the dark nioght of the soul.
I doubt that you would say that S. John of the Cross was an heretic.
To use the word 'atheist' to describe Sea of Faith is too simplistic - though I grant you that the likes of Spong deserve the accusation. I always get the feeling with Spong that he isn't very bright and misunderstands the stuff he writes when he comes to embrace a new position.
If you think John of the Cross was an atheist, I doubt how much John of the Cross you have actually read.
To describe the whole of the Sea of Faith Network as atheistic may be inaccurate, but I don't think the same can be said for Don Cuppitt - if by God you mean an objective existent or reality. For him, the term is merely a linguistic symbol and doesn't go beyond that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by leo:
They don't claim to be Bible-believing but they do a good service in debunking the idols/false gods that some religious people believe in.
Anybody preaching a version of Christianity compatible with atheism is a false teacher. Sea of Faith isn't debunking anything.
I wonder how much Cuppitt you have actually read. Miuch of his writing about the sorts of god that are human projections mirror the great mystics and he also writes about the dark nioght of the soul.
I doubt that you would say that S. John of the Cross was an heretic.
To use the word 'atheist' to describe Sea of Faith is too simplistic - though I grant you that the likes of Spong deserve the accusation. I always get the feeling with Spong that he isn't very bright and misunderstands the stuff he writes when he comes to embrace a new position.
If you think John of the Cross was an atheist, I doubt how much John of the Cross you have actually read.
That comment strikes me as showing either
a) that you have not read much Cupitt and how he relates it to S. John of the Cross
b) remarkably silly to interpret what I wrote as remotely suggesting that S. John of the Cross was atheist.
My general take on Sea of Faith is that i don't believe in the sort of god they don't believe in (indeed that is part of parcel of the purgation process - to be followed by illumination and union.
But that doesn't mean I don't believe in (an) objective God, who transcends all our subjective experience of God.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
To describe the whole of the Sea of Faith Network as atheistic may be inaccurate, but I don't think the same can be said for Don Cuppitt - if by God you mean an objective existent or reality. For him, the term is merely a linguistic symbol and doesn't go beyond that.
The network is a very broad church - I know quite a ferw membners, two of them very well.
I think Cupitt was good on problems but rubbish at solutions - but I'd be careful to talk about 'mere' symbol.
Symbols, like sacraments partake of the reality to which they point.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I went to a Benny Hinn thing a few years back, aware I knew him only by rumor, he's in the area, it's free, why not go make my own judgment of him?
It was, er, interesting.
Both the theology and the extensive appeal for money.
I have friends who were on the mission field, no job, when they spoke in churches at home they never asked for money at the end of a talk, believing it's God who supports them. They never missed a meal. They also didn't have a multi-million dollar house.
Not saying their model is right for all, not saying asking for money is inherently wrong, but 45 minutes of "give me $1,000 and get this beautiful gold-plated pin of my logo, for 10k you get one with a tiny diamond" is not my cup of tea.
Neither is, in the midst of a "God will heal you" speech "God won't heal you if you are over 70" because the Bible says man's years are 3 score and 10 so it's downhill from there. Huh?
OTOH some friends who scorn Benny Hinn LOVE Joyce Meyers. I am not familiar with her. But one thing women in the conservative churches seem to crave is affirmation of women, which may explain the popularity of Beth Moore (who is good but like anyone not always right) and Joyce Meyers - popular *because* they are women addressing women affirmatively, their theology less important than that life-giving affirmation in the "women are secondary to men" churches.
Which raised a question, who is more to be shunned, those who know how to market books affirming the worth of the downtrodden, or those many "unknown" who get into a position of minor local power and use it to downtrod half the population?
So, no I don't see the list as valid, it needs more nuance than just "Christians who market their ideas are inherently wrong." Or is it wealth that is "inherently wrong"? That would kick out a few saints and Billy Graham, who also was not perfect but did some good work.
That is an interesting comment on Joyce Meyer and Beth Moore and their ilk, and women in churches that do not affirm women (though I suspect the women would see things differently!).
A friend invited me to a women's conference (here in the UK) featuring both Joyce Meyer and Beth Moore. I declined, guessing that such an event would be um, not my thing. ~Women's Ministry~ in general brings me out in hives. But your comment does make me think about whether that's because I don't need it - I don't need fluffy affirmations because I have affirmations made of stronger stuff, but if I had no affirmations at all I'd want the fluffy kind over nothing. Even when I was in women-unfriendly churches (from my POV) I always thought women's ministry was bunkum and went to the debates on science and faith/OT theology/church history etc.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
The influence of right-wingers like Joyce Meyers is increasing amongst UK evangelicals. Nicky Gumbel is clearly matey with her (I wonder if he's flown in her private jet yet?). The other aspect of that movement is the 'power of submission' doctrine that flows strongest from the likes of Stormy O'Martian, et al.
K.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Gumbel is matey with anyone he thinks is influential or who can help him set his own stall out.
I wouldn't use Gumbel as a barometer for UK evangelcalism ... not even within the New Wine constituency within Anglican evangelicalism necessarily.
It does bother me, though, that people like Meyers are being invited in out of the cold, though.
I met with dismissive reactions when I warned some Anglican charismatics to watch out for Bill Johnson and Bethel a few years ago.
It worries me that mainstream charismatics and evangelicals appear to turn a blind-eye to some of this stuff.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...
I think you've answered your own question there...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...
Well they'd be very quick to suggest prayer ministry (aka exorcism) for those admitting to LGTB practice or orientation.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...
I think you've answered your own question there...
Their notorious leader, Bill Johnson, claimed that Jesus appeared in their church as a cloud of gold glitter. His son, a leader of the band at the church, claimed he had walked on water in front of 80 witnesses.
Need I go on?
K.
P.S. I should also add that his total insanity guaranteed him and his son invitations to speak at… HTB in London of course!
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The influence of right-wingers like Joyce Meyers is increasing amongst UK evangelicals. Nicky Gumbel is clearly matey with her (I wonder if he's flown in her private jet yet?). The other aspect of that movement is the 'power of submission' doctrine that flows strongest from the likes of Stormy O'Martian, et al.
K.
Now I have to confess that I've never studied the 'Alpha Course' and I'm not really too familiar with what Gumbel teachers. However I did know that he was associated with the rather dodgy 'Toronto Blessing' which is a big red flag for me. If its true that he's matey with Joyce Meyer then I'm afraid that removes nearly all doubt for me. A minister so closely associated with a notorious false teacher like Meyer is either a fool unaware of her false teaching or is a false teacher themselves. I would be surprised if Gumbel was a fool.
Is that a fair comment to make about him?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The influence of right-wingers like Joyce Meyers is increasing amongst UK evangelicals. Nicky Gumbel is clearly matey with her (I wonder if he's flown in her private jet yet?). The other aspect of that movement is the 'power of submission' doctrine that flows strongest from the likes of Stormy O'Martian, et al.
K.
Now I have to confess that I've never studied the 'Alpha Course' and I'm not really too familiar with what Gumbel teachers. However I did know that he was associated with the rather dodgy 'Toronto Blessing' which is a big red flag for me. If its true that he's matey with Joyce Meyer then I'm afraid that removes nearly all doubt for me. A minister so closely associated with a notorious false teacher like Meyer is either a fool unaware of her false teaching or is a false teacher themselves. I would be surprised if Gumbel was a fool.
Is that a fair comment to make about him?
I don't know what you mean by 'false teaching' (though I think you know what you mean). That kind of presumptuousness also sounds repellent to me. 'Oh, we've got it right and they've got it wrong'. What if you're both (or all) wrong?
For what it's worth, doctrine and/or theology are scarcely on the map for that particular stripe of evangelical (Osteen, Gumbel, Meyers, etc.). There is no core theology underneath it all, apart from the magic glow that comes from having Jesus as your boyfriend. For the HTB set, there will be no theological challenge to you (or your 'ministry') so long as you put 'relationship with Jesus' on your flag.
From my perspective these are merely degrees of a con—a game of tennis played with soap bubbles.
K.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know what you mean by 'false teaching' (though I think you know what you mean). That kind of presumptuousness also sounds repellent to me. 'Oh, we've got it right and they've got it wrong'. What if you're both (or all) wrong?
For what it's worth, doctrine and/or theology are scarcely on the map for that particular stripe of evangelical (Osteen, Gumbel, Meyers, etc.). There is no core theology underneath it all, apart from the magic glow that comes from having Jesus as your boyfriend. For the HTB set, there will be no theological challenge to you (or your 'ministry') so long as you put 'relationship with Jesus' on your flag.
fwiw, your 2nd para seems as guilty of what you're decrying in the 1st para as anything I've read here. It's a danger we're all prone to I think.
[ 17. June 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know what you mean by 'false teaching' (though I think you know what you mean). That kind of presumptuousness also sounds repellent to me. 'Oh, we've got it right and they've got it wrong'. What if you're both (or all) wrong?
For what it's worth, doctrine and/or theology are scarcely on the map for that particular stripe of evangelical (Osteen, Gumbel, Meyers, etc.). There is no core theology underneath it all, apart from the magic glow that comes from having Jesus as your boyfriend. For the HTB set, there will be no theological challenge to you (or your 'ministry') so long as you put 'relationship with Jesus' on your flag.
fwiw, your 2nd para seems as guilty of what you're decrying in the 1st para as anything I've read here. It's a danger we're all prone to I think.
In a sense, you're right—I was trying to wear two hats at one to make a point.
K.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Understood. It's hard to do the one w/o the other, much as one strives not to.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Now I have to confess that I've never studied the 'Alpha Course' and I'm not really too familiar with what Gumbel teachers. However I did know that he was associated with the rather dodgy 'Toronto Blessing' which is a big red flag for me. If its true that he's matey with Joyce Meyer then I'm afraid that removes nearly all doubt for me. A minister so closely associated with a notorious false teacher like Meyer is either a fool unaware of her false teaching or is a false teacher themselves. I would be surprised if Gumbel was a fool.
Is that a fair comment to make about him?
I don't know what you mean by 'false teaching' (though I think you know what you mean). That kind of presumptuousness also sounds repellent to me. 'Oh, we've got it right and they've got it wrong'. What if you're both (or all) wrong?
For what it's worth, doctrine and/or theology are scarcely on the map for that particular stripe of evangelical (Osteen, Gumbel, Meyers, etc.). There is no core theology underneath it all, apart from the magic glow that comes from having Jesus as your boyfriend. For the HTB set, there will be no theological challenge to you (or your 'ministry') so long as you put 'relationship with Jesus' on your flag.
From my perspective these are merely degrees of a con—a game of tennis played with soap bubbles.
K.
Osteen and Meyers might not talk much about theological details but there is a theology that lies behind their teaching and it is 'word of faith/prosperity gospel', They haven't simply 'got it wrong', they're teaching heresy and calling it Christianity.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Re Bethel - I suppose it did answer my own question! I just didn't know how 'normal' that was for charismatic churches. I don't know much about the big charismatic churches aside from some of the music.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Not normal at all.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hmmm. So all the Christian TV and radio isn't normal? All the megachurches aren't normal? All the damnationism isn't normal? All the esoteric placist paternalist sexist homophobic exclusivism isn't normal? All the con/char evo isn't normal? Believing weird, incoherent stuff as mandatory isn't normal?
Steve Chalke. Now HE'S not normal.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. So all the Christian TV and radio isn't normal?
Decidedly not normal.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All the megachurches aren't normal?
Megachurches are a diverse lot, at least in the US, from the high-candle liberal to the happy-clappy con-evo and about everything in between. Hard to generalize in any way other than that they are big.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What kind of television and radio are normal?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
SOL
The aberrant IS normal. The lunatics run all the asylums.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What kind of television and radio are normal?
BBC World Service and Radio 4 are pretty darned normal. The latter has its offbeat moments, mostly to keep the rest of it straight.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What makes them normal?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What makes them normal?
On one hand music isn't core content but while there is a lot of news and current affairs the nearest thing to a vox pop on either is 'Any Answers' which brings out 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells'. Otherwise, both are civilised though a bit earnest for many.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Beeswax Altar's question goes deeper than that, Sioni Sais.
Radio 4 is pretty 'normal' if you are a liberally educated, middle-class type - like we are - thee and me ...
It doesn't sound 'normal' if you are a teenager, or you are a Sun reader (and I don't mean that disrespectfully) or from a different demographic to thee or me.
I take your point - I'm a huge BBC fan - but there is a serious question as to what constitutes 'normal'.
People Like Us is only normal to People Like Us.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
A lot of TV/radio evangelists are hugely entertaining to a lot of people. Their broadcasts are a spectacle. There is, of course, nothing wrong with people being entertainers, and even earning obscene amounts of money. The problem is that there is a blurring of lines between entertainment and ministry. I think for some celebrity preachers they've let the need to entertain dominate their act to the detriment of their theology. So, people who have an ability to help people through ill-health become healers and feel a need to present increasingly more spectacular miracles to satisfy the demands of their audience for novelty. Preachers get told by their PR consultants that they message they've been preaching is old, and they need to introduce novelty for their audience ... and novelty in theology is often just old heresy.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
For those who don't like to say who is right and who is wrong on questions of theology try watching this set of clips of wealthy TV 'prosperity gospel' preacher Mike Murdock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWVITd4_d0M
(Note:The youtube video seems to have been made by an atheist but there isn't too much commentary on the video)
If you are able to watch the full 10 minutes without throwing up do you still think its wrong to judge some theology as being wrong?
Also to those that think that Meyers and Osteen can't be all that bad because they are more moderate try watching the clip and remembering that what they are offering is a watered down version of that.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Beeswax Altar's question goes deeper than that, Sioni Sais.
Radio 4 is pretty 'normal' if you are a liberally educated, middle-class type - like we are - thee and me ...
It doesn't sound 'normal' if you are a teenager, or you are a Sun reader (and I don't mean that disrespectfully) or from a different demographic to thee or me.
I take your point - I'm a huge BBC fan - but there is a serious question as to what constitutes 'normal'.
People Like Us is only normal to People Like Us.
Yes and Christian preachers always had a presence on radio and television. Usually, the ones using radio and television weren't considered normal by liberally educated middle class types. However, the false teachers have always used them. John Lennon wrote "Whatever Gets You Through the Night" after hearing The Rev. Ike say something similar on late night television.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most of those on public service broadcasting here would be considered 'normal' - but it all depends on the stand-point of course.
Meanwhile, I do agree with Bibliophile on the 'wrongness' of the prosperity gospel. It'sIt's wrong wherever we are standing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As wrong as you Bibliophile.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I daresay we're all 'wrong' over some aspect or other, Martin
The difference is that if Bibliophile is wrong about some aspects or other, he's not causing untold harm with books, broadcasts, conference appearances and so on - or at least I assume he isn't. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He broadcasts redemptive violence right here. Qualitatively he's just as wrong as those deluded snake oil pedlars, drunk on their own product.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yes but you are even more wrong still because you reject the message of redemptive violence preached by Jesus.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The more pertinent message preached by Jesus had something to do with specks in the eye.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Where did Jesus exemplify redemptive violence?
In being the willing, faithful victim of it?
Where did He command it? The perpetration of it?
How do we get from submitting to the abuse of power to abusing power?
When?
How?
Fig trees don't count. Being robust in the temple DOESN'T COUNT.
When did His followers use it? When did they start?
Can you love your enemies whilst napalming them?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I meant normal in the sense of usual rather than the opposite of morally abnormal. Bethel seems quite mainstream to my charismatic evangelical (18-30ish) friends, though it may just be the music.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yep, deranged, apostatic, wooden, literal, missing the point, away with the fairies, anything and everything but the glaringly obvious, is normal.
[ 20. June 2015, 23:21: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0