Posted                          

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

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.)

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
What's dodgy about Bethel? Genuine question. I know they have a dedicated prayer team for raising the dead...

---

Posted                       

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...

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. So all the Christian TV and radio isn't normal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All the megachurches aren't normal?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What kind of television and radio are normal?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What makes them normal?

---

Posted                       

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.

---