Em bend 4th string 1st fret
You’re so dead inside Em bend 4th string 1st fret You don’t want to change Em bend 4th string 1st fret Even if its Biblical Em pluck 4th string Your sin remains the same
CHORUS
Em Em Em 4p
What does God want to do? Ah… Em Em 4p I wanna know Em Em Em 4p Do you even care? Ah… Em Em Em Em 4p I don’t think you do
Well…
VERSE 2
Em bend 4th string 1st fret
I saw the devil in the desert Em bend 4th string 1st fret
Now I know you’re his Em bend 4th string 1st fret
Religious businessmen Em pluck 4th string
No miraculous
CHORUS
BREAK
Em 6p Em
Unbelievers Em 4p 3p
Nothing mystical Em 6p Em
Religious deceivers Em/4p/3p
Typical
Em Em 6p Em
Pride, power, money
Em 4p 3p
So detestable
Em Em 6p Em
Against the prophets
Em 4p 3p
So insensible
Break Instrumentation x2 CHORUS End on VERSE Instrumentation
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. –James 4:4
“Friendship evangelism” or as it is sometimes called, “lifestyle evangelism,” or “relational evangelism,” or “relationship evangelism,” is definitely a heresy. That means it is a popular teaching in the Church, but it schismatically divides people away from clear Biblical doctrine. I’m not saying that everyone who uses these expressions is definitely a heretic or is practicing heresy in their relationships with others. The first occurrence of this teaching that I know of, was in Arthur McPhee’s Friendship Evangelism: The Caring Way to Share Your Faith (Zondervan, 1978) and then later in Joseph Aldrich’s Lifestyle Evangelism: Learning to Open Your Life to Those Around You (Multnomah, 1981). I haven’t examined these books, so I can’t tell you for sure what the extent or level of their heresy is. But what I can say is this: some version of friendship evangelism exists today in evangelical churches; and it is a consistent enough idea for me to say that its not a matter of just one person’s opinion. It’s a widespread idea and even a teaching on some occasions. It seems that the mere titles of these books, and the use of their phrases “friendship evangelism” and “lifestyle evangelism,” which are still used by Christians today, seem to suggest that these teachings were either embodied by or originated with McPhee and Aldrich. The years 1978 and 1981, when these books came out, seem to hint that they are the source of the teaching, when we hear what George Hunter III has to say:
Once, churches were not conversant with this principle, and they believed that contacting strangers (say, at street corners or door-to-door) was “the way to do evangelism.” But the first generation of Church Growth teaching, in the 1970s and 1980s, liberated many churches from this myth and established the “relational evangelism” paradigm within serious churches (The Apostolic Congregation, Abingdon Press, 2009, p. 62).
So its clear that church leaders devised the friendship evangelism approach to appeal to a wider audience, and get more people in their seats, without offending them on tough moral and theological subjects. It was motivated by money and power and ecclesiastical ambition, to implement “church growth” ideas, rebel against traditional evangelism like preaching lordship salvation in the public square, and going door-to-door; and create a new, dare I say, antinomian approach to evangelism. A heretical form of evangelism that did not call men to repent from sin, or believe in the blood of Jesus, but which—at least in the way it is practiced by most people today, to “preach the gospel at all times: and use words if necessary,” a phrase that is falsely attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.
Use words if necessary? Using words is the only way to preach the Gospel, at least if you’re going by the Bible. Mark 16:15, 16, 20: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation…Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned…Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.” Unless there is a gospel-word spoken, we cannot expect that God will do any miracles or coincidences to confirm that which has not been spoken by some ashamed-of-the-gospel approach called friendship evangelism. It sounds caring. It sounds loving. Friendship. What a nice word. Yes, it is a nice word, when it’s applied to real Christian friends. But Jesus said, “You are my friends if you do what I command” (John 15:14). Jesus commands us in Mark 16 to go open air preaching and pray for people to be healed. Never does he ever command us to be buddies with people, zip our lips about the gospel, and through our kindness, maybe invite them to church, and put it all on the preacher’s sermon to save them. Half the time pastors don’t preach evangelistic sermons. Many preachers do sermons on tithing, many others on love, or others on being conscientious voters. Few if any preachers preach the Gospel message of salvation from an eternal Hell by repentance, faith in the cross, and obedience to the Bible. I could have a lot more friends than I have, but I choose not to. I understand that consistent humor, a secular personality, and loads of tolerance can get you to build a friends network pretty quick. I had to build friend groups several times when my parents moved us to different states. But then I became a Christian; and then I read the whole Bible; and now God is my best friend. I also fear offending him whom I love. If anyone that fears God ever wants to come along for the ride, they are welcome to; but if not–as is most often the case, then they can just stay away. That’s okay with me.
Not only is friendship evangelism unbiblical, not only is it unreasonable, but another thing: its unethical: “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). This is essentially what all of this boils down to: cussing, listening to cussing, tolerating nudity and profanity in movies, in jokes, in sexual innuendos, in materialism, in self-interest and economic competition, etc. Basically, living a secular lifestyle, which has its one Christian moment on Sunday morning at a lukewarm church. Using gratuitous profanity and even f-words is a new thing that Millennial Christians are now embracing. Its full-blown antinomianism, and only a few theological Calvinists are really saying anything about it, like Mark Jones. It’s a heretical teaching because it goes against James 4:4 and other Scriptures, it goes against godly church tradition on the nature Biblical evangelism, and it goes against the likes of John Wesley who faced it in his day, and spoke at length against it in his sermon “On Friendship with the World.”
It is a teaching that enables abusers. I have found its adherents to twist around the fifth commandment: “honor thy father and thy mother” (Exod. 20:12), to mean that children of all ages (little ones, teens, and adults) should respect, honor, visit, comply, yield, and not-gospel-preach-but-silently-endure the insulting, maligning, persecuting words and actions of non-Christian parents! I don’t think that is what God had in mind when he gave mankind the fifth commandment! Revelation 21:8 lists the categories of people thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone: gospel cowards (they are mentioned first), unbelievers, the hateful, murderers, pimps, witches, idol worshipers (Paul included greed as idolatry), and habitual liars. With the exception of murderers and pimps, most friendship evangelism advocates today would expect that all Christians should “honor thy father and thy mother,” even if they are impenitent sinners. Richard Baxter, in his Christian Directory said, “A wicked child of godly parents is one of the most miserable wretches in the world,” but he makes no reference to the godly child of wicked parents; and I think part of the reason for this, is that there could be very little theology that has been done on that subject. William Gouge’s Of Domesticall Duties, Part V: “Duties of Children,” is arguably to most comprehensive work of Puritan theology on the subject. The closest thing that Gouge comes to when considering the abuses of parents towards their children, is to call these the “infirmities” or weaknesses of parents. Children are charged to overlook their parents’ “weaknesses” and be willing to defend their reputation publicly. Essentially, Gouge argues that to honor father and mother is to try and maintain their good public reputation and image, and to look at them with rose-colored glasses. But reality is, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Terah–Abraham’s father–was a pagan; and according to Jewish tradition, he was an idol maker that endangered his sons’ lives in the fiery furnace at the hand of Nimrod, with Haran ending up dead (Josh. 24:2; Genesis Rabbah 38:13); and God commanded Abraham to leave his “father’s house” (Gen. 12:1); Laban was an idolater, deceiver and oppressor, and God led his son-in-law Jacob away from him (Gen. 31): see the movie Jacob (1994); and Saul was a demon-possessed narcissist that tried killing his son-in-law David on many occasions. Led by God all the way, David lived in caves and avoided Saul (1 Sam. 18-24): see the movie David (1997). The Bible writers didn’t shirk away to tell these things about the lives of Abraham, Jacob, and David; and so, I don’t see anything wrong with talking frankly about abusive parents, if necessity puts it upon us. To paint a dishonestly rosy picture of a bad parent, would probably require breaking the ninth commandment: “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exod. 20:16).
When issuing the fifth commandment, I think its common sense to say that God was expecting fathers and mothers to be godly and follow the other nine commandments; and that children should not rebel against these God-fearing parents and their godly principles, or else God will not bless them with long lives. Like the prodigal son who had a godly father, but who had rebelled against him out of pure self-interest (Luke 15:11-32). That was an example of breaking the fifth commandment. But the way that friendship evangelism people today, perhaps since the late 1970s, teach the fifth commandment: is that even abusive, godless, toxic, secular, anti-Christian parents should be honored, and put up with, respected, etc., and that your whole life you are to honor them by being around for visits and Thanksgiving and Christmas and birthdays, allowing them to “enjoy” their grandkids—and to non-judgmentally just allow them to teach, mentally and emotionally influence, and affect your children spiritually—and even confuse them—all while you are trying your best to “train them up in the way they should go” and “raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4), thus creating massive confusion, division, and discord within your children’s hearts and minds. How is that conducive to mental health, and peace, and love? If this is your case, then take it from Jesus: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matt. 10:34-36). Self-interested and competitive grandparents would easily try to make their grandkids side with them against their own Christian parents! Massive confusion and discord, and again, schismatic heresy can only result from this—not only in matters of spirituality and doctrine, but also in the creation of dysfunctional family relationships. Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred!” (Gen. 12:1).
It never ends if you refuse to acknowledge that friendship evangelism is truly a heresy from the Word of God! I agree with Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, who once said, “Friendship evangelism is neither friendship nor evangelism.”
—
Update: 3/16/21
Further Thoughts on “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” In Relation to Abusive Parents
1. Mark Driscoll – How Can You Honor Bad Parents? – If parents are impenitent and still abusive, honoring them most definitely does not entail putting yourself or your children in harm’s way (visiting them).
2. John Piper – How Do I Deal With Christian Parents Who Don’t Acknowledge That They Abused Me? – Hopefully try for a Christian counselor to bring reconciliation; but if they refuse that, or remain impenitent and abusive, then at least don’t harbor hate in your heart. Romans 12:19: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
3. Catholic Answers – “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” and the Alcoholic Parent – If they are abusive, then “honor thy father and thy mother” doesn’t mean “enabling or agreeing with every darn fool thing they decide to do, especially if those things are destructive to themselves or to us”…but “if they need something to hold their lives together, that you’re helping them to provide that…you’re trying to do a good job to see to their physical well being…the second thing…we don’t owe obedience to our parents, we owe them honor…we should conduct ourselves in such a way that makes people say, “Chris done been raised right.”
4. John Wesley – On Friendship with the World 1.25 – “But must I not be intimate with my relations; and that whether they fear God or not has not his providence recommended these to me?”…Parents…You cannot part with them while they are young; it being your duty to “train them up,” with all care, “in the way wherein they should go.” How frequently you should converse with them when they are grown up is to be determined by Christian prudence. This also will determine how long it is expedient for children, if it be at their own choice, to remain with their parents. In general, if they do not fear God, you should leave them as soon as is convenient. But wherever you are, take care (if it be in your power) that they do not want the necessaries or conveniences of life. As for all other relations, even brothers or sisters, if they are of the world you are under no obligation, to be intimate with them: You may be civil and friendly at a distance.
5. James Miller, “Review of Dr. Forward’s Toxic Parents,” in Nurture and Admonition – “Abusive parents lack sensitivity and usually do not apologize for hurtful behavior…If we want to be good parents who do not provoke our children or adult children to wrath (Eph. 6:4), then I think it would be great to keep some important things about parenting in mind…the types of behaviors and character traits that you might find in an abusive parent: 1. bad temper and relentless criticism, 2. career idolatry, 3. extreme physical punishment for small failings, 4. producing intimidation and constant fear in children, 5. joking about a child being ugly, stupid, or unwanted, 6. manipulating a child with threats, guilt, or money, and 7. showing the child that no matter what they do, they can never please you…I would encourage the saints reading here to note that Martin Luther and Francis of Assisi had fathers like this; as did many Christian saints throughout church history…too many to name. Know that you are not alone: God is willing to adopt you as a Father! (Rom. 8:15)…At the bottom of it, controlling parents feel inadequate about themselves and try to “feel needed” by their children…they try to make their children feel insecure without them. No matter what they choose or think, it is made out to look like they are going to fail without their guidance…The children are meant to feel like morons who cannot think for themselves and need their parents’ wisdom all the time…Controlling parents will use an endless array of guilt-trips on their adult children…if they can’t be happy, then nobody deserves to be happy…Verbally abusive parents insult their children openly and indirectly. They might make brash out-in-the-open statements about the child being ugly, stupid, worthless, or unsuccessful in something. More often they might make indirect statements out of the corner of their mouths, in order that others in the family don’t recognize it as abuse—such as teasing, sarcasm, insulting nicknames, putdowns, or cracking cruel and belittling jokes at the child’s expense (which goes against Ephesians 5:4). This sounds a lot like Proverbs 26:18-19: “Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death, is the one who deceives his neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking!’”…If a father treated his son this way all the time growing up, wouldn’t it sound like a joke to him, if God expected him to “honor his father,” without hesitation? (Exodus 20:12). How can he do this? He can bear it patiently, get out of the house as quickly as possible, and pray for him; but he doesn’t have to pretend that his father has behaved honorably; nobody is saying that God wants you to honor men who have shown you nothing but disrespect and stirred up hate in your heart. God would expect you to remove yourself from them—“Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful” (Psalm 1:1)—but God would want you to say, “I forgive my dad, because he didn’t know what he was doing,” and try to move on with your life without his negative influence (Luke 23:34). Of course, the same thing applies to mothers and daughters.”
Update: 4/4/21
6. God is reasonable. The same God that said, “honor thy father and thy mother” (Exod. 20:12), also commanded Jacob to flee from his cruel pagan father-in-law Laban (Gen. 31:3). Abraham, however, probably came close to doing so, yet was commanded by God to leave his father Terah’s pagan family after he died (Gen. 12:1; Acts 7:4). Some orthodox rabbis like Shmuel Goldin believe that Terah began to question his pagan religion after Nimrod killed Haran, and intended to learn about God Most High in Canaan (Gen. 11:31; cp. 14:18-20), and that maybe he ran out of strength in his old age, and was not able to complete the journey to Canaan.
Update: 6/15/21
7. Evangelism has its limits. Friendship evangelism is usually applied to family members. It presumes no gospel or Bible talk is allowed–its all just about “living by example.” That’s totally un-Biblical–I could list a string of Bible verses showing this. Verbally communicating your faith in the gospel is part of being a Christian (Mark 16:15). If your family rejects it, then they are really rejecting you. They might want a worldly part of you without the Christian part–but you shouldn’t accept that. What did Paul do? Acts 18:6: “But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.'” He gave up on them.
Update: 1/8/22
8. Thomas Watson’s The Ten Commandments, 2.5.2: speaking of natural parents, he says, “They ought to speak well of them, if they deserve well” (2.1.2); “And as children must hearken to the counsel of their parents in spiritual matters, so in affairs which relate to this life as in the choice of a vocation, and in case of entering into marriage” (2.2.1)–parents are presented firstly as catechizers, then as career counselors, and then as marital counselors…in that order–but if they fail at catechism, then how can they be trusted when it comes to making a choice of a career or a marriage?; “‘Obey in the Lord,’ that is, so far as the commands of parents agree with God’s commands. Eph 6:1. If they command against God, they lose their right of being obeyed, and in this case we must unchild ourselves” (2.2.2)–to “unchild” yourself would essentially mean, if you are a young adult and a Biblical Christian trying to live for God, and your parents are giving you guidance against God’s Word, then you should not follow their guidance, and at that point consider yourself no longer their child but only God’s child–if your parents are pagan (and hypocritical nominal Christians would be included), then no blessing of a loving inheritance can come from honoring or serving them in any sense, Ps. 1:1)–such a situation is the same as when Jacob had to flee from Laban (Gen. 31); most Biblical directions about parents and children are given with the assumption that the parents are God fearing and covenant-keeping Jews and Christians; we live in an increasingly secular and anti-Biblical age, and I believe different sets of assumptions need to apply to these parent-child relationships; we can no longer assume, as Watson did, that 90% of the parents out there, as was assumed by him in 17th century English society, are actually God fearing Biblical Christians whom are intent on raising up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4); in fact, many American and British parents are now non-Christian at heart and have no fear of God–evolutionary, capitalistic, competitive, snobbish, secular, cruel, deceptive, materialistic–I say that the old set of Puritan assumptions about automatically honoring parents regardless of what they do, has to be reconsidered by conscientious Christians; Watson quotes the Old Testament to illustrate the severity of children rebelling against godly parents: “a rebellious son should be stoned” (1 Sam. 4:2). Why? Because he was essentially rebelling against the Ten Commandments and the laws of God that the son’s parents were framing their lives around. Executing such a son would help to maintain law and order in the Jewish community. But what about ungodly parents? The situation has drastically reversed. I don’t know what the religious statistics were in 17th century England, but I would venture to say that there were a whole lot more God fearing Puritans raising children back then, than there are today. Common sense and a good conscience will be our guides, to draw the conclusion that if a real Christian “unchilds” himself from an ungodly parent–that is, he no longer honors him with obedience, respectful visits, and the like, but has distanced himself from him as Jacob did from backslidden Isaac, and later on from Laban, then he is not in any kind of trouble with God. Instead, he is acting responsibly to watch over his own soul first; and secondly, for the souls of his wife and kids. However, Watson does point to some examples of toxic parents in the Bible: especially examples of fathers provoking their sons to wrath: when Saul insulted Jonathan, when he threw a javelin at him and commanded him to assist murdering David, when Jacob showed favoritism to Joseph, etc (1 Sam. 20:30-34; Gen. 37:3, 4). Such behavior not only angers children but discourages them from any sense of loyalty to their parents (Col. 3:21). Most parents are not as extreme as Saul and might compare themselves and think that they are not so bad. But the principle is simple if it is broadly applied: a good parent, worthy of honor and respect, would never insult, threaten, deliver evil commands, encourage sinning, or show unfair favoritism to any children: because all of his children came from him, and his natural affections would need to be truly twisted if he can’t love his own children that came from his body. Tragically so for the earthly-minded father who emotionally deserts his children by flying into the business world as a refuge; and loathes coming home every night! Tragically, tragically, I think this might be the reality for many fathers, who do not frame their lives around Biblical principles; and yet shyly consider themselves to be Christians. It is a “private” matter to them. Sure, sure. Religious indifference. Then why should your kids owe to you any spiritual loyalty? You haven’t spiritually nurtured them. You won’t have any of the laws of God holding you together in commonly shared family values. Your family government is chaotic and non-existent! You have a Deist family at best, not a Christian family. Watson: “Some parents discourage the good they see in their children, and so nip virtue in the bud, and help to damn their children’s souls. They have their children’s curses” (3.3.3.2.8). On the heading of rebelliousness being caused by toxic parents: “The child being provoked by the cruel and unnatural behavior of the parent, grows desperate, and often studies to irritate and vex his parents; which, though it is evil in the child—yet the parent is accessory to it, as being the occasion of it” (3.3.3.2.6).
LACY, JOHN (fl. 1737), pseudo-prophet, was born at Saffron Walden, Essex, in 1664. He received some classical education, and as a younger son was sent to London to earn his own living in 1680. In 1706 he was a married man with a family, in good repute for his parts and piety, and one of the wealthiest members of Dr. Calamy’s congregation at Westminster. The loss of a lawsuit in that year preyed upon his mind, and at the same time he fell under the influence of the so-called ‘French prophets,’ then lately arrived in England. In 1707 he published a translation of the Théâtre Sacré des Cévennes, by Francis Maximilian Misson [q. v.], as A Cry from the Desert, or Testimonials of the Miraculous Things lately come to pass in the Cevennes verified upon Oath and by other proofs, London, 8vo. A second edition, with an able preface in favour of the miraculous character of the phenomena, appeared the same year. This he followed up with Prophetical Warnings of Elias Marion, heretofore one of the Commanders of the Protestants that had taken Arms in the Cevennes: a Discourse uttered by him in London under the Operation of the Spirit, and faithfully taken in Writing whilst they were spoken, London, 1707, 8vo, and a collection of his own prophetical utterances, in three parts, entitled The Prophetical Warnings of John Lacy, Esq., pronounced under the Operation of the Spirit and faithfully taken in writing whilst they were spoken, London, 1707, 8vo. These curious outpourings are all in the first person, as if spoken by the Spirit, and consist mainly of vague vaticinations of coming woes. Some of them are in bad French, others in worse Latin. In the preface Lacy states that while in his ecstasies his mind, tongue, and fingers were directed by an invisible ‘foreign agent,’ by whom also his body was agitated and contorted, and sometimes carried round or across the room, and that the seizures began suddenly on 12 June 1707. Calamy and others who witnessed the ecstasies testify to his physical agitation, or ‘quaking,’ and describe his utterance as preceded by much hiccuping, gasping, sighing, and groaning, and, though perfectly articulate, broken and unnatural. Lacy also claimed the power of working miracles, and in particular to have restored her sight to a prophetess called Betty Gray, cured her of paralysis, and removed a tumour in her throat by the ‘operation of the Spirit.’ Blindness, paralysis, and tumour were alike imaginary.
He also predicted the resurrection from the dead upon 25 May 1708 of Thomas Emes [q. v.], buried in Bunhill Fields on Christmas day 1707 (see Harl. Misc. vii. 194–6). Such crowds collected to witness the fulfilment of the prophecy that the trainbands were called out. The ministers and elders of the French church in the Savoy had early tried in vain to check the excitement by censuring the prophets as impostors. The latter were then indicted (4 July 1707) before Lord-chief-justice Holt for publishing false and scandalous pamphlets and holding tumultuous assemblies, were convicted, fined, and put in the pillory. A prosecution was also instituted by the attorney-general against Lacy and his chief coadjutor, Sir Richard Bulkeley (1644–1710) [q. v.], but was eventually abandoned. There were soon more than four hundred persons prophesying in different parts of the country. The clergy denounced them, and Calamy censured Lacy at Westminster in some sermons published as A Caveat against New Prophets, London, 1708, 8vo. Lacy replied by going into one of his ecstasies in his own house in Calamy’s presence, and rebuking him in the name of the Spirit. His formal answer appeared as A Relation of the Dealings of God to his unworthy servant, John Lacy, since the time of his believing and professing himself Inspired, London, 1708, 8vo. Lacy was also attacked by Dr. Josiah Woodward [q. v.] in Remarks on the Modern Prophets, London, 1708, 8vo, and replied in a “Letter to the Rev. Dr. Josiah Woodward concerning his Remarks on the Modern Prophets,” London, 1708, 8vo, to which Woodward published an ‘Answer.’ Failing to convert his wife, Lacy deserted her in 1711, and went to live in Lancashire with Betty Gray. This he called leaving Hagar for Sara. About 1713 Whiston had been to his house and tried vainly to reason him out of his delusion. The Jacobite rising in 1715 elicited from him an appropriate Vision of J. L., Esq., a Prophet, London, 1715, 8vo. His last publication was The Scene of Delusions, by the Rev. Mr. Owen of Warrington, at his own earnest request considered and confuted by one of the Modern Prophets; and as it proves partly by himself, London, 1723, 8vo. He was committed to Bridewell in 1737 for opening an ‘oratory’ at Villiers Street, York Buildings, London. The date of his death is uncertain.
[Besides the writings mentioned in the text the principal authorities are Calamy’s Historical Account of my own Life, ed. Rutt, ii. 72 et seq.; Whiston’s Memoirs, 1749, p. 138; Luttrell’s Relation of State Affairs, vi. 244, 307; Kingston’s Enthusiastick Impostors no Divinely inspired Prophets; An Account of the Tryal, &c., of Elias Marion, London, 1707, 1st pt.; Predictions concerning the Raising the Dead Body of Mr. Thomas Emes, &c., London, 1708(?), 4to; The Honest Quaker, or the Forgeries … of the pretended French Prophets … expos’d in a letter … giving an Account of a Sham Miracle performed by John L—y, Esq., on the body of Elizabeth Gray on the 17th of August last, London, 1707, 8vo; Humphrey’s Account of the French Prophets, &c., and Farther Account in two letters to Sir Richard Bulkeley, London, 1708, 8vo; A Letter from John Lacy to Thomas Duton, being Reasons why the former left his wife, and took E. Gray, a Prophetess, to his bed (dated 6 March 1711); A Brand plucked from the Burning, exemplified in the Unparallel’d Case of Samuel Keimer, &c., London, 1718, 8vo; Lettres d’un Particulier à Monsieur Misson L’honnête Homme, London, 1707–8, 8vo; Boyer’s Polit. State, lv. 37, 210, cf. art. See, Anne.]
I would consider true Christianity to be a combination of orthodoxy (right doctrine, sound theology) and orthopraxy (right practice, holy behavior). Ideas and emphases have changed over the ages, but some of the basics have remained constant, when it comes to true Christianity. That basic thread of attributes or characteristics or criteria, shared by all true Christian leaders and their followers, I would say, are the following: faith in the atoning death of Jesus, faith in the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative over a Christian’s life, faith in the virgin birth of Christ, faith in the resurrection of Christ, and faith in the reality of the miracles of Christ. These five beliefs, called the “five fundamentals” in 1910, have existed since the first century and have carried all throughout the two thousand year history of the church, among true Christians. All kinds of other ideas and practices have changed, but these have always remained constant. There have been different understandings and teachings about the nature of holiness and godly living over the years, but certain things are non-negotiable: the Ten Commandments as a standard of holiness, the Sermon on the Mount as another standard, and in general the avoidance of sexual immorality and greed.
Also, about every one hundred years or so, a revival of holiness happens, and is led by a revivalist preacher that popularizes holy ideas and inspires people to walk and talk more devoutly. The first century had Jesus and the apostles; and the centuries after that, the Apostolic Fathers and the Desert Fathers. In the 5th century, St. Benedict founded the Benedictine Order, which pretty much defined all of Catholic monasticism with The Rule of St. Benedict. Although declension eventually happened after he died; and Celtic monasticism appears to have taken the place of revival with St. Columba and St. Patrick. There was a revival in the Benedictine Order in the 10th century called the Cluniac reform. The next few centuries saw the Waldensians, St. Francis of Assisi, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and finally Martin Luther who started the Protestant Reformation. With Luther, the Church was revived in all areas, but especially with orthodoxy, as Catholic monasticism had strayed, in many ways, away from the Bible.
In 17th century England, the Puritans saw their finest representative in Richard Baxter, an evangelical Arminian who published a total of 23 volumes. In 1662, Baxter and over 2,500 Puritan preachers were fired from their pastorates in the Church of England, for preaching lordship salvation and not conforming to The Book of Common Prayer.
In 18th century England, John Wesley, another evangelical Arminian; and much in the spirit of Baxter, continued to preach holiness all over the country as an evangelist. Throughout most of his life and ministry, he remained technically an Anglican minister, but towards the end of his life, he started the Methodist Episcopal Church in order to evangelize the American colonies.
In the last two centuries, three preachers of notable importance come to mind. Charles Finney, an Arminian holiness preacher that spawned the Second Great Awakening. William J. Seymour, the leader of the Azusa Street Revival and in effect the founder of holiness-Pentecostalism. And finally Paul Washer, who in the early 2000s, with his “Shocking Youth Message” sermon, revived an interest in what is now called the “New Calvinism,” and an interest in the Puritan theologians.
It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666. –Revelation 13:16-18
The mystical dream or vision from which this prophetic statement originated, has haunted, perplexed, and aroused the curiosity of Christians since the beginning of Christianity. Nobody really knows for certain what it means. There are hundreds of speculations that have risen up over the past two thousand years. I did a paper called Portraits of Antichrists when I was in college; it was the last serious Bible research I did before graduating. I came across two academic studies on the Antichrist that still stick out in my mind: Wilhelm Bossuet’s The Antichrist Legend (1896) and Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist (1994). I lend great weight to these books, not because I agree with everything the authors said, as most of their personal views took on a skeptical tone…but because of their massive amount of historical quotations from ancient church fathers and theologians throughout the history of the church on the subject. Bossuet is especially good at pointing out Antichrist prophecies from the Old Testament pseudepigrapha—the visionary books written after the Old Testament canon and just before the New Testament. He shows that these books had an influence on the Antichrist views that Jesus and the apostles had, even before the book of Revelation was written. This view was expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 by the apostle Paul; and was elaborated on by the early church fathers, as in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies: Book 5 and Hippolytus’ Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.
So, back to the text quoted above: Revelation 13:16-18.
1. Revelation 13:16: “It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark.” The mark, whatever it is, will be forced on people by the government of the Antichrist. It is a mark in the right hand or the forehead; and the mark will be forced on people by the government. All who resist the mark of the beast, will be executed by beheading (Rev. 20:4).
2. Revelation 13:16-17: “A mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark.” The prophecy is referring to a physical mark that will be put either on people’s right hands or their foreheads; as if to say, the right hand is the preferred location because it is mentioned first; but if a person either does not want it in their hand, then they may choose the option of the forehead; or if someone did not have a right hand, due to amputation, then the forehead was a secondary option rather than the left hand. Why the left hand is not considered is sort of strange: but it seems to indicate some kind of spiritual meaning. In the Bible, the right hand symbolizes strength (Exod. 15:6). Usually people are right-handed and their right arm is their strongest one; and it is usually with the right hand that people write letters and sign their names. For the mark to be in the person’s right hand, first and foremost, appears to symbolize that the mark is the expression of the person’s free will to legally transact business with this mark in their right hand, just as they would use that same hand to sign a check or a contract. The left hand is out of the question, not because of practicality, it seems, but because of its mystical symbolism. The left hand is usually not associated with strength, heart, or business transactions. The next best thing is the forehead, because the head is associated with authority, reason, and decision making. Another thing the forehead could represent is the “third eye” or the psychic vision ability that occultists attribute to the imagination. Many places in Scripture indicate that the Antichrist and his false prophet, whomever they may be, will somehow be involved in the occult and will possess dramatic psychic abilities. Smack dab in the middle of the forehead is where you also see the red “bindu” dot on women in India. There’s something about that place just between the eyebrows or just above it, which indicates occult vision or spiritual eyesight. For the Antichrist to lay claim on that part of a person, is almost the same as laying claim to their heart. Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21). Antichrist followers will treasure their lives and their money as more important than the Gospel. Many people already do this today, both within and without the Church.
3. Revelation 13:17-18: “The name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.” Nobody really knows for certain what the name of the Antichrist is. If they follow the principles of Biblical numerology, or Hebrew gematria, it might help a little at identifying this person. But there are many criteria that have been laid down in Scripture for identifying the Antichrist. The most obvious one is in 2 Thessalonians 2, which says he will be a global cult leader who will sit in a temple and proclaim himself God and demand that the whole world worship him. Various church fathers thought that different Roman emperors were the Antichrist, with Nero even being identified to the point of his name equaling 666. All throughout history, the Antichrist speculations have changed. As you may know, most of the Protestant reformers and Puritans viewed whoever was the current Catholic pope as the Antichrist. Luther’s pope was Leo X, so he got called the Antichrist by a lot of Lutherans. Luther was excommunicated by a papal “bull” document; and he responded to it with a tract entitled Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist. After Leo X died, the Puritans just started to view the Vatican as the Antichrist in spirit; and whoever became the pope at the time was in effect the Antichrist. Catholics returned the insult and called Luther and countless reformers the Antichrist. In World War II, Hitler was speculated to be the Antichrist by a lot of Christians. I think it would be right to say, that evil rulers and many others like them, are only forerunners of the real Antichrist in Revelation 13. They are only what is mentioned in 1 John 2:18: “This is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.” This verse, if anything is a warning to Christians to be on their guard against the one true Antichrist with a capital “A” in Revelation 13, that will appear someday. But it also says that, even in apostle John’s time, by then, “many antichrists have come,” to which he who wrote the book of Revelation, may be referring to Roman emperors, or to false prophets, and Gnostic heretics.
Today people again are speculating new things about the Antichrist and the mark of the beast. For a while, people thought the mark might be a bar code tattoo. I have been aware of a unique speculation since the early 2000s: that the mark of the beast will probably be an RFID chip, about the size of a grain of rice, which can be injected into the right hand or forehead with a syringe. This chip could be scanned and used for debit card type transactions just like in Revelation 13:16-17. While Christians should be on their guard against technology like this, as it advises us to be on guard in 1 John 2:18, we shouldn’t be irrational in our speculations. But be rational; and be Biblical; we can’t throw out all the other Biblical criteria and isolate only certain parts of the Antichrist picture. Some people in the past year have speculated that the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer is either the mark of the beast, or a pre-cursor, and as such, people shouldn’t get this shot, even though people are dying from the disease by the millions. Again, we should do as Wesley did with his theology and decision making: resort to Scripture, reason, church tradition, and spiritual experience, and then really ask ourselves if our opinions and views are sound and valid, before we go about preaching them with absolute certainty: proclaiming dubious things with the certainty of a Biblical prophet, things which are merely end-time speculations, and greatly lack the Biblical criteria of genuine Antichrist activity.
Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532) is largely responsible for every departure from Puritan standards of business ethics; and should be looked upon with Biblical criticism. Most of the corrupt and deceptive practices that exist in governments and businesses today, can be linked with the “Machiavellian” principles laid down in this evil book. It was placed on the List of Prohibited Books by the Catholic Church. But I would allow for only one Machiavellian principle: and that is it may be permissible to righteously lie or at least withhold information from an enemy that would do a good man harm, as the prophet Elisha did to the Syrian army (2 Kings 6:19). In that case, God miraculously assisted him in his deception. Jesus echoed this view when he said, “I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). But the Bible holds no place for manipulative slandering, or tale-bearing, or spreading false rumors with the intent of ruining a person’s reputation (Exod. 20:16).
Galie and Bopst, while trying to be fair to Machiavelli, admit that in his Discourses, he makes clear statements against what he called “corruption,” or bribing people to stay in line with the organization the leader is managing. Machiavelli would be against what we today would call white collar crime: falsifying financial information, insider trading, money laundering, investment fraud, embezzlement, stock market manipulation, etc. Things like this led to the Enron scandal. Machiavelli was apparently against things like that, but its likely the only reason he was against those things, is because white collar crime can tear down an organization. When it comes to the area of “soft skills,” Machiavelli encourages the darker side of human nature to find its expression, to play a strategic game of king of the hill at office politics, and come out on the top as the manager.
The Machiavellian businessman is all about playing the game of office politics, being keenly aware of forces like self-interest and internal competition within a company. The ambitious and self-serving mentality of looking out for number one. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations underscored self-interest and competition as national economic forces; its what he called the “invisible hand” that guides the economy. But long before Smith was born, Machiavelli had emphasized self-interest and competition as personal things to be dealt with, while in a leadership role. When his principles are applied to the business world, financial success would be the only goal, not building team morale or employee loyalty to the company. Christian ethics are actually viewed as obstacles to financial success, because worldly means need to be used to achieve worldly ends or goals. In this case, using gratuitous profanity, maintaining ungodly friendships, flirting with people at work regardless of their relationship status, etc. He doesn’t state these things literally, but they are a logical outgrowth of his thinking.
More closer to the chest is Machiavelli’s idea that the ends justify the means, whether they are ethically right or wrong. One business writer, Stanley Bing, titled his book What Would Machiavelli Do? The Ends Justify the Meanness (2000). The “meanness” being things like workplace bullying and manipulative behavior, which can put you at an advantage but at another person’s expense. Of course, this destroys team morale and makes employees have an “independent contractor attitude” (p. 246). “It is better to be feared than loved,” he says. This makes a business feel more like a street gang, or a dysfunctional family, than a professional environment.
Habitual lying is one of the more Machiavellian traits: or, lying that professionally benefits you and keeps you in control of your career goals. Its what people call “lying to get ahead.” CEOs, for example, can motivate employees by lying to them about pay raises. Certain employees can be singled out and told things to scare them away, like, “We’re probably going to have to start laying a lot of people off.” This so that certain undesirable employees will just quit on their own, so the manager doesn’t look like a bad guy for firing them. Often these can be very good productive employees that hold a lot of influence with people, but which may unintentionally pose a competitive career threat to the manager. The manager might actually feel threatened that this employee might be used to replace him, so he targets him and makes him feel uncomfortable, until he finally just leaves on his own. However, Machiavelli would probably more lean in the direction of telling half-truths and withholding information than he would of blatantly lying and creating fictional stories all the time. The one is more cunning, the other is easier to detect and publicly condemn. The key is to be underhanded and always look like a good guy to everybody else. In other words, be a total hypocrite.
Galie and Bopst say that the central message of Machiavelli’s book The Prince is that business leaders “should adopt a cynical and amoral view of the world, look out for themselves first, and let the ends justify the means” (p. 244); and the proper view of a Machiavellian person is one who believes in the “use of deception, cruelty, and ruthlessness to achieve one’s goals” (p. 245).
Philanthropic capitalism, I am convinced, is the economic perspective of Jesus, the Old Testament prophets, and the whole Bible. I am not the first person to coin the phrase “philanthropic capitalism,” but I will admit it is a very unusual expression. It is the view that capitalism can and should be used for philanthropy or giving to the poor; and if it is not so used, then it is a massive sin against God. It has been illustrated by Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol and various film versions of it, when Scrooge is born again and goes on a giving streak; and also, at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life, when Sam Wainwright, and all of George Bailey’s clients, bail him out for losing $8,000.
Art Gish says some really on point things in Beyond the Rat Race. I’m glad I took the time to read it, because he really thinks outside the box, from the way most Christians and just people in general think about business and money. I would say his strongest part in this book is chapter 4, titled, “So What’s Wrong With Being Rich?” where he really lays into some financial sins like strife, stinginess, oppression, compromise, selfishness, dishonesty, vanity, idolatry of possessions, insecurity of losing them, arrogance, authoritarianism, resentment, jealousy, and snobbery. I got turned on to this book several years ago while reading Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics edited by Robert Clouse. Art Gish stood out as the guy advocating a Christian communist point of view—pointing to people like the Anabaptists, the Bruderhof, and the Amish as holding to the true Christian economy. He takes this from Acts 4:32-35:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Basically Gish says that Christians should live like this today: on group farms and within Christian communes. He says that Reba Place Fellowship in Evanston, Illinois had a “deep impact” on his life. Wikipedia says that they share “a common purse, where paychecks are pooled, and members are given monthly allowances.” So basically every family has the same amount of money—like in the Soviet Union—where everyone lives in poverty as a working-class proletariat, and only their basic needs are met, and there is no such thing as “keeping up with the Joneses,” no economic competition, only friendship. My natural reaction is to cry out “cult!” And probably that’s what it is, because in the end of his book around pages 143-144, when speaking about the authority structures of communes, supposedly 100% democratic, he feels he needs to mention that the old tyranny that exists out in the competitive world of capitalism, can come right into a commune if we’re not careful. He has to say this, that communes “are never immune from attacks” like this; and that “our approach does not include coercion.” TLC’s reality TV series Breaking Amish is clear for the reasons why people leave Amish communities. Usually it has to do with their unreasonable authoritarianism, lack of modern amenities, and their lack of personal freedoms.
So what about Acts 4:32-35? Do we just ignore it? Pretend that it isn’t there? No. It’s there, but let’s allow reason and church history to speak for a moment. We’ve already allowed the Radical Reformation speak their side: from the Anabaptists till the Amish, they interpret it as a perpetual economic model to follow. So what about the Catholics and all the other Protestants? Gary North, who is the Christian capitalist opponent of Gish in the Wealth and Poverty book, is probably the best person to consult for balance. He said, “The communism of the book of Acts has been the focus of heated debate for centuries…they were told to flee when the armies approached the city. Therefore, there was little reason to hold on to property, especially fixed property. In any case, communism was never suggested as a general practice for all Christian communities, as the orthodox wings of both Catholic and Protestant churches have assured us. Again, charity was required, not a system of communist production and distribution.”[1]
North points us back to what I’d like to call philanthropic capitalism: that our giving back to the poor is limited by what we can handle as individual Christian business people. It does not have to be, nor should it be, going to the extent of communal living. Mainly because communal living in Acts 4 was only an emergency measure that Christians were resorting to because they were living under persecution, like these people you read about in The Voice of the Martyrs magazine. We should not look judgmentally at persecuted Christians living in third world countries—they are just trying to survive; and if they have to temporarily resort to communal living just to survive, then we should bless them in that decision. But this was never the constant economic mentality of either the Old Testament (especially the book of Proverbs), Jesus in the Gospels, or the letters of Paul.
The Biblical economic mentality has most always been what Wesley said: “Gain all you can…Save all you can…Give all you can.”[2] And when you give, Jesus was emphatic that the poor are the ones that we should give to. I can think of no better place to begin philanthropic giving than the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. This Catholic organization, in my opinion, is the most efficient and best poverty alleviation organization in the world. My family has benefited from their food pantries more than once. They have a website you can donate to.[3] I believe they also sometimes help with rent and energy bill assistance. So does the United Methodist Church. Its division called UMCOR has a webpage where you can donate to their international efforts to relieve hunger and poverty emergencies.[4] If you want a chunk of your tax return—say at least 10% of it—to be given to the poor, and make sure that the poor will truly benefit from that donation, then I highly recommend giving to either of these organizations for that purpose. I truly believe that would please God.
But the rich, the middle class, and the poor—the class distinctions are supposed to remain: because God works through all of them. That’s philanthropic capitalism. There is no Christian communism in the whole Bible except in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35, when it’s describing the early church living in fear of life-threatening persecution, when Christian men could not so easily engage in business, without being reported to the authorities, and their lives put at risk. Being that this was the situation for the 16th century Anabaptists, I can’t really blame them for resorting to communal living either. See the Christian movie The Radicals, which tells their story. Adam Clarke, the Methodist commentator, said, “The unbelieving Jews, who were mockers, Acts 2:13, would treat these new converts with the most marked disapprobation. That an absolute community of goods never obtained in the Church at Jerusalem, unless for a very short time, is evident from the apostolical precept, 1 Corinthians 16:1, collections were ordered to be made for the poor; but, if there had been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such recommendations as these, as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up all his goods to a common stock.”[5]
Philanthropic Capitalism vs. Materialistic Capitalism
Jesus said, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Luke 12:33). He’s saying get rid of the things you don’t need, turn them into cash, and give the cash to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and UMCOR. He’s not saying get rid of everything and join an Amish commune—where everyone gets an allowance, lives in poverty, and without modern technology. Jesus’ expectation of His saying “give to the poor” implies that you are not poor: it implies that you are maybe in the lower middle class, the middle class, or among the rich. Although He did say, “It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23). Mainly because, like the rich young ruler, it is human nature to become attached to your money and possessions—to become clingy to them, and not give the money away to the poor. Human nature drives the rich toward materialistic capitalism—the evil competitor of philanthropic capitalism. It is what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of the god Mammon, when He said, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money” (Matt. 6:24). The Greek word for “money” in this verse is actually Mammon, the Syrian demon-god of riches.[6] It was what Paul was referring to when he said, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5).
Greed is essentially removing the others-focused philanthropy from philanthropic capitalism; and instead replacing it with self-centered materialism: the meaning of which, according to Oxford Languages, is to “consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.” This opposition to materialism is not only a New Testament value, but goes all the way back to the Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exod. 20:17). Capitalism is assumed in this commandment too, because the wealthy Jew is portrayed as having servants in his household, like in Ben-Hur. The distinction between the rich and the poor even exists in the Ten Commandments, but restraint is attached to it. People are commanded not to covet, which definitely goes against human nature; and they are commanded to restrain themselves from materialism, jealousy of others’ riches, etc. Because they are meant to all be brothers in the same religious community.
Mammon, the demon of riches, would seek to destroy all such camaraderie by tempting Christian businessmen into materialistic capitalism, financial competition, greed, and financial jealousy. Sadly, it seems that the majority of men in the United States, England, and other Western countries are actually serving Mammon instead of Jesus. This usually happens in the first 5 years of their involvement in the business world. Some of them had such high Christian ideals in school, prior to their involvement in business, but now they see how things really are; and their perspectives change, and they become more like Scrooge and less like Cratchit. Philanthropic ideas start to fade away as they consider all the other financial responsibilities that they have, like rent, mortgage payments, cars, insurance, retirement planning, college funds, electric bills, debts, savings, investments, groceries, vacations, etc. Matthew 13:22: “The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.”
Giving to the poor in Jesus’ name becomes less and less of a priority on the Christian’s financial pie chart; and as this happens, he becomes less and less of a Christian, and ends up retaining merely a “form of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). He may continue to take his family to church, but being the deeply ingrained man of business that he now is, his heart has now been successfully hardened against all of Christianity’s spiritual realities, powers, and revelations. He is cut off from the Holy Spirit. Nothing paranormal, mystical, or supernatural ever happens to him because God knows he’d never take such things seriously. He does not live by faith in God and His providence, but in his business abilities alone. He is a man of BUSINESS now and that is all that is real to him. He is merely going to church, going through the motions, and truly idolizing his business activity at this point. His true god is his business, his job, his company, his employer, his resume, his bank account. That is the true god that he fears. He is a Mammon worshiper although he doesn’t know it. He would agree in principle with what Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street (1987):
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good; greed is right; greed works; greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit; greed in all of its forms–greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind; and greed–you mark my words–will not only save Telgar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
The rich man called Dives lived in luxury every day; and refused to give to the godly beggar Lazarus, who laid outside of his gate. They both died and the rich man ended up burning in Hell, because he was worshipping Mammon—materialistic capitalism—and had abandoned all notions of philanthropy to the poor (Luke 16:19-31). “Lazy bum, get a job,” was probably his default thought every time he saw that beggar. But on closer inspection he might have noticed that Lazarus was covered with sores; and probably disabled, and was unable to work most jobs requiring physical labor; and even if he could work some other kind of job, he was probably in need of some compassionate businessman to guide him to that job prospect. Laziness is not the only cause of poverty. Ignorance—or lack of business guidance—is sometimes just as strong an influence. Capitalists, with all their knowledge of business, could easily help and guide the poor in these matters, but they are often too scared to have their pockets picked, so they ignore poor people; and refuse to help them monetarily, or with job leads, or in any way at all. Racism against minority groups might also be a barrier to this. This provokes the wrath of God, mind you, to the point of Hell-fire! Mammon, the god of materialistic capitalism, will end you up in Hell if you live by his principles. He is but a trickster, a Leprechaun, promising you great things, but ends up deceiving you into the worst place imaginable. And isn’t that just like most businessmen and the way they conduct themselves? Through “lying to get ahead,” in so many matters: to their employers, their employees, and their customers? They are obviously children of Mammon. Yet another example of “the deceitfulness of wealth” (Matt. 13:22). “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:10).
So what should we do? Should we become Christian communists, like the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, like Art Gish is talking about in Beyond the Rat Race? No. I think that is an extreme overreaction to materialistic capitalism. It’s only to swing the pendulum in the extreme opposite direction. Thinking that way is a start, but it’s not the final Biblical answer. I wouldn’t necessarily blame a man who at least experimented with the Amish or other Christian communes, simply because he saw the Spirit of Mammon for what it was, and was trying to run away from it; or cast it out of his heart. But the economic point of view held by God, in both the Old and New Testaments, is clearly philanthropic capitalism. We are not meant to completely run away from the business world, but still need it to make our money. But when we go to calculate our personal financial pie charts, we need to prayerfully consider every year, and I would say, in every approaching tax return season, what percentage we should give to a Christian charity that is known for dispensing money and food to the poor.
Other Biblical Economic Principles That I Got From This Study
1. Telecommuting. It removes most of the office politics, egocentric competition, and sexual seduction that office work does; and it also helps you save on gas money. Worldliness and profanity can also be more avoided.
2. Simplicity. If you seek to live with the bare necessities, then you will be liberated from the dissatisfaction of materialism. But the St. Francis of Assisi level of poverty does not work well for heads of households and providers of families. Think more like Wesley and less like St. Francis in this regard.
3. Morale. Comedy, music, and friends are necessary to having a fulfilling life–so don’t spoil that with materialism.
4. Tax Returns. If you’re going to make a big purchase like a car, house, or lot: then you can chip away at those things by using your tax returns. Go to H&R Block and pay your taxes (Matt. 22:21); and when you get your tax return, divide it Biblically. Put some in an interest-bearing bank account (Matt. 25:27), a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, a used car, land, saving for building a home, college, philanthropy (Deut. 15; Prov. 10; 29), etc.
5. Providence. It would be good to have plaques of the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 8:11-17 by your home office desk, so you can remember to honor God with your increase. God rewards prosperity to the godly for holy living and for thanking Him for His providence. Money that is ill-gotten will be cursed (see also Deut. 28). If it can be avoided, do not work on Sunday, but honor the Sabbath day, because it is a way of remembering and acknowledging God for business successes during the week; and not attributing everything to the work of your own hands (Exod. 20:8-11). Just don’t mix business activity with church, like the moneychangers did (Matt. 21:12).
6. Diligence and Frugality Generate Money. “The hands of the diligent and frugal are the only hands which make a nation rich,” said Josiah Tucker. Quoted by Wesley. Proverbs 10:4 (KJV): “The hand of the diligent maketh rich.” Diligent means hard working and productive.
7. Job’s Later Life. Job 42:12: “The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part.”
8. Thrift Stores. It is a mark of frugality to shop at Goodwill, the Salvation Army, thrift stores, and Facebook Marketplace.
9. Butlers and Maids. Although the Tenth Commandment allows for butlers and maids, I would caution against any racial bigotry, condescension, oppression, or snobbery in this area.
10. Private Property. Micah 4:4: “Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid,” that is, no banker or landlord can make a tenant afraid of homelessness through an eviction notice or foreclosure, if a man owns his own land and private property. Guns should primarily be used to protect the lives of our family members, not our property. But background checks should be done to check not only on employees but also on employers, to make sure that your address does not fall into the hands of criminals.
11. Lower End of the Middle Class. $65,000 a year, as of 2020, is a good financial goal, and earning limit, and puts you comfortably in the lower end of the middle class: it is enough to save, invest, and do philanthropy without things getting luxurious: “Give me neither poverty nor riches” (Proverbs 30:8). Suppose your income increases to $150k a year. I can see no reason for a luxury home at that point. God would then require more philanthropy from you. Luke 12:48: “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” Psalm 62:10: “Though your riches increase, do not set your heart on them.” Proverbs 13:7: “One person pretends to be rich, yet has nothing; another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth.”
12. Christian Business Networking. Network with Christian business owners: pull emails from Christian business directories with scraping software like EmailClik.com, from LinkedIn: make Excel databases: and when necessary, email blast 2500 of them with an SMTP service. It’s always good to have passive job connections to provide yourself with back-up plans for financial security. It is not good to worry, because it distracts us from faith, love, peace, and enjoying our lives.
—
[1] Gary North, An Introduction to Christian Economics (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1973), ch. 18: “An Outline of Biblical Economic Thought,” pp. 222-223.
[2] John Wesley, “The Use of Money,” 1.1, 2.1, 3.1.
[5] Adam Clarke, The Adam Clarke Commentary, “Acts 2:44.”
[6] There is some scholarly debate about whether Mammon was an actual demonic entity or god worshipped by the Syrians. As of today, there seems to be no archaeological evidence of the worship of such a deity in Syria. Early church fathers and Bible commentators, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Peter Lombard, the Piers Plowman, and Nicholas de Lyra all believed that Mammon was a demon or a god worshipped by the Syrians. It may be possible that these early medieval scholars had access to documents suggesting that, but which are no longer available. The same could be said about many ideas that come from the ancient world. In any case the word “mammon” is used by Jesus in Aramaic and here it simply means “riches,” which is to say that you cannot serve God and at the same time wholeheartedly devote yourself to riches. There comes a point when philanthropy to the poor needs to come in; and even things out for you spiritually.
In 18th century England, John Wesley was confronted more than once by antinomianism. This weird word, along with the word “Antinomian,” which was a pejorative label applied to those who espoused the doctrine, not only was then, but is now, any heretical system of Christian soteriology that teaches Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of not only our past sins, but also of our unrepented present sins and unrepented future sins. Repentance and holiness are totally shunned under this teaching; and it is usually from an antinomian view that godly and strict Christians have had to endure the label of legalism and “Legalist.” Wesley was accused of this very much from the antinomians of his day: they used the words legalness, legal, and legality. Wesley debated in writing with a number of antinomians, first with Count Zinzendorf of the Moravians; and a number of other Calvinists. Today things are really no different. More often than not; I have observed Southern Baptists, or those who have a Baptistic type faith, tend to lean in an antinomian direction. With the EXCEPTION of John MacArthur and Paul Washer lordship salvation supporters, sometimes called Reformed Baptists or New Calvinists.
ANTINOMIANISM DEFINED
The basic ideas of antinomianism can broken down into the following:
1. Antinomianism is viewed as the gospel. Antinomians will not call the teaching antinomianism, they will call it the gospel of Jesus Christ. They think Jesus died on the cross, not only to forgive our sins, but to liberate us from any need to obey’s God’s commandments. This is what they mean by grace.
2. The antinomian view of salvation is anti-law in its ideas. The word antinomianism was first coined by Martin Luther when he wrote Against the Antinomians (1539) directed at Johannes Agricola. The “anti-” part is clear, which means to be against something, but the “nomian” part comes from the Biblical Greek word for “law,” which is nomos. So, the word Antinomian means “Antilawian,” and is a heretic Christian who thinks the gospel of Jesus Christ is something that is against the law of God entirely.
3. Antinomians misuse Paul’s word “law” in the Bible. Many of the apostle Paul’s uses of the word “law,” especially in Romans and Galatians, are difficult to understand without knowledge of Biblical background and context. My personal view is that this was one of Paul’s shortcomings. Especially in Galatians, it seems that he teaches against any use of God’s law. Paul didn’t qualify the word “law” ever; he only used the word “law” in the most general sense of the word. If people have a background knowledge of the first century Judaizer sect, then they will understand why Paul speaks against the “law” so much in Galatians. This was probably one of the reasons, if there ever was a legitimate one, for why the Catholic theologians during the Reformation were against the common people interpreting the Bible for themselves; they were bound to arrive at heretical conclusions, of which antinomianism is the worst, because it overthrows growing in personal holiness.
Antinomians from the time of Agricola, to the time of Zinzendorf, to people today like Zane Hodges, have usually refused to view the “law” that Paul’s gospel frees Christians from, as the Jewish ceremonial law of the Old Testament [John Wesley, “A Second Dialogue Between an Antinomian and His Friend,” The Works of John Wesley (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), vol. 10, p. 279]. Paul usually refers to circumcision when he speaks of the “law” being abolished, because he is referring to the Jewish ceremonial law, the rituals of Jewish life (Rom. 2; 3:1; 4:11; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 2:12; 5-6; etc). Antinomians have always taken it to mean the whole law of God is being done away with by Paul, including both the ceremonial and the moral law of God. It may seem strange to devout Catholics, lordship Calvinists, holiness people, or Pentecostals, but antinomians will vehemently maintain against the use of moral commandments and laws in the Bible as providing any sort of ethical direction for Christian living. Even the Ten Commandments. However, Paul leaves for us a telling Scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” Here Paul makes a clear line between the ceremonial law and the moral law, the latter which Paul considers to be “keeping God’s commands” in the New Testament sense.
4. Antinomians misuse Paul’s word “impute” in the Bible. Antinomians misinterpret Biblical teaching on the imputed righteousness of Christ. They think it means that Christ’s righteousness only covers Christians like a cloak, in an official and external sense; and that no moral transformation ever occurs within the Christian’s heart by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Ethically speaking, they remain exactly the same person that they were before they had that faith in Christ; the only difference now, is that they claim to feelless guilty about their sins; and they feel protected from Hell. It’s theological immorality.
JOHN WESLEY’S REBUKES TO ANTINOMIANISM
“A Dialogue Between an Antinomian and His Friend” (1745)
1. Christians Should Do Theology! “Friend (Wesley)–Do you ever read the Bible? Does not God himself say to sinners, ‘Come now, and let us reason together?’ (Isa. 1:18). Does not our Lord reason continually with the Scribes and Pharisees; St. Peter with the Jews (Acts 2:14ff); and St. Paul both with the Jews and Gentiles? Nay, is not great part of his Epistles, both to the Romans and to the Galatians, and the far greatest part of that to the Hebrews, one entire chain of reasoning?” (p. 267). Wesley is here responding to an antinomian’s insistence on an anti-theological attitude and philosophy. The antinomian has to be unreasonable in order to keep his views, so he tends to shun Biblical and theological study, by labeling those who love theology as relying upon their “carnal reasoning,” “letter-learning,” and “head-knowledge” (pp. 267, 271, 274). Because it is through such study that he would become accountable for his beliefs; and find that those beliefs do not stand up to the test of God’s Word. Antinomians tend to live in fear of two things: 1. Going to Hell for following rules that have been abolished by the cross of Christ, rules which could be mistakenly established on the grounds of Bible study. 2. Missing out on experience of the Holy Spirit, who is perceived intuitively, and not through the faculty of intellectual reasoning. But this actually shows how insecure they are in their salvation; and how inexperienced they are with the Holy Spirit.
The second kind of antinomians have always tended to be charismatic, or what J. I. Packer calls in his Concise Theology, “Spirit-centered antinomians,” of which there are many today. I don’t think it would be wrong to put Rick Joyner in this category. In an article he wrote in 2012, called “You Shall Be Holy,” he uses no Scripture references to prove his points. He uses phrases like legalism, fear, lawlessness, and unsanctified mercy to explain what he views as a kind spectrum for Law and Grace in the life of a Christian. He says that Christians should seek a middle road between legalism and lawlessness and follow the principle of love in order to avoid bad behavior. I see his view as only partially true; and as too vague. Yes, love fulfills the law (Matt. 22:40; Rom. 13:8-13; Gal. 5:14), but the Biblical specifics of holiness are all too easily forgotten when Christians give themselves over to such vague ideas. What about pornography, profanity, humor, and sexuality? What about movies, music, generosity, and friendships? What about modesty, moderation, evangelism, sports, and jobs? All things like this, and many other specific things in the Christian life, things pertaining to Christian holiness and separation from the world, could be adequately answered if people adopted more of a Puritan and Wesleyan view of holiness. Such a view always consults the New Testament first to see if Christians should behave in accordance with the moral law of God on any issues in life. But if you want to cast aside reason and the Bible, and hold to a general rule of love in the middle road between “legalism” and “lawlessness,” like Joyner does, then well, that’s better than nothing: but its not fully Biblical and doesn’t really help to strap down the body of Christ to any specific set of moral standards, even the standards laid down by Jesus and the apostles.
2. Keeping God’s Law Is Not a Curse for Christians!“Antinomian–Galatians 3:13: ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.’ Friend (Wesley)–What is this to the purpose? This tells me, that ‘Christ hath redeemed us’ (all that believe) ‘from the curse,’ or punishment, justly due to our past transgressions of God’s law” (p. 271). It is not burdensome to keep God’s commandments if you love Jesus (1 John 5:3). So, the antinomian interpretation of Galatians 3:13, kind of assumes that person doesn’t really love the Jesus of the Bible, but an imaginary version of him. It is not a curse to keep God’s law, but a blessing: “He that keepeth the law, happy is he” (Prov. 29:18, KJV). The Biblical Hebrew word for happy is the same one used for blessed, which is the opposite of being cursed and miserable. Jesus’ death on the cross provided a substitutionary atonement and punishment for the sins of the world, which means that the eternally miserable curse of Hell that is inflicted on mankind, due to a failure to conform to the strictness of God’s moral law, has been done away with for every repentant believer in Jesus. This is what Christians mean when they say they have been “redeemed,” or saved from Hell, and hence also redeemed from God’s curse, or the accusing power that the law of God has, which convicts and condemns sinners to an eternity in Hell. So, if anyone asks, “Why are so many people in Hell?” The answer could be given, “Because they failed to keep God’s law, and so are under the curse of God, because they refused the way of escape by justifying faith in the cross of Jesus.” But those who are in Christ, find it a blessing and also a necessity to keep God’s moral law to the best of their ability, with the help of God’s presence. Wesley said, “He redeemed them from the ‘condemnation of this law,’ not from ‘obedience to it.’ In this respect they are still, ‘not without law to God, but under the law of Christ'” (1 Cor. 9:21) (“A Second Dialogue,” p. 281).
3. Christians Must Grow in Holiness!“Friend (Wesley)–Does not a believer increase in holiness, as he increases in the love of God and man? Antinomian–I say, No. ‘The very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified. And he is neither more nor less holy, from that hour, to the day of his death. Entire justification and entire sanctification are in the same instant. And neither of them is thenceforth capable either of increase or decrease.’ Friend (Wesley)–I thought we were to grow in grace! Antinomian–‘We are so; but not in holiness. The moment we are justified, we are as pure in heart as ever we shall be. A new-born babe is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference” (p. 276). This is totally ridiculous. The New Testament makes it clear that not only should Christians increase in their faith over time, but also in their adherence to the Word of God, and the principles of holiness. John 17:17: “Sanctify them by the truth; Your Word is truth.” Jesus said that sanctification comes through Bible study and obedience. This must be progressive and gradual, because nobody can know all the Bible at once. It takes time to learn its doctrines, to understand them, and apply them correctly to your life.
2 Corinthians 3:18: “We all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” This is very clear. It says Christians who practice contemplation (prayer), who worship God in Spirit and truth, and “see” in spirit the presence of God, that is, the shekinah glory, are also transformed into the image of Jesus–not instantly–but with “ever-increasing glory,” that is, the Christian transformation occurs in an ever-increasing way, progressively, on an upward curve, the more and more we become bearers of God’s presence. Holiness is improved on by learning and obeying Scripture, but also by Spirit-filled prayer; and I would argue it is here contemplative prayer that is the means of increasing sanctification, as the Catholic Church says.
2 Corinthians 7:1: “Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.” The language of progression is clearly used here. I guess if you were really adamant, you could argue that “let us purify ourselves” is not speaking of a process of purification, but there should be no confusion with the phrase “perfecting holiness,” which is definitely talking about a process of perfection, or moral improvement. To “perfect” (purr-feckt) something, whether you’re perfecting your knowledge of mathematics or history, perfecting your sales skills, perfecting your knowledge of automobiles, or perfecting your personal morals–to perfect (purr-feckt) in this ongoing, increasing, progressive, improving sense, carries a totally different meaning than the word “perfect” (purr-ficht): which is to say a thing has no flaws in it–that it is perfect in every way. A math formula, for example, could be said to be perfect, because it totally lacks errors; certain bodybuilders may be in a perfect physical condition; the angels are perfectly holy (Luke 9:26); and the law of the Lord, which converts the soul, is perfect (Ps. 19:7). So, when 2 Corinthians 7:1 says that Christians should be “perfecting holiness out of reverence for God,” we should understand Paul means that holiness is a thing like math, history, or mechanics–it is something that can be perfected, or improved upon progressively over time, through learning more about it and trying to apply its teachings to your life: teachings which come from Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.
Ephesians 4:15-16: “Speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” This also is very clear. Paul likens the Christian Church at large to the “body” of Jesus Christ. As we speak the truth, and as we exhibit the spirit of love, we will grow and mature in every respect, to become more like Jesus. This is extremely clear language. This assumes time is a sanctifying factor in the life of a Christian: and that over time, a baby Christian grows holier as it becomes a teen Christian, and then a young adult Christian, and then a middle aged Christian, and then a senior Christian. This does not automatically mean that elderly people are holy, but it does mean that the longer a person has been walking with Jesus, the holier and kinder they are likely to be.
All of these Scriptures abundantly show that antinomianism–the idea that there is no moral improvement in the Christian life–is a complete falsehood. Of course there is moral transformation! The Holy Spirit is supposed to be in the Christian’s heart! (Rom. 5:5). How can this NOT make a change happen? We admit it’s a struggle and a fight with the flesh (Rom. 7), but we are saying that sanctification also assumes the presence of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, love, and contemplative prayer. Its a fight that has the Holy Spirit, the supernatural power of God, as a helper.
The books and audio teachings listed below are an eclectic bunch. In my opinion, it is very challenging to teach comprehensively on the subject of miraculous gifts without borrowing from a variety of Christian spiritual traditions. To only focus on one tradition is to confine and limit our understanding of a subject which is mostly comprised of experiential content. But when teaching about experiences, we must also teach what is considered to be Christian orthodoxy. The very idea of borrowing from different Christian traditions begs the question: is this not heretical? Catholics consider Protestants to be heretics and vice versa. Conservative Pentecostals, like myself, generally view charismatic churches in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) as heretics.
If we were only to rely on Catholic teaching for miraculous gifts, we could turn to Augustin Poulain’s The Graces of Interior Prayer, where we would learn of things such as contemplation or listening to the Holy Spirit, and visions, and discernment. But if we stopped at Poulain, we’d end up believing in anti-Biblical things like venerating the dead and taking Mary as our intercessor before God. If we were to only look at what Assemblies of God has to say on the subject, we could go with Donald Gee’s Concerning Spiritual Gifts, which would define what certain gifts do, but little would be said about how to grow in and experience those gifts. There would also be no teaching on dreams and visions. If we were to rely only on what the Vineyard has to say, we could content ourselves with what John Wimber said in his Spiritual Gifts Seminar and Power Healing, but we would find still a lack of teaching on dream interpretation, and the nature of prophetic ministry.
If we were to side with the likes of Mike Bickle and IHOP, and borrow his teachings from Growing in the Prophetic, or buy into what he does entirely, we might be exposing ourselves to a kundalini spirit and drinking into the carnality and lack of spiritual discernment that has plagued charismatics ever since the Toronto Blessing movement happened in 1994. It might, however, be safer to allow John and Paula Sandford’s The Elijah Task to teach us about the nature of prophetic ministry. That book seems to have spawned the idea, and was first published in 1977, long before the Toronto fiasco came with its offshoots like Bethel Church, Todd Bentley, and John Crowder. But even if we were to stop at Sandford on the nature of dreams and visions, we might still find a shade of error, because of his Jungian expressions and use of the word “psychic,” which might lead us to balance that out with John Paul Jackson’s The Biblical Model of Dream Interpretation, which filters out a lot of false, egocentric, psychology interpretations of dreams that entered the church through Morton Kelsey and Herman Riffel.
To have a full and complete teaching on miraculous gifts, what you need firstly, is a definition of the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Both Gee and Wimber did this. After all the definitions have been made; and the theory of what the gifts can accomplish for the Church has been solidified, the next step should be to explain what it is like to actually experience those gifts; and the final stages would involve interpreting, understanding, and using those gifts for personal direction from the Holy Spirit and for the edification and comfort of the body of Christ. Too many books only stop at defining the gifts in a theoretical way; especially Assemblies of God or Gospel Publishing House books; they take it from the approach of a detached Bible study and leave you with little to no guidance about how to receive these gifts into your life. The charismatic and the Catholic books will take you into the deeper waters of spiritual experience, but they often lack the theological orthodoxy that you get from the Assemblies of God books. Wimber, for example, taught against the Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, 10, and 19. I feel that Poulain, Gee, and Wimber provide a solid understanding of miraculous gifts. And anywhere that Wimber left off at, namely dream interpretation, you may find that John Sandford, Ira Milligan, and John Paul Jackson hammered out.
But it’s important for me, as a Pentecostal, that in reaching out to both Catholic and Vineyard theology, and some dream-and-vision teachers that associated with Wimber for a time, to in no way lean to Catholicism as a means of salvation or to the charismaniacs of the Toronto Blessing, which end up flapping like seals and barking like dogs! I believe that the Holy Spirit and Biblical orthodoxy always agree with one another, but neither do I take it to mean that there are no dreams and visions today. Such things have to be rooted in the old evangelicalism—Wesleyan, Finneyite, Puritan revivalism. Not the watered down Southern Baptist type we see today, the kind that has “once saved, always saved” as its only creed.
I distrust any preacher that does not have a 17th or 18th century understanding of the Bible. Today, there is so much antinomian, universalist, no-lordship nonsense out there mixed together with pluralistic Hindu gurus, Native American shaman quotes, and New Age pop psychology, and gay theologians, together with tongue speaking, all jumbled together in confusion. It’s just heresy! Charismatics need all the miracles they can get, but they also need all the Bible they can get. Who will point them in the right direction? Anyone teaching on the gifts of the Spirit, coming from Bethel Church, or IHOP, or MorningStar Ministries, or Catch The Fire Toronto is highly suspect in my opinion. These movements have consistently shunned orthodox evangelicalism in favor of the vanity and attention of heretical enthusiasts. Sexually immoral teachers have been honored in their midst. The only exception I would make is Steve Thompson’s You May All Prophesy, which was published just before the Lakeland Revival; and after Bentley’s moral failure, Thompson had the integrity to leave MorningStar. Being that it is 2019, I would like to lay a special emphasis on warning against anything coming from Bill Johnson and Bethel Church. There is a lot of antinomianism and universalism coming out of that ministry; and because, through their Bethel Music, they are reaching into churches through praise and worship leaders, they are very popular and influential right now in charismatic churches. Although Bill Johnson’s God Is Good speaks against universalism in passing (p. 104), there is no doubt that many within his stream lean in that direction. Beni Johnson practices Christian yoga (Healthy and Free, p. 71), Judy Franklin thinks that the New Age movement has some pretty good ideas (The Physics of Heaven, p. 15), Heidi Baker and Jake Hamilton downplay the John 14:6 gospel message in the film Holy Ghost, and they continue to befriend John Crowder who is an outspoken “trinitarian” universalist, whatever that is supposed to mean. Clearly universalism is somewhere in the waters of Bethel Church’s reach, but so also are antinomian ideas. Jenn Johnson teaches against “black and white” thinking in one video, claiming that moral truth can operate on a gray scale: once again, pointing people away from Biblical law as the black and white absolute moral standard of right and wrong. Kris Vallotton admittedly does teach prophetic ministry there, but also borrows from Steve Thompson’s work, so there is no need to resort to Vallotton where Thompson has already succeeded. Bethel Church pushes an impure form of charismatic Christianity. I’d recommend being respectful and pick your battles with people ensnared by Bethel ideas, but I would personally urge people to avoid their teachings on YouTube, in books, etc.
True prophets shun such movements. Men like Andrew Strom, who explains in Why I Left the Prophetic Movement, that the lack of repentance preaching and holiness preaching combined with bizarre behavior, is what turned him off from what is now called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Andrew Strom points us to men like John Wesley, Charles Finney, Smith Wigglesworth, Leonard Ravenhill, and David Wilkerson as men of God to frame our spirituality around. I tend to agree with him about this. But to add one additional observation: there is little to no teaching on dreams and visions, dream interpretation, prophetic ministry (receiving and giving words of knowledge) in the writings of these men. You have to look to John Sandford, John Paul Jackson, Ira Milligan, and John Wimber to get teaching on that.
You have to borrow to a degree, outside of your comfort zone of perfect evangelical revival theology; otherwise, you’re not going to get the full view on miraculous gifts. A lot of what Strom is pointing to is evangelicalism, which is Gospel-centered salvation theology. But when it comes to miraculous gifts, we are dealing with things such as stillness, quieting the mind, journaling dreams and visions, interpreting prophetic symbols, and sharing supernatural information with other Christians in order to encourage their faith, sometimes to the point of praying for physical healing and casting out demons. Smith Wigglesworth is the only prominent teacher mentioned by Strom that really straddled both evangelicalism and prophetic charismatic experiences. His writings are helpful, but I think he does not describe enough about how to experience the gift of prophecy for yourself. A lot of what he writes comes across like the book of Acts or a succession of miracle stories. I also think that a lot of the Catholic saints had miracle experiences that went much further than Wigglesworth describes; and any study of the miraculous gifts should take them into consideration as well. Although the Catholic Church is wrong about Mary and a few other things—a lot of their teaching is rooted in the church fathers, is orthodox, and agrees with the Bible.
—
FURTHER READING ON MIRACULOUS GIFTS
Alexander, Archibald. Thoughts on Religious Experience. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967. Chapter 7: “Considerations on Dreams, Visions, Etc.”
Boys, Thomas. The Suppressed Evidence: or, Proofs of the Miraculous Faith and Experience of the Church of Christ In All Ages, from Authentic Records of the Fathers, Waldenses, Hussites, Reformers, United Brethren, &c. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1832.
Cruz, Joan Carroll. Mysteries Marvels Miracles: In the Lives of the Saints. Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1997. As with the books by Poulain and Devine, I will have to disapprove of Marianism, or devotion to dead saints; but while ignoring that, I think there was some genuine activity of the Holy Spirit among the Catholic saints.
Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993. Debunks cessationism; and argues for the continuation of miraculous gifts, apostles, and prophets in the church today.
Frodsham, Stanley. Smith Wigglesworth: Apostle of Faith. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1948.
Gordon, A. J. The Ministry of Healing. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2020.
Jackson, John Paul. The Biblical Model of Dream Interpretation. North Sutton, NH: Streams Publications, 2006. CDs.
Jennings, Daniel. The Supernatural Occurrences of John Wesley. Sean Multimedia, 2012.
Howie, John. The Scots Worthies. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995. Protestant reformers that experienced miracles while being persecuted.
Lewis, David. Healing: Fiction, Fantasy, or Fact? London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1989. Found that John Wimber had a 30% hit rate for dramatic healings.
MacNutt, Francis. Healing. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1974. This impacted Wimber’s views on healing.
––––––. Deliverance from Evil Spirits. Grand Rapids, MI: Chosen Books, 1995.
Milligan, Ira. Understanding the Dreams You Dream. Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House, 1997. The best book I know of that can help evangelical charismatics to interpret dreams and visions with Biblical prophetic symbolism.
Poulain, Augustin. The Graces of Interior Prayer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1950. Catholic mystical theology on contemplation and visions.
Sandford, John and Paula. The Elijah Task. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2006.
Strom, Andrew. Why I Left the Prophetic Movement. RevivalSchool, 2007.
Thompson, Steve. You May All Prophesy. Fort Mill, SC: MorningStar Publications, 2007.
Wimber, John. Power Evangelism. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1986.
––––––. Power Healing. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987.
––––––. Discover Wimber. 2 vols. MP3 audio files from vineyardresources.com on a USB drive. Teachings on physical healing (10 hours), miracles and church growth (14 hours), miraculous gifts (10 hours), and casting out demons (14 hours).
WesleyGospel Ministries 