Although others have offered excellent rebutals to the Lakeland 'revival' I don't want to ignore it completely in favor of other topics. Here is the link for an excellent analysis. The comments are interesting, too. My heart is sickened at the pervasive heresies and formerly strong Christians who have been drawn in. Their extremely vulnerable position comes from their deep hunger for more supernatural power without a vital relationship with Jesus. May God have mercy!
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/06/lakelands-recycled-revival.html
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
“Let Me Pray About It”
This article from http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/ touched my heart. It was the answer given even when I asked a Christian man to speak to a male relative who needed Jesus. Wow!
Article by Frank Viola:
“Did you know that we Christians have a code language? The language is commonplace and widely accepted, but the coded message that lies underneath the surface is quite subtle.
How many times have you talked to a fellow believer and asked them for a favor . . . or solicited their help in aiding another person . . . and their response was . . . “Let me pray about it”?
Now let me say at the outset that there is absolutely no problem with those five little words. At least, on the surface. And there is no problem with bringing an issue to the Lord and consulting His mind about it.
However, how many times have you heard these words . . . “let me pray about it” . . . and then discovered that the person never got back to you or they ended up turning down your request?
As I think back on the numerous times I’ve heard my fellow Christian brothers and sisters utter these words, either to me or to others, the answer invariably ended up being “no.” I can only think of a few exceptions to this.
In short, oftentimes . . . too often actually . . . “let me pray about it” is Christian code language for “I don’t want to do that.”
This becomes blatantly obvious when we are presented with some of the most basic and simplest things of life, and we respond by saying “Let me ask God what He thinks.”
Here are some examples of how I’ve heard this phrase used:
* A Christian woman writes to another Christian woman saying, “I’ve been starving for Christian fellowship for years. I live in such and such a city in the Western United States, and I’m desperately looking to find some Christians to gather with. Do you know of any groups of believers in my area that I can have fellowship with.” The reply comes: “Yes, there’s actually a group in your very city that I know and can recommend. Why don’t you call them, pay them a visit, and see what you think.”
The woman replies: “Let me pray about it.” She never ends up calling or visiting.
* I used to teach high school. One time a fellow teacher who was in my department asked one of her peers - a professing Christian - to cover her classroom for one day because she had to tend to her sick child. The Christian responded, “Let me pray about it.” She never got back to her fellow teacher. The teacher had to ask someone else - a non-Christian - to cover her class.
* A sister in Christ offends a brother in Christ. The sister apologizes and asks for forgiveness. The brother says, “Let me pray about it.” The relationship is never restored.
* A Christian sister’s car breaks down and is in need of a ride to work one morning. Another Christian sister who has a working car and is retired is asked to give the Christian sister a ride to work. When asked for the favor, she responds by saying, “Let me pray about it and I’ll get back to you.” She never does.
Observation: I have never seen a Christian say “let me pray about it” when there was no self-denial involved.
I’ve sat in restaurants with many believers in my life. And not once have I heard any of them say “let me pray about it” when the waitress came to take their order. Yet, when it comes to some of the simplest things in life that are presented to us - if some risk or self-denial is involved - so many of us are quick to shroud the ordeal in religious jargon.
Certainly, there are times when we will feel forced to give a matter over to the Lord and seek His mind on it. However, in most cases of life, knowing the Lord’s will is a matter of spiritual instinct or it is simply a matter of exercising wisdom. I’ve addressed this issue extensively in my book Rethinking the Will of God for I have seen the unnecessary bondage that so many of God’s people live under when it comes to discerning the Lord’s will. Thankfully, there is freedom from this bondage. And there is a very practical way of tackling the issue of God’s will.
What is my point?
I’m certainly not suggesting that we give up the practice of bringing things to the Lord. Especially those matters that are complex and where our response will affect the lives of others. Forgive the personal illustration, but I think it may help some folks. When I have been faced with a crisis and I needed the Lord’s precise guidance, I have set myself apart for three days to seek His face on the matter. In every case, God was faithful to give me clarity at some point during that three-day period. That said, I’m not against bringing vital matters before the Lord to discern His mind.
However, such cases are the exception. As Christians, we possess a mind. We possess a frame of reference where we know by instinct or by wisdom what our response ought to be in most situations. (See my book Rethinking the Will of God for details.)
What I’m really getting at is a plea for honesty. And an exhortation to not make things “religious” when they don’t have to be.
At this point, let me speak to a related danger. Whenever light is brought to an issue and exposure is made of it, it is easy to fall into the opposite peril and begin judging others by their words. Consequently, this message is not for you who hear the words “let me pray about it” from others. It is for those of you who habitually use them.
Consequently, if someone replies to a request or offer of yours with, “I’ll get back to you on it” or “let me consider it for a bit” . . . which is a non-religious way of saying “let me pray about it” . . . please take that person’s statement at face value.
But for you, dear child of God who has made “let me pray about it” part of your normal vocabulary, may I offer this simple challenge? The next time you are tempted to utter these words, pause and ask yourself if it’s really necessary . . . and accurate . . . to let them come out of your mouth.
I believe doing so will take us a long way in dismantling our Christian code language, and reflecting the honesty and integrity that is a part of our new species in Christ Jesus.”
Article by Frank Viola:
“Did you know that we Christians have a code language? The language is commonplace and widely accepted, but the coded message that lies underneath the surface is quite subtle.
How many times have you talked to a fellow believer and asked them for a favor . . . or solicited their help in aiding another person . . . and their response was . . . “Let me pray about it”?
Now let me say at the outset that there is absolutely no problem with those five little words. At least, on the surface. And there is no problem with bringing an issue to the Lord and consulting His mind about it.
However, how many times have you heard these words . . . “let me pray about it” . . . and then discovered that the person never got back to you or they ended up turning down your request?
As I think back on the numerous times I’ve heard my fellow Christian brothers and sisters utter these words, either to me or to others, the answer invariably ended up being “no.” I can only think of a few exceptions to this.
In short, oftentimes . . . too often actually . . . “let me pray about it” is Christian code language for “I don’t want to do that.”
This becomes blatantly obvious when we are presented with some of the most basic and simplest things of life, and we respond by saying “Let me ask God what He thinks.”
Here are some examples of how I’ve heard this phrase used:
* A Christian woman writes to another Christian woman saying, “I’ve been starving for Christian fellowship for years. I live in such and such a city in the Western United States, and I’m desperately looking to find some Christians to gather with. Do you know of any groups of believers in my area that I can have fellowship with.” The reply comes: “Yes, there’s actually a group in your very city that I know and can recommend. Why don’t you call them, pay them a visit, and see what you think.”
The woman replies: “Let me pray about it.” She never ends up calling or visiting.
* I used to teach high school. One time a fellow teacher who was in my department asked one of her peers - a professing Christian - to cover her classroom for one day because she had to tend to her sick child. The Christian responded, “Let me pray about it.” She never got back to her fellow teacher. The teacher had to ask someone else - a non-Christian - to cover her class.
* A sister in Christ offends a brother in Christ. The sister apologizes and asks for forgiveness. The brother says, “Let me pray about it.” The relationship is never restored.
* A Christian sister’s car breaks down and is in need of a ride to work one morning. Another Christian sister who has a working car and is retired is asked to give the Christian sister a ride to work. When asked for the favor, she responds by saying, “Let me pray about it and I’ll get back to you.” She never does.
Observation: I have never seen a Christian say “let me pray about it” when there was no self-denial involved.
I’ve sat in restaurants with many believers in my life. And not once have I heard any of them say “let me pray about it” when the waitress came to take their order. Yet, when it comes to some of the simplest things in life that are presented to us - if some risk or self-denial is involved - so many of us are quick to shroud the ordeal in religious jargon.
Certainly, there are times when we will feel forced to give a matter over to the Lord and seek His mind on it. However, in most cases of life, knowing the Lord’s will is a matter of spiritual instinct or it is simply a matter of exercising wisdom. I’ve addressed this issue extensively in my book Rethinking the Will of God for I have seen the unnecessary bondage that so many of God’s people live under when it comes to discerning the Lord’s will. Thankfully, there is freedom from this bondage. And there is a very practical way of tackling the issue of God’s will.
What is my point?
I’m certainly not suggesting that we give up the practice of bringing things to the Lord. Especially those matters that are complex and where our response will affect the lives of others. Forgive the personal illustration, but I think it may help some folks. When I have been faced with a crisis and I needed the Lord’s precise guidance, I have set myself apart for three days to seek His face on the matter. In every case, God was faithful to give me clarity at some point during that three-day period. That said, I’m not against bringing vital matters before the Lord to discern His mind.
However, such cases are the exception. As Christians, we possess a mind. We possess a frame of reference where we know by instinct or by wisdom what our response ought to be in most situations. (See my book Rethinking the Will of God for details.)
What I’m really getting at is a plea for honesty. And an exhortation to not make things “religious” when they don’t have to be.
At this point, let me speak to a related danger. Whenever light is brought to an issue and exposure is made of it, it is easy to fall into the opposite peril and begin judging others by their words. Consequently, this message is not for you who hear the words “let me pray about it” from others. It is for those of you who habitually use them.
Consequently, if someone replies to a request or offer of yours with, “I’ll get back to you on it” or “let me consider it for a bit” . . . which is a non-religious way of saying “let me pray about it” . . . please take that person’s statement at face value.
But for you, dear child of God who has made “let me pray about it” part of your normal vocabulary, may I offer this simple challenge? The next time you are tempted to utter these words, pause and ask yourself if it’s really necessary . . . and accurate . . . to let them come out of your mouth.
I believe doing so will take us a long way in dismantling our Christian code language, and reflecting the honesty and integrity that is a part of our new species in Christ Jesus.”
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Enduring Faith
One day this week a friend and I were praying together and she saw the earth as from a space view with God's big foot stepping down on it. "The wrath of God," she commented. "Many are going to lose their lives." Yesterday, I was chatting with a retired missionary and she commented that the wrath of God was sweeping across the globe. Then one of the MSNBC headlines for today asks if everything is spinning out of control. This article is remarkable for the absence of platitudes and positive speaking.
Is everything spinning out of control?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25311529/
I urge you to go to http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/coverletter/the_most_important_issue_of_this_hour
to read David Wilkerson's most recent newsletter entitled The Most Important Issue of This Hour in which he discusses the great shaking which is taking place now, and will increase. The danger for Christians is that we may not see the intervention on our behalf that we expect and lose faith in the press of our situation. Many will abandon their faith. Will the Lord find faith on the earth when He returns? Enduring faith committs everything to the Lord now and forever - not because it is strong but because He is strong. Make up your mind now that you will endure with faith until the Lord says, "It is enough."
Is everything spinning out of control?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25311529/
I urge you to go to http://www.worldchallenge.org/en/coverletter/the_most_important_issue_of_this_hour
to read David Wilkerson's most recent newsletter entitled The Most Important Issue of This Hour in which he discusses the great shaking which is taking place now, and will increase. The danger for Christians is that we may not see the intervention on our behalf that we expect and lose faith in the press of our situation. Many will abandon their faith. Will the Lord find faith on the earth when He returns? Enduring faith committs everything to the Lord now and forever - not because it is strong but because He is strong. Make up your mind now that you will endure with faith until the Lord says, "It is enough."
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Reemergence of the Roman Empire?
Below is the full text of an article about the European Economic Union efforts to formalize the election of an EU president, foreign minister, and governing system. Member countries are voting on this proposal right now. To make way for the reemergence of the Roman Empire, America must be removed from her prominence in global economics and politics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/14/eu.ireland1
Ireland delivers stunning blow to Europe's leaders · Result threatens Lisbon treaty · EU to hold crisis talks next week Ian Traynor in Brussels and Henry McDonald in Dublin Saturday June 14 2008 The Guardian
The long campaign to forge a new dispensation for the European Union descended into panic and uncertainty yesterday when Ireland turned its back on its 26 EU partners and voted down the Lisbon Treaty.
EU leaders in Brussels and governments across the union, particularly Germany and France, were stunned by the Irish verdict, which amounted to a huge vote of no confidence in the way the EU is run.
The referendum in Ireland was the sole popular vote in the EU on the grand plan to give Europe a sitting president and foreign minister, and reconfigure the way the EU is governed. The result left the project severely wounded, perhaps fatally.
The Irish voted by a 7% margin, 53.6 to 46.4, against the treaty, which has already been ratified by 18 EU countries and is expected to be endorsed by the other eight.
The result left Europe's leaders with a giant dilemma over what to do next. A summit next week in Brussels was originally planned as a celebration. The Irish result is particularly painful for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who masterminded the new treaty last year, and for the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was relishing the central role of ushering in a new European era over the next six months of France's EU presidency.
Berlin and Paris moved swiftly last night to try to limit the damage, pressing Downing Street, according to sources in Brussels, not to make matters worse by abandoning Britain's ratification of the treaty, now in its final stages in the Lords.
Merkel and Sarkozy issued a joint statement, urging all other EU countries to ratify the document and declaring that the reforms envisaged by the treaty remained essential. Gordon Brown was said to have reassured both governments that he had no intention of scrapping ratification.
"It is the height of arrogance for Gordon Brown to press ahead with ratifying this treaty, flying in the face of public opinion," said the Tory leader, David Cameron. "The elites in Brussels have got to listen to people in Europe who do not want these endless constitutions and treaties."
The pressure on Britain indicated that Germany and France still hope to salvage the treaty, although it was not clear how since it has to be ratified by all 27 EU countries to take effect.
"It's not a Doomsday scenario. Everything now depends on next week's European Council [summit]," said a diplomat in Brussels.
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said: "The no vote in Ireland has not solved the problems which the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve. The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes; 18 member states have already approved the treaty, and the commission believes the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course. I believe the treaty is alive."
Everything suggested that Europe's key leaders were urgently conferring on a scheme to steamroller their blueprint through despite the Irish rejection, a course likely to trigger protest from Eurosceptics and deepen Europe's democratic legitimacy problems.
At the very least, the deadlines for implementing the treaty looked difficult to achieve. The new regime was to be in place by January 1 2009, to be up and running before European parliament elections next May and the appointment of a new European Commission in October.
The treaty was backed by nine out of 10 MPs in the Irish Dáil and all the main political parties, except Sinn Féin, but the government of Brian Cowen, in office for only a few weeks, was felt to have run a complacent and lacklustre yes campaign. An odd and well-funded coalition of anti-European forces stole the headlines.
"You don't say yes to something you don't understand," said Hugo Brady, a analyst at the Centre for European Reform thinktank.
The no vote was boosted by concerns over sovereignty, possible tax harmonisation, neutrality, and fears that the treaty could erode Ireland's abortion ban, all issues that analysts say are fatuous.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/14/eu.ireland1
Ireland delivers stunning blow to Europe's leaders · Result threatens Lisbon treaty · EU to hold crisis talks next week Ian Traynor in Brussels and Henry McDonald in Dublin Saturday June 14 2008 The Guardian
The long campaign to forge a new dispensation for the European Union descended into panic and uncertainty yesterday when Ireland turned its back on its 26 EU partners and voted down the Lisbon Treaty.
EU leaders in Brussels and governments across the union, particularly Germany and France, were stunned by the Irish verdict, which amounted to a huge vote of no confidence in the way the EU is run.
The referendum in Ireland was the sole popular vote in the EU on the grand plan to give Europe a sitting president and foreign minister, and reconfigure the way the EU is governed. The result left the project severely wounded, perhaps fatally.
The Irish voted by a 7% margin, 53.6 to 46.4, against the treaty, which has already been ratified by 18 EU countries and is expected to be endorsed by the other eight.
The result left Europe's leaders with a giant dilemma over what to do next. A summit next week in Brussels was originally planned as a celebration. The Irish result is particularly painful for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who masterminded the new treaty last year, and for the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was relishing the central role of ushering in a new European era over the next six months of France's EU presidency.
Berlin and Paris moved swiftly last night to try to limit the damage, pressing Downing Street, according to sources in Brussels, not to make matters worse by abandoning Britain's ratification of the treaty, now in its final stages in the Lords.
Merkel and Sarkozy issued a joint statement, urging all other EU countries to ratify the document and declaring that the reforms envisaged by the treaty remained essential. Gordon Brown was said to have reassured both governments that he had no intention of scrapping ratification.
"It is the height of arrogance for Gordon Brown to press ahead with ratifying this treaty, flying in the face of public opinion," said the Tory leader, David Cameron. "The elites in Brussels have got to listen to people in Europe who do not want these endless constitutions and treaties."
The pressure on Britain indicated that Germany and France still hope to salvage the treaty, although it was not clear how since it has to be ratified by all 27 EU countries to take effect.
"It's not a Doomsday scenario. Everything now depends on next week's European Council [summit]," said a diplomat in Brussels.
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said: "The no vote in Ireland has not solved the problems which the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve. The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes; 18 member states have already approved the treaty, and the commission believes the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course. I believe the treaty is alive."
Everything suggested that Europe's key leaders were urgently conferring on a scheme to steamroller their blueprint through despite the Irish rejection, a course likely to trigger protest from Eurosceptics and deepen Europe's democratic legitimacy problems.
At the very least, the deadlines for implementing the treaty looked difficult to achieve. The new regime was to be in place by January 1 2009, to be up and running before European parliament elections next May and the appointment of a new European Commission in October.
The treaty was backed by nine out of 10 MPs in the Irish Dáil and all the main political parties, except Sinn Féin, but the government of Brian Cowen, in office for only a few weeks, was felt to have run a complacent and lacklustre yes campaign. An odd and well-funded coalition of anti-European forces stole the headlines.
"You don't say yes to something you don't understand," said Hugo Brady, a analyst at the Centre for European Reform thinktank.
The no vote was boosted by concerns over sovereignty, possible tax harmonisation, neutrality, and fears that the treaty could erode Ireland's abortion ban, all issues that analysts say are fatuous.
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Signs of Times - "No Witnessing, This is a Muslim Area"
Signs of times - “No Witnessing, This is a Muslim Area”
This comes not from the Middle East but Middle England -
“Two Christian preachers were stopped from handing out Bible extracts by police because they were in a Muslim area, it was claimed yesterday.
They say they were told by a Muslim police community support officer that they could not preach there and that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity was a hate crime. The community officer is also said to have told the two men: ‘You have been warned. If you come back here and get beat up, well, you have been warned.’
A police constable who was present during the incident in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham is also alleged to have told the preachers not to return to the district. It comes amid growing concern over the development of Islamic ‘no-go areas’.
The preachers, Americans Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, are demanding an apology and compensation from West Midlands Police. They say their treatment breaks the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religious expression. The preachers, who have the backing of the Christian Institute pressure group, say they will take the force to court for breaching their human rights if they don’t receive an apology.
They have accused the officer, PCSO Naeem Naguthney, of behaving in an ‘aggressive and threatening’ manner. A complaint by their lawyers said he interrupted as they spoke to Muslim youths about their beliefs.
Mr Abraham, 65, who was born a Muslim in Egypt and is a convert to Christianity, said: ‘He told us we were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity and that that was a hate crime. He was very intimidating and it concerns me that somebody holding his views can become a police officer, albeit at PCSO level.’
Mr Cunningham, 48, a fellow American Baptist missionary, said: ‘He realised we were Americans and then started ranting at us about George Bush and American foreign policy. He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said he was going to take us to the police station.’
Mr Cunningham added: ‘I am dumfounded that the police seem so nonchalant. They seem content not to make it clear that what we were doing was perfectly legal. This is a free country and to suggest we were guilty of a hate crime for spreading God’s word is outrageous.’
According to a complaint by the men’s lawyers, Mr Naguthney summoned two other officers in support, one of whom, a full constable, is said to have told the men not to return to the area.
Mr Naguthney, 30, was recruited as a community support officer last year after being unemployed for eight months.
Earlier this year, he had a prominent role at a conference to launch the West Midlands branch of the National Association of Muslim Police. He gave a reading from the Koran before the audience heard a recorded contribution from Gordon Brown, a speech from Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, and contributions from several chief constables.
Mr Naguthney declined to discuss the row.
His brother, Nadeem, said: ‘Naeem is a community man, that is why he joined the police.’
The Alum Rock area was at the heart of a terrorism inquiry last year, which ended with the conviction of local resident Parviz Khan for plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier.
A senior Church of England bishop, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, warned recently that it is hard for non-Muslims to live and work in some areas where radicals and clerics are trying to impose an Islamic character.
A West Midlands Police spokesman said an investigation into the complaint had concluded that the PCSO had acted ‘with the best of intentions’ when he ‘intervened to diffuse a heated argument between two groups of men’.
A statement added: ‘Following this investigation, the PCSO has been offered guidance about what constitutes a hate crime and advice on communication style.’”
Article from The Daily Mail, June 2nd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)