Why I Hate "The Christmas Shoes"

I love the Christmas season, and have loved it since I was a child. I loved wearing a jacket for the cold weather, I loved the eggnog, I loved the carols, and I loved the gathering together with friends and family - but of course, the best part was the Christmas story itself, with the angels, shepherds and wise men announcing the arrival of Christ, the Incarnate Word. Yet there's a darker side to the Christmas season, and I don't mean the Grinch sneaking around stealing cars. I mean an evil side stemming from the marketing aspect of it. Every year there's at least one made-for-TV movie, one Christmas special, one song, or even a sermon or two that misses the whole point of the season, capitalizes off the more emotional parts, and ends up being nauseating.

One of the most timeless nauseating "classics," however, is NewSong's "The Christmas Shoes." It's about a man in a line at a store near Christmas, and in front of him is a little boy trying to buy shoes for his mom. The boy explains that his mom is near death, and he wants to get her something nice for Christmas. As the boy doesn't have enough money, the narrator pays for the shoes.

I first heard about this in 2006, and it was in a negative light. In fact, the vast majority of people I've spoken to since then say they hate this song. One old high school friend accurately summed it up nicely as "the Thomas Kincaid of Christmas music." Yet there are apparently die-hard fans of this song out there, and apparently it made NewSong plenty of money to warrant more album deals. None of this I can fully understand. Why?

First thing's first, let's talk about the background of the song. Did you know that this song is based off an email forward? You know, those goofy emails sent around, with themes like "Bill Cosby criticizes Qaddafi" or "Look out, most milk men spit in your bottle." Apparently "Christmas Shoes" is based off of one of those, which is already a bad sign. Don't believe me? Here's a source:

In 1999, the Christmas Shoes story began circulating on the internet. The touching story about a little boy whose mother was dying at Christmas, and his quest to find the perfect pair of shoes for her to wear in heaven, came to the attention of Eddie Carswell of NewSong. Eddie began writing a song inspired by the story. [source]

This makes perfect sense given that the song has all the traits of an email forward: a ludicrous scenario, unrealistic exchanges between people, an obvious bias slant, and a moral lesson forced upon all the previous. But before we continue, let's take a moment and review the lyrics of this song.

It was almost Christmas time, there I stood in another line
Tryin' to buy that last gift or two, not really in the Christmas mood
Standing right in front of me was a little boy waiting anxiously
Pacing 'round like little boys do
And in his hands he held a pair of shoes

Why is this little boy standing all by himself in a major store so close to Christmas? Where is his family? Did they just forget about him? Did he run away from home and they didn't go out looking for him? Aren't any of the store managers concerned about this little boy running around on his own? Most places of business dislike unaccompanied children because, if those children get hurt, they might get sued. It's a liability issue no one wants to deal with. Someone needs to seriously call Child Protection Services on this kid's parents stat.

Any way, the kid gets up to the register, and says the famous chorus of the song:

Sir, I want to buy these shoes for my Mama, please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile

So his mother is sick, probably bedridden...and he wants to buy her shoes? Why? She ain't gonna put them on! What is she going to do, sleep like the Stupid family? Why not something like a necklace, a wristband, a ring, something nice she can wear that doesn't impede with her rest? Why not a stuffed animal or something that can be put by her bed so she can see it as she lays there? That sounds much nicer, much more sweet, and much less expensive. Why does it have to be shoes? I can just hear some people saying, "You misunderstand, the kid just cares about his mom - it's the thought that counts." If it's "the thought that counts," then the gift is irrelevant - Q.E.D., buy something else.

Some might have also noticed I cut the chorus off at the last line. That's because it stands out for me:

And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight

I'm sorry, this part of the song I can never take seriously. It reminds me of the famous exchange between Charles Bronson and a mugger in Deathwish 2 (warning, violence):




By the way, NewSong is a Christian group, and this is supposed to be a Christmas song, but this is the only mention of Jesus in the entire song. You know what I want my mom to wear when she meets Jesus? His white robe of righteousness, which He already paid for on the cross (Rev 3:5, 18, 7:13-14).

He counted pennies for what seemed like years
Then the cashier said, "Son, there's not enough here"
He searched his pockets frantically
Then he turned and he looked at me

Oh, great, he's a leech.

By the way, let's pause here to discuss the price of shoes. At most stores, you can get a fairly decent pair of tennis shoes for $20-25. A nice pair of women's shoes are a little pricier. So we're expecting that this kid is probably seeking about $30+ for a pair of shoes his mother might wear for a few minutes before keeling over.

He said Mama made Christmas good at our house
Though most years she just did without
Tell me Sir, what am I going to do,
Somehow I've got to buy her these Christmas shoes

Why? Buy her something else, kid! Why's it gotta be shoes? Why's it gotta be these stinkin' shoes? Go to the dollar store and find something simple but sweet to get her. The fact his mom is dying and it's Christmastime is emotionalism obviously meant to tug at our hearts and make us forget how silly the entire concept is.

"Oh no, I don't have enough money! What am I going to do?" Get a job, kid! Earn those shoes! I can't buy all the nice gifts I want for my family, you don't see me going around begging people for the money to do so.

So I laid the money down, I just had to help him out
I'll never forget the look on his face when he said
Mama's gonna look so great

Yes, teach the kid at a young age to rely on other people's money for all his benefits.

By the way, you know what I would immediately think if I was in this situation? I'd think the kid was being suckered in by his parents to commit some kind of scam. Don't believe me? There are panhandlers who do this sort of thing for a living. In fact, panhandlers can give much more convincing stories than a mother on the verge of dying and hence she needs shoes. I'd probably contact the store manager and let him know kid is accosting his customers for shoe money.

Here's the worst part of the song, in my opinion:

I knew I'd caught a glimpse of heaven's love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about

Are you serious? I mean...ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS WHAT CHRISTMAS IS ALL ABOUT? Buying some kid shoes?! You mean the birth of the Incarnate Word, the Eternal Son taking on flesh, the infinite taking part in the finite, the Messiah who would absolve men of their sins through His death and resurrection...that doesn't strike a chord with you? What's more important than that? Wait...buying gifts for people? Ah yes, good, commercialization is much more important than that baby in the manger.

Some might jump in here and immediately accuse me of not liking the song because it's not a musical catechism. On the contrary, I'm not looking for a deep theological discussion on the mysteries of the incarnation that would make Athanasius dizzy. I can name plenty of Christmas stories that have a better grasp on the Christmas message than this song without heavy religious overtones - A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, and the original A Miracle on 34th Street are a few that come to mind. Even A Christmas Carol, which isn't all that Christian when you think about it (there's no "Ghost of Christmas Past" in the Bible) and whose author wasn't the most Christian of men, displays a far greater tie to the true meaning of Christmas. Scrooge's final repentance and regeneration says a lot more than shoes. Even It's a Wonderful Life, ignoring its use of a guardian angel, presents a nice message that one of the greatest gifts is the life God has given us.

But I'm sorry...buying a kid a pair of shoes his supposedly dying mother needs? That's supposed to compare? The worst part is the lead singer is belting this out like it's some great epiphany, as if he just discovered the meaning of life and we're all supposed to drop our jaws.

If that's not enough, let's look at the music video, which features NewSong with shots from the movie cutting in every now and then. For starters, each shot has the lead singer lip syncing with every other member looking away or down for some unknown reason. It's like they're embarrassed to be with the guy. Observe the two most used shots:

It gets even more clear in some of the shots where you can see the other band members closer. Check out the pic below - the guy has a look on his face as if he's thinking, "Remember the paycheck...remember the paycheck...remember the paycheck..."

The video also abuses the dissolve transition. It reaches a ludicrous mark near the end, where the editor decided to dissolve between these three shots:

The middle shot is literally on screen for maybe like one second. It looks like an editing mistake they forgot to fix. Even if it was intentional, what was the point? Sergei Eisenstein you are not. Need another example? Look at the last three shots of the video, each one being separated by a dissolve.

Good thing they showed both those shots of the band again. I was worried that the second shot was NewSong in an alternate universe, and if they hadn't had shown them again, I would have assumed they had been stuck in space-time purgatory. By the way, see how foggy it looks in that second shot? That's not JPEG scarring, that's literally how it looks before it cuts away - they don't even finish fully dissolving to the shot before dissolving to the next shot. To quote Tom Servo: "Just because you can edit doesn't mean you should."

The final bit about the video I found weird was what the kid was wearing while out shopping. Take a look at the picture to the right. That boy is walking through what can only be 15-degree weather with snow pouring down, and he's wearing a light collared shirt with a shirt underneath, jeans, tennis shoes, a jeans jacket, and no gloves. Good job, kid - your mom is going to die this year, but now you'll catch pneumonia and die next year. Man, these are gonna be the best two Christmases his father ever had.

No wait! Wait wait wait! Since people are trying to capitalize off this song, I have an idea! Let's make a sequel! The Christmas Shoes 2: The Revenge. This time, it's the kid's dad who's dying around Christmas! And so, the young boy knows what he must do! Contact family and friends? Dial 911? Make sure dad's will and life insurance policies are in order? No...he's gotta go out and buy MORE SHOES! He's gotta buy the best pair of shoes for his dad! But oh noes, he forgot his money...aha! But a plucky young man steps in and pays $100 for that pair of jack boots the kid just has to have, and the boy returns home triumphant, not realizing that he made a total stranger just spend all his food money for the next few months, leading his family to starve in the cold. And so, returning home, the kid puts those boots on his dad a few seconds before his father passes, and then he can throw them away...

...and that, my friends, is the true meaning of Christmas.

UPDATE - DECEMBER 4, 2012: ...SONUVAGUN THEY DID MAKE A SEQUEL!!!!

Bad Arguments to Support False Teachers

Some of the following are arguments I have encountered or dealt with in the past few years while responding to or discussing false teachers and their teachings. I provide a brief, but hopefully edifying, response to each one.

"Jesus said not to judge others!"

This is perhaps the most common excuse made, but it is ironically one of the most fallacious and the most scripturally unsound. It is an appeal to Matthew 7:1 and is in essence demanding that we not point any fingers or launch any criticisms at anyone. The problem is that anyone who quotes Matthew 7:1 completely ignores everything that comes after it.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." [Matt 7:1-5]

The full context here is not that we should never pass any kind of judgment ever on anyone - rather, it's that we should not pass judgment upon a person when we have a greater sin of which we have yet to repent. Examples: I shouldn't pass judgment on a brother for stealing a pen from work (the speck) if earlier that day I robbed a bank (the log); I shouldn't pass judgment upon a brother struggling with lust (the speck) if I'm actively cheating on my wife (the log). Note how Christ ends the instructions: first "take the log out of your own eye," and then we will see clearly enough "to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Christ commanded the Pharisees to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24), and this mindset is what we see being expounded upon here. Christ is not saying "Don't ever pass any kind of judgment, ever," He's saying "Don't try to help your brother with his sins when you can't even see your own sins."

The fact is, scripture gives clear commands in regards to rebuking. Christ organized a system by which you could rebuke a brother in the church (Matt 18:15-20). The repentant thief on the cross rebuked the blaspheming one (Luke 23:40). Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11-14). Paul likewise commanded believers to rebuke (1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15, 3:10-11), and even said that was one of the duties of church leaders (Titus 1:9).

Now, are there wrong ways to rebuke or reprove? Of course, but we shouldn't jump to extreme examples to dismiss rebuking and reproving altogether. We also should not jump to Matthew 7:1 as an answer to every kind of rebuking out there. That not only shows ignorance in regards to what Matthew 7:1 says, but what scripture says as a whole.

"They've blessed a lot of people."

This is essentially an argumentum ad populum - that is, a person is a good teacher/minister/pastor/prophet if they have a large following, congregation, or a lot of people have supposedly been saved by them. It's also a pragmatic fallacy in that it essentially argues, "Who cares if the person commits error so long as someone gets saved?" This is most often used in defense of those with megachurches, large ministries, or generally those with a huge following.

The problem is that sheer numbers does not equal right. Scripture makes it clear that true believers are often in the minority when compared to the number of false believers or unbelievers (Gen 6:5-8; 1 Ki 19:18; Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5). Also, if anyone is saved, it is not because of the teacher, but because of the grace of God. No one deserves any credit for the salvation of a person but God and God alone. Soli Deo Gloria.

I might add that this line of reasoning introduces a kind of pragmatism - that is, how cares about the teachings or the methods so long as numbers are growing? This forsakes sound biblical doctrine, which by its nature offends (1 Cor 1:18), to make room for methods and teachings that attract larger numbers.

"Don't criticize it until you've experienced it!"

This is the classic "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" fallacy, and is commonly used in regards to Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal heresies which place a heavy emphasis on experiential worship. The point of this argument is to discredit the other side by arguing that they have no right to make any declaration until they have experienced the very thing they're criticizing.

Of course, this entire argument is a red herring that completely jumps from the argument, ignores everything said by the other person, and makes a mold declaration that has to be met. It places the weight of evidence upon the other person and demands they defend their position when there is no need. It's likewise an overarching argument that can be used to defend anything. Permit me to give one example:

Person A: "Boy, I sure enjoy sniffing glue!"
Person B: "Dude, you realize that will kill your brain cells and lead to greater drug use, right?"
Person A: "DON'T CRITICIZE IT UNTIL YOU'VE EXPERIENCED IT!"

Do we now see how irrational this kind of argumentation is? Person A completely ignored everything Person B had said and simply jumped to an emotional argument. A person does not have to experience something to tell whether it is right or wrong.

"They're a nice person."

I've actually had people use this excuse. It's as if we should throw out bad teachings, bad ministry practices, or immoral character simply on the basis that, upon being met, the person was overall agreeable. Are we supposed to presume a person holding heretical views will automatically have bad personal traits, and likewise presumes that a good personality covers heretical views? This is a false equation: that a person is "nice" does not mean they will are orthodox; likewise, that a person is "mean" does not mean they are also heretical. Some of the worst heretics in history were said by their contemporaries to have been nice or had some redeeming qualities - that does not negate their error.

"Who cares as long as they talk about Jesus?"

This is perhaps the worst argument to make. Our Blessed Lord taught:

"On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'" [Matt 7:22-23]

It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your statement of faith. It is not enough to have the name "Jesus" in your ministry. It is not enough to simply claim you believe in a man named "Jesus." In this day and age when statements of faith are often put up simply as a front to appease critics, we must go deeper and understand what a person really means when they call themselves Christian or refer to a belief in Jesus. Faith has to also display regeneration, and it has to show a love for God's word and an adherence to what God calls the truth. If the person shows none of this, then they do not have Christ, and do not deserve to mention His name even in passing.

"You're being mean!"

This is oftentimes the last card played by the individual supporting the false teacher. Granted, there are wrong ways to approach error (see my post here), but generally this is said when there is nothing left for the person to say, and in the spirit of true emotionalism will attempt to simply accuse the other person of being a jerk.

Aside from being emotional, it is also a red herring. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the person really is mean. Does that automatically negate everything they say? If it's a sunny day, and a mean person says it's sunny in a mean way, does that mean it's no longer sunny? Of course not. In like manner, truth does not stop being truth simply because of the delivery.

"You don't know this person personally!"

The gist here is, since we don't know the person on personal terms, we shouldn't comment on their teachings or motives, and to do so is premature.

The problem is that you don't have to know every ounce of a person to know something they've done is wrong. If a man cheats on his wife and is caught red-handed, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're guilty of adultery? If a man is proven a murderer by the law and sent to jail, do I have to know them personally before I can say they're a murderer, or guilty of murder? The most obvious to all these things is: no. The requirement to know the person on a personal level is a condition added on to avoid responding to the situation. If a person teaches doctrine contrary to or removed from scripture, then they are teaching falsely and hence are false teachers. We don't need to have a few beers with them before we can say this.

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Ephesian elders, said:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. [Acts 20:28-30]

Paul does not say: "After my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; but make sure you know them personally and if you do, then you'll know if they're wolves or not." On the contrary, he says that they will know them because they will be "men speaking twisted things." If the Ephesian elders encountered men speaking twisting things, how well they knew them personally was a moot point - they were wolves. Scripture always distinguishes false prophets by their teachings and not their personality.

The worst thing we can do is forgo sound doctrine for the sake of superficial peace. As the apostle Paul wrote:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. [2 Corinthians 11:3-4]

Mike Bickle's Scripture Reading Technique Applied

Sometime ago I started reading through a book by International House of Prayer founder Mike Bickle. At one point he goes into a semi-lengthy discussion about how it is far more important to methodically pray the Bible than it is to simply study the Bible.

Praying the Word back to God is much different from Bible study. While I am a serious advocate of Bible study, it cannot be mostly about the accumulation of more information and facts. Instead, Bible study must lead to dialogue with God...

Again, Bible study is important. Study alone, however, is not enough, for it fails to bring the presence of God to our hearts. The Bible was meant to be the conversational material that we bring to God. For example, when we read a passage in the Bible that tells us of God's love or mercy, we cannot just underline the passage and move on. It is not enough to just think about the passage or tell others about it. On the contrary, we must turn the words of the Bible into an active dialogue with Him.

Practically speaking, if I am reading a passage such as Psalm 51:1, where David prayed, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your lovingkindness; according to the multitude of Your tender mercies," first, I thank God, saying "Thank you, God, that You promise to have mercy on me." Next, I ask Him for more revelation. I would pray something like, "Reveal Your mercy more and more to me" and so on. Likewise, if I read a passage like Matthew 22:39 that says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," I first commit myself to obey it, then I ask Jesus for help. I pray, "Lord, I set my heart to love people." Then I ask the Holy Spirit to help me to love my neighbor well. As I read through the Word, I pause to pray these short phrases to God. Praying the Word helps me to enjoy my times of prayer as He releases more and more of His presence in response to my praying His Word. [pg. 33-34; The 7 Commitments of a Foreunner, 2009]

I decided to try this out myself. So let's see, I'm going to open up my Bible and go to a random verse...ah, here's one, Judges 19:29! All right, here we go...

When he entered his house, he took a knife...

OK, let's see here...Dear Lord, I thank you that you have given this man a house, and that you have likewise given me a house. I also thank you for my knife - in fact I have many knives, so I thank you for your providence in that regard, in that you give to us so much. Please give me more knives so that I may thank you more.

...and laid hold of his concubine...

Huh...OK. Um...Dear Lord, I thank you for giving this man a concubine to lay a hold of, which I assume is in mercy and grace. Please, Lord, reveal many, many, many concubines to me that I may lay hold of them, and show them my knife, so that they may know of your providence and come to a knowledge of your truth.

...and cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel.

Wait, what?! Um...Lord I thank you that you have revealed how to cut up concubines, um, may I have a chance to cut up a concubine and send her throughout Israel. Reveal a concubine to me so that I may cut her up and send her via mail to Israel for...you...uh...

All right, all right, all right, this isn't working out. Let me try another verse. Ah, here we go, Ezekiel 4:15.

Then He said to me, "See, I will only give you cow's dung in place of human dung..."

Eh? Well all right. Lord, I thank you that you have revealed cow's dung to me in place of human dung. It almost seems like a downgrade, but as you said to the apostle Paul, your grace is sufficient during my suffering, and I know that no matter what kind of dung I have, it will be enough. Please give me strength to get through the dung of life, whether it be cow's dung or human dung.

"...over which you will will prepare your bread."

Uh...Lord, I thank you that you have provided me cow's dung to cook my bread over, may the bread be delicious, and let me make a commitment to always cook my bread over cow's dung...wait...

You know what? I still have faith in the system. I'm going to try one more random verse. Lessee...ah here we go, Matthew 27:5! This is from the Gospels, so it can't possibly be too bad! All right, here we go...

And Judas threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary...

Ah, perfect! Lord, I thank you that you instilled in Judas a sense of repentance. Instill in me a sense of repentance, that I too may cast away the blood money I have accumulated in my life, and cast it before my enemies in their individual sanctuaries!

...and departed; and he went away...

Ah, even more perfect! Lord, I thank you that you not only gave Judas a sense of repentance, but you made him realize he had to not only give back, but turn away from, all that had plagued him. Please, Lord, make me realize that I too need to just depart and walk away from the Sanhedrin in my life. Give me revelation of what sanctuaries I should depart from and go away from.

Awesome! This is working out splendidly! Now, how does this verse end...?

...and hanged himself.

...uh...dang...

Obviously, this post is written in the spirit of satire. All of the verses I've cited can be understood within their proper context, but you won't be able to understand them by trying to pray over them. That is why I would argue Bible study is far more important than "dialogue." Theology matters, and we can only form our theology from God's revelation, which He has given us that we might understand Him better. As we've seen here, not every verse in the Bible can be turned into an "active dialogue," and even if it can be done in such a way, it does not mean it is meant to be done.

Now, can prayer combined with scripture reading be helpful? Yes of course - it can even be respectful. Charles Spurgeon suggested that we pray before and even after we enter into a study of the word. Most churches, after reading from scripture, give a prayer related to what was read. However, to turn scripture into a kind of meditative therapy where you "dialogue" with God by trying to apply the verse to your daily life is to miss the point of God's revelation, and is in fact closer to mystic paganism than it is historical Christianity.

If you wish to enter into dialogue with God regarding the words of scripture, I might suggest an alternative to Bickle's methods. First, find every passage dealing with God's Law and commands in regards to sin and doing right. Admit before God that you have failed to uphold His Law and stand before Him a sinner worthy of nothing but condemnation and deserving of nothing but hell. Second, read every passage dealing with the righteousness of Christ and His justification of those who repent and believe in Him. Pray to God to give you such repentance that you may be saved, and thank the Lord for His mercy that, though you were a sinner and deserving of the full brunt of God's justice, He has shown mercy upon you by dying and paying for your sins, that you may be presented spotless before the Father on the day of judgment.

God bless.

Marriage to the Bridegroom

As those who know me personally are aware, I've recently been rediscovering my Italian heritage. So, I was quite happy to learn that, lo and behold, there were Italian Reformers! One of these was Don Benedetto, who wrote the work The Benefit of Christ Crucified, which is now available for free on Kindle thanks to Monergism Books. Below is an excerpt from it.

We know that the custom of marriage is that of two there become one self [same] thing, they being two in one flesh, and the goods of both become common to either of them, so that the husband saith the dowry of the wife is his, and in like manner the wife saith that the house and all the riches of the husband are hers; and so truly they be, otherwise they should not be one flesh, as the Holy Scripture saith. Even in the self-same manner God hath married his most dearly- beloved Son with the faithful soul, who having nothing of her own but alonely sin, the Son of God nevertheless hath not disdained to take her for his well- beloved spouse with her own dowry which is sin. And by the uniting and knitting together which is wrought in this most holy matrimony, the thing that appertaineth to the one is also the other's, so that Christ saith then, the dowry of the soul, my dearly-beloved spouse, that is to say, her sins, the transgression of the law, the wrath of God against her, [the] malapertness and boldness of the devil against her, the prison of hell and all her other evils, are come into my power, and are in mine own ordering, and unto me it pertaineth to do with the same dowry even as it pleaseth me, and therefore I will cast it upon the altar of my cross, and make it of none effect.

Experiences on IHOP-KC's Staff

Someone who was formally on the staff at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) recalls her experiences there at her blog. An excerpt:

There are much more personal experiences than I can put into one single blog post, but here are a few I still recall pretty strongly.

1. Mandatory fasts which made me very physically ill. They would never admit to having “mandatory” fasts but when you don’t have any food available, close down the kitchen, give your cook the day off and don’t allow interns to hold jobs (so that they have money to go buy food if they aren’t participating in the fast) then that is called mandatory.

2. Being practically held hostage in the prayer room and told that it was required that I be there and I was not allowed to leave even though I did not feel well and wanted to go back to my apartment. I was told I needed to stay in the prayer room to be part of the “corporate anointing” and that I shouldn’t leave. It was one of my “required” prayer room sets as an intern so I spent the remainder of that 2-hour set in one of the side prayer rooms in the back sobbing on the floor because I wanted to leave so badly and our internship leaders were standing by the door. You might ask “why didn’t you just force your way out and leave anyway?” When you are part of cult where free, independent thinking is not condoned when you don’t comply with what is expected of you, very often guilt, manipulation and penalties are instated for those who resist. Interns who didn’t follow “the rules” of the internship were penalized through loss of privileges (such as loss of your day off, having to do extra work/manual labor, etc.)

3. The grip of control and micro-management increasing: greater demands and restrictions on interns (such as increased pressure to fast more to attain a higher pinnacle of spirituality) being told where we had to sit when in the prayer room, taught a model for how to pray, how to dance, sing, etc. Any form of worship outside of this model was not considered to be acceptable. It had to fit IHOP’s style and method to be admissible.

4. Mandatory journaling assignments which we had to do weekly and then we had to turn in our journals to be read by internship leaders

5. Seeing how controlled the prayer room was. Rather than having freedom to express my heart to the Lord, I was put in a box and told how I had to do everything IHOP’s way. I had reading and writing assignments whenever I was in the prayer room.

6. There was no alone time ever to really think, reason, test, question or process anything. We were run ragged from sun up to late into the night which always left me exhausted, depleted and burnt out.

7. Once when I got sick, my mother came to pick me up and internship leaders resisted letting me leave with her (even though she lived in town). My internship ‘com leader’ (short for community leader) objected and still impressed upon me the importance of going to the prayer room even though I was too sick to get off the couch. My mother said “she is my daughter and I’m taking her home and taking care of her. Period.”

8. The more leadership responsibility I was given as an intern, the more I got peeks into the “inside”. I saw the outer fringes of the internal operations of how IHOP functioned. I was on an IHOP dance team and sang as a chorus leader on a few worship teams. To dance, I had to follow a specific model that IHOP required. To sing, I had to attend the briefing/de-briefing meetings before and after each worship set where I saw first-hand how carefully controlled that the seemingly “spontaneous” aspects of worship were carefully calculated and often planned ahead of time.

9. Another intern got deathly ill and it wasn’t until she ended up being hospitalized that internship leaders took seriously the fact she was sick. They accused her of faking an illness to get out of attending IHOP classes and time in the prayer room. This was told to me directly by that intern.

10. If I wanted to go anywhere off IHOP property (even to go see my family who lived in town) I had to notify internship leaders of my whereabouts at all times. I had no autonomy or freedom as an individual. Some leaders who were 19 (but were former interns which gave them elite status) were telling me where to be, what to do and when I was expected to be home. I had to answer to them for everything. I was in my early 20′s and had lived on my own before so the feeling of suffocation and having no personal rights to space, privacy, independent thought, etc. was overwhelming.

There is much more but I think that’s a sufficient start to at least give you an idea of some of what was happening when I was at IHOP. It wasn’t until after I left that I began to see far more than I had been able to see when I was still involved. The casual observer on the periphery won’t necessarily see the reality of all that is happening there because they are seeing the veil that IHOP has built to carefully cloak the truth of a lot of what really happens.

The rest of the article can be found here. It's worth a read into things that I, who have never been an IHOP staff member, wasn't even aware was going on.

Veterans Day

And the band played "Waltzing Matilda"

And the old men still answer the call

But year after year their numbers grow fewer

Someday no one will march there at all...

God bless and keep our veterans

White Horse Inn: "Reform or abandon?"

The following is a conversation between White Horse Inn host Michael Horton and Evangelical-turned-Roman Catholic Christian Smith on the topic of reformation within the church. Particularly interesting is halfway through when Horton shows that Smith is reading Catholic resolutions through rose-colored glasses, and continues, as one commentator said, "keeping Christian Smith’s feet to the fire that words actually mean things." That Christian Smith's ultimate defense is "Well I don't read it that way" shows that he needs to be in our prayers.

WHI-1073 | Should We Reform or Abandon American Protestantism? - White Horse Inn Blog

Context is everything

When I was in college studying for my undergrad, my first year roommate was showing me the game Morrowind. This is a game set in a fantasy setting (elves, orcs, etc.), and takes place on a large continent with various populations, many cities and villages, and even terrain you can  explore freely. My friend started to tell me about how powerful his character was, how strong the armor was, and how he was at a higher level than most of the non-playable characters in the game. He then said, and I quote:

"I could kill the whole world if I wanted to."

Now stop for a moment...what if I took that quote isolated from everything else and just started throwing it around? People would probably think my friend was either a crazed maniac or insanely cocky. Neither is the case. Within the proper context of what he was talking about, he was actually saying "I could kill the whole world [in Morrowind] if I wanted to." He's not talking about going on a murder spree, he's talking about how powerful his in-game character is.

This is why context, context, context is so vitally important in our study of scripture.

When Christians Trust in an Arm of Flesh

As the American election season draws closer and closer to voting day, I find that I seem to have a problem bonding with brothers and sisters who are more politically motivated that I am. Usually the conversation goes something like this:

Person: "Oh wow! You have to look more into this candidate! They're so amazing! They're going to save our country! Go to their website! Read their book!"
Me: "No thanks."
Person: "Why not? Don't you care?"
Me: "I do care, I just trust God more."

This is usually followed by me being accused of being something equal to a fatalist, but I wouldn't say I'm a fatalist. It's just when it comes to politics, I'm simply a cynic. The original Cynics, of course, were ancient Greek philosophers who were known for being doubtful of government, religious, and social bodies doing any good for humanity. Once upon a time I was very big into politics and political thought, but over time - as I observed what could only be described as stupidity exercising equal opportunity - I began to doubt the capabilities of the political machine. As I became more and more mature in my understanding of a Christian worldview, I likewise began to become cynical towards the idea that a man-made structure completely inhabited by fallible men could, on its own, do any great amount of good. It's not that I don't vote, and it's not that I don't have opinions on certain topics - it's simply that I don't see any reason to give passionate devotion to what appears to be an inherently flawed system made of individuals who themselves are inherently flawed.

I said, all this isolates me from my more political brothers and sisters. Republican Christians become upset with me because I don't trust the government enough. Libertarian Christians get upset with me because I trust the government too much. Democrat Christians get upset with me because I question their salvation. The Communists, Socialists and Anarchists...well, they're a special breed altogether. In any case which might come up, I tend to isolate myself when the political cynicism appears.

In all these conversations, I can't help but notice that the greatest hostility seems to come in regards to God's sovereignty in the midst of elections and political actions. When I bring up that I trust God will still be in control regardless of who wins the election or what our government does, people seem to lash out at such a notion. It will either be interpreted as putting too much emphasis on God's control or too little emphasis on man's involvement in the affairs of the world.

On this point, it is simply astounding that, for many people, God seems to permit complete and utter freedom among political bodies. He controls hurricanes, He aids individuals in their individual life problems, and even offers salvation for all mankind...but assistance in a political election? Whoa! Wait a minute now, that's going too far! It is no wonder then that so many of the hyper-political Christians I talk to, when they switch topics from politics to theology, seem to espouse what can only be described as deism. Many don't like this label being applied to them, but this is what one comes to when following their theology through to its logical conclusion. They believe God's there, yes...but He's far away. He won't meddle in the affairs of the mortal children and their elections.

Some responses are even more peculiar. I covered in another post an interesting argument where the person essentially said that yes, in olden times God controlled the fate of kingdoms...but democracy was that one form of government He could not touch, since there were no kings. Logically speaking, of course, that meant man had discovered and instituted a form of government that completely eludes God's sovereign will. Man in essence one-upped God, and God is up in heaven waving his fists and crying out, "Curse you and your democracy!"

The root of all this may be that many who call themselves Christian today are placing their trust in an arm of flesh. The term "arm of flesh" is from 2 Chronicles 32:8, where King Hezekiah says regarding Sennacherib of Assyria: "With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God, to help us and to fight our battles." To many self-proclaimed Christians today, the good that comes down to society must come down from Washington, not from heaven. This goes for both liberals and conservatives: liberals believe religion has no place in government and that the people must look to the government for the needs of the people; conservatives believe that all those who believe in deity must band together to get the government back on track, and whether this fellowship involves solely Christians or Christians along with Jews, Muslims, Mormons or otherwise is irrelevant.

Both of these beliefs have two things in common: 1) they throw emphasis on human institutions over God; 2) they are an entirely horizontal view of society and God. That is, they are both views of theology that deal solely with human interaction within government. Liberals demand that humans bring about change through the government, whereas conservatives demand believers band together to bring about change in the government. God has no real place in these two systems, for He is unwanted in the one and minimalized in the other. Our trust either way is not truly on God, but on ourselves first and foremost and secondarily on our government. Our trust, therefore, is in an arm of flesh.

So in 2012 Americans will go out and vote, and we will have either the same president as before or a new president altogether. Some good might come from it, some bad, maybe both. In either case, I'm not terribly concerned about what will occur. God will still be in control, despite how high our voting participation is or how qualified the candidate is who wins. There will still be one God reigning in heaven and on earth, and the church will still be made up of His people, regardless of borders, nationalities or political parties. God bless.