Friday, December 13, 2013

Merry Christmas (If That's OK)

A politically correct carol from the Santa Claus episode of the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. Rather amusing how this was written to make fun of political correctness, and now, a decade later, this is amazingly true in some circles.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Podcast: Steve Kelly and Thinking Big

In the following episode, we examine a message by Steve Kelly on "thinking big," which he delivered last Sunday (12/8/2013) at Wave Church's evening services. We especially focus on Steve Kelly's treatment of scripture.



The episode where we examine the cult-like teachings of Steve Kelly on leadership can be found here.

Monday, December 9, 2013

A Simple Review of "October Baby"

Several weeks ago, my wife and I were still on a "Christian movie" fix after having something of a weekend marathon with Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and Courageous. Cruising through Netflix, I suddenly remembered that my wife had made mention of a 2011 movie called October Baby, about a young woman who discovers that she is, in fact, adopted, and that her original mother had tried to abort her. It sounded interesting, so we decided to give it a watch.

The film opens up with Hannah (Rachel Hendrix) suffering from another spell of epilepsy. While at the doctor's office with her parents, it is revealed that she was adopted. Of course, this would probably stun anyone, but on top of this, it turns out she had been the product of a failed abortion. Said abortion happened in Mobile, AL. Hannah's old childhood friend and awkward love interest Jason (Jason Burkey) happens to be headed to New Orleans with some friends, hitting Mobile along the way. While there, Hannah does some investigation, finding out that her mother is now a famous lawyer. Their first confrontation leads to a rejection, and her adoptive father arrives, leading her to come to grips on accepting her past and present situation.

If I sound like I'm having difficulty describing the plot of the film, there's good reason for that. Truth be told, October Baby is really two movies: on the one hand, it's a decent film about a young woman realizing she was the product of a failed abortion; on the other hand, it's perhaps one of the worst teen-bopper movies I've ever seen.

The road trip to Mobile plot is, really, just a long plodding part of the movie. Part of this is because of the obvious conflict between Jason and Hannah, who secretly love each other but can't admit it. This could have been fine all it's own, but they turn it into a love triangle by adding in that Jason has a girlfriend, Alanna (Colleen Trusler). Granted, this also could have been an okay addition, but unfortunately Alanna's character is not treated well at all: she's the cliche evil girlfriend with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and who serves as the foil to the lead female character, making you feel sorry for Hannah and assuring you it's perfectly fine when Jason ends up breaking up with Alanna at the end. On top of this, Alanna is comically evil, as seen in a sequence where Hannah and Alanna are forced to share a hotel room: Alanna does nothing but openly insult, belittle, and mock Hannah, to the point that the latter leaves the hotel room and continues the journey on her own. Most girls would be more subtle, and it might have been more effective to have subtlety. Unfortunately, the screenwriters don't want that - you're supposed to hate Alanna, so Alanna must be evil. Mwa ha ha.

Add to this the goofy "love" montages between Hannah and Jason. What I mean by this are various sequences where Hannah and Jason will either be frolicking on the beach, staring into space in separate places, or just spending time together, and a song will be playing over the scene. Near the end of the movie, it started to feel like most of the 107 minutes were just these "love" montages. I was beginning to have flashbacks of the film Twilight, and the annoying, oft repeated scenes of Bella and Edward staring at each other while new age music plays. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work here (granted, a lot didn't work with Twilight).

Worst yet about this road trip plot is that it ultimately goes nowhere. You're introduced to all these characters, such as the hippie Bmac (he loves hamburgers...GET IT?!), but you either never see them again after Hannah leaves the hotel, or you only see them briefly in a later scene. Really, the whole thing becomes a waste of time. It felt like the filmmakers were trying to appeal to young adults by making a Christian equivalent to all the teen-bopper films that had come out in the past decade, but this (along with the love triangle) only serves to distract from the main plotline. There was one point where I was actually thinking, "Hey uh...wasn't there something about an abortion in this movie?" It's really unfortunate when you watch a movie and suddenly realize that the topic of murdering newborns has become more preferred.

Midway through the film I just got downright bored. In fact, it was at this point, right as my boredom was setting in, that my wife admitted to me that she never watched the film the whole way through. This was followed with punishment by tickling.

There are also some annoying plot holes that come from this little road trip. Like how did Jason manage to have enough money not only for hotel rooms, but a rental car? And where did he pick the car up? How long did he reserve it? Where did he return it? I've rented plenty of cars in my time - they're definitely not cheap, and they're not easy to acquire. Also, Bmac is supposed to be knowledgeable of VW vans, but his idea of sleeping in it is to do so in the two front seats (they're famous for having enough sleeping space in the back). When a beach cop (Robert Amaya, a.k.a Javier in Courageous) catches them with their van parked on an endangered sea turtle dune, he just up and lets them all go without another thought because Hannah says she's trying to find her aborting mother (yeah, sure, like any cop would just immediately believe that, or overlook endangering sea turtles). When Hannah and Jason break into the abandoned hospital where she was born, the lights somehow still work. When Hannah meets the nurse who signed her birth certificate, they sit down for a drink...with it having been established that Jason was outside in the car. Really? They're just going to have him sit out in the car while they enjoy a little chit chat? They're not going to at least invite him in or something? In one scene, Hannah makes a big deal out of her being a virgin, and not wanting to sleep in the same bed as Jason...and then a few minutes later they're falling asleep on the couch together, cuddled up. It's also hard to believe that while Jason is established as the "popular" boy, someone like Rachel Hendrix would not have been popular among young males. Yes, I know her health problems would have probably driven a lot away, but it's hard to imagine that she would be the "outcast" at any school.

When the goofy road trip plot gets abandoned, and we return to the main storyline, the film's quality actually turns for the better. The filmmakers actually did handle the conflict well, especially in regards to dealing with the issues of forgiveness and moving on. While I've been critical of the script's handling of characters in the first half, I do have to admit that I felt for Hannah in regards to her relationship with her natural mother (Shari Rigby), and then later with her adoptive parents.

One thing I was surprised with, however, were the theological issues that weren't explored. For example, I was expecting someone to bring up the issue of adoption in its relationship to Christ and our own adoption (Ro 8:15; Ga 4:5; Ep 1:5), and there were a few parts where Hannah and her adoptive parents could have explored that or represented it in a clearer light. In fact, Hannah is generally portrayed as disrespectful to her parents, and though the two groups reconcile somewhat near the end, nothing deeper is explored. I also couldn't help but somewhat roll my eyes at the part where a policeman tells Hannah something to the effect of, "Hate the crime, not the criminal," an obviously secularized version of the saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Really, the highlights of the film for me were the parts actually related to the abortion plot and not the love story or road trip elements, as well as Robert Amaya's cameo appearance. The clip over the end credits, where the audience hears the testimony of Shari Rigby and her own real life abortion, was touching, but one has to make their way through the entire movie to get there. All the faults sadly turn it into a mediocre Christian film that tries to entertain its audience more than edify them. If I had to grade it like a film critic, I would probably give it 3/5 stars. If you're looking to watch a Christian movie, this film might entertain you. If you're looking for a great movie that might edify you and give you something more to chew on than most films nowadays do, then I would unfortunately suggest you look elsewhere.

Friday, December 6, 2013

What Francis Chan attending OneThing means

Francis Chan is set to attend the OneThing Conference held by the International House of Prayer every year in Kansas City. When I first heard this, I was somewhat shocked by this, as I had heard about Francis Chan and listened to him speak some years ago, and had some respect for him. As I've come to find out, this may simply be the culmination of Chan's fellowship with those at the 2012 Passion Conference, as well as Rick Warren and other false teachers (see here). I had tried to look for a way to contact Francis Chan privately to communicate with him and try to inform him of the teachings and falsified accounts that have come from IHOP-KC, only to find it very difficult to reach him (his own website offers no personal email address, claiming he is too busy with his own ministry to answer questions). In light of what I've recently learned about him, it could be that he would not be interested in what others have to say on the matter.

However, this post is not about Francis Chan himself. Rather, Christians concerned about IHOP-KC need to realize that the inclusion of Francis Chan, an otherwise well known and respected pastor (to some), for the OneThing conference bodes something deeper within the Houses of Prayer, especially those under Mike Bickle. That is...the movement is starting to go through a decline.

Recently, I've been receiving a good number of emails and phone calls from people who have either left IHOP-KC, or are still attending but have yet to leave either for personal or financial reasons (in fact, there's apparently an "underground church" of sorts at IHOP-KC, made up of members who know the movement is presenting false doctrine or is rife with problems). One source told me that the number of interns has dropped dramatically, estimating somewhere from about 400 per quarter to around 100 (these may not be exact numbers, but the point is the decrease is noticeable). Another source has told me that Mike Bickle has admitted to various leaders, behind closed doors, that the "vision for IHOP is at its lowest point," and they "need people to buy into the movement."

Why is there a decline? There are two reasons we can bring up:

Partially it's because those who are leaving the movement based on various bad experiences are telling their friends and associates, and hence causing a detriment to potential interns or employees.  Interestingly enough, most of the people who leave do so not on the realization of theological error (though those sorts of people do exist, and tend to be the ones to contact me), but rather are those who cannot balance supporting a family and having a job with putting dozens of hours into the prayer room and other IHOP-KC related responsibilities. It has also been pointed out that Mike Bickle is infamously anti-conflict - not only against critics, but for all problems relating between people in his ministry. Whenever conflict arises, things are either covered up (such as an IHOP-KC leader who was caught soliciting prostitutes) or people are told to "simply pray about it." Because of this, much doesn't get resolved among the interns and workers, and so many simply choose to leave when it becomes too stressful or aggravating.

Partially it's because of the internet, and the fact that so much has been written or spoken of on IHOP-KC, exposing its false doctrine, its teachings, and the various inconsistencies behind the "Prophetic History" Bickle presents. Major Christian apologists or teachers like Todd Friel, Phil Johnson, Chris Rosebrough, Matt Slick, and others have spoken on the group, so it's not like the sources of criticism have been minor or on the fringe. Influential voices from various ministries, cult watchdogs, and apologetic groups are telling their listeners that something is afoul in Kansas City.

The point is, as much as IHOP-KC would like to keep their problems behind closed doors and pretend they don't exist, the word is getting out there about what is unfolding in Kansas City. While many people are getting convinced that they need to be part of an "Anna anointing" for the generation expecting to see the return of the Lord, God, by His grace, is using the internet to warn others of the dangers behind the Houses of Prayer. Likewise, the Lord is using one-on-one testimony from IHOP-KC expatriates to warn others of what they might encounter in the movement.

Hence this is why popular pastors like Francis Chan and others are being invited to speak at major IHOP-KC conferences like OneThing. It is, in fact, the same reason John Piper had Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God conference, and why TD Jakes was invited to speak at the Elephant Room: there needs to be a PR shift, and a wider audience needs to be reached. IHOP-KC needs someone to come in from the outside and support them, so that they can turn around and tell people, "See? We're legitimate. We're not a cult. We don't have any major theological problems. There's nothing under the surface. We're just like any other ministry." Like Bickle said, IHOP-KC needs people to "buy into the movement."

Will it work? Perhaps. Then again, it doesn't appear like many people have come to accept Rick Warren as legitimate, or TD Jakes as legitimate, who were not already inclined to think so - it only fed the fuel for those who wanted either Warren or Jakes to be seen as actual teachers by critics. No doubt IHOP-KC and their supporters will reference Francis Chan's speaking at OneThing 2013 as a sign that they are a normal, orthodox ministry that should be accepted by all Christians (as Allen Hood attempted to do so with similar arguments at OneThing VA Beach). Will it convince those who have heard from former IHOP-KC members about the dangers of the movement, or those who have been warned by others about the theological errors of Bickle & Co? Most likely not. There might be some exceptions, of course, but, given precedence, there is great doubt this will do anything significant.

The fact is, IHOP-KC will continue as is, as more and more people leave from the unresolved conflict Bickle causes with his policies, or as more and more people become aware of the errors stemming from Bickle's teachings. Most interesting will be what happens if Bickle finally falls or passes away, or even as it becomes clearer and clearer that the quick return of Christ expected by Bickle will not happen, and more and more become disillusioned. It could the movement will reform itself to be less eschatology-minded (as the Seventh Day Adventists did), or it may depart further and further away from the teachings of their founder and closer to a complete, sincere reliance on scripture (as the Worldwide Church of God did after the death of Herbert W. Armstrong); it could very well splinter into many other groups, or just gradually decrease altogether into a shadow of what it once was. We won't know for sure, and I'm not pretending to know myself, but if things continue as is, something will happen.

In the meantime, our role is to pray for those involved at IHOP-KC, and pray that God delivers them from the wolves they are under, and the strong delusions placed upon them. Let them go somewhere that will give them the Gospel on a regular basis, and give them the spiritual nourishment they truly need. Pray for their souls, and pray for their personal and spiritual freedom.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Podcast: A Christmas Shoes Rant

In this podcast, I listen to and rant about the song The Christmas Shoes, with some help from my wife.



Here's a link to the original blog post.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Joe Riddle and Revelation 5:12

One thing I've noticed about large churches or ministries is that, whenever they ask for money or try to inspire the people to give money, they almost always have to find a verse to do so - and most of the time, it's a verse that has little to anything to do with giving, tithing, or similar. For example, Wes Hall of the International House of Prayer, while speaking at OneThing VA Beach, took the story of Cornelius the Centurion from Acts 10, quoted how Cornelius "gave alms generously" in verse 2, and tried to inspire the people to likewise give their generously (despite the fact this wasn't what the passages were commanding).

Another example I heard the other night, while watching Wave Church's online broadcast of their six o'clock Sunday services. Joe Riddle, the young adults pastor of Wave Church, while the offering plate was being passed around, turned to a passage from the Revelation of John to substantiate the need to give to your church. He specifically quoted Revelation 5:12, which reads (I'm quoting here from the ESV):
saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
What Joe Riddle did was take the use of the word "wealth" and say, "See? God deserves even our finances!" Thus, people there were to take Revelation 5:12 as inspiration to give money to Wave Church. As many former members of Wave Church have told me, getting your money is something Steve Kelly and his leaders are rather adamant about.

The question for us, in any case, is whether or not Revelation 5:12 is truly teaching that we are supposed to give money to our church.

Let's first recognize some context of what is being spoken of here: the people speaking are the "myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands" (NASB) of angels on the scene (see v. 11) who are joining in with the previous praises said by the living creatures and elders in vv. 8-10. While many commentators view the living creatures and elders as a summary of creation and the church, the angels obviously represent the heavenly bodies. We see this as a gradual culmination of praise that reaches its climax in verse 13, where all created beings - heavenly and earthly - join together in praise of God.

This tells us that angels are singing this in the verse, not people. Are we therefore to expect that angels are singing that God deserves their finances? Do angels tithe? Does this mean angels have paying jobs with incomes from which they tithe? If not, what then do they tithe? From what financial account do angels give?

Some will probably contend here that the angels are singing about what man should do, to which we should move on to the second point: there are seven specific traits here mentioned of God being worthy to receive. They are:
  • Power
  • Wealth
  • Wisdom
  • Might
  • Honor
  • Glory
  • Blessing
If we are supposed to assume, from Joe Riddle's interpretation of "wealth," that these are things we give to God, then we must likewise presume, in order to be consistent, that all the other traits are things we likewise give to God. Do we therefore give God power? Do we give God wisdom? Do we give God might, honor, glory and blessing? Remember, these are all nouns, not verbs (we cannot say "glory" means "to give glory," as we would in prayer or thanksgiving). We would have to presume that God is somehow lacking in wisdom, or might, or honor, and so He would require this from us. I hope the reader will forgive me for what may be lazy Bible study, but permit me here to say that I am certain most Christians would recognize God is not lacking in any of those, and needs them from no one, therefore there is no need for me to present scriptural evidence for the positive case.

What, therefore, is the context of this passage? It would help to notice that the wording in this version is making reference to a common rabbinical way of describing God: that He has power, wealth, wisdom, might, honor, glory and blessing. These are traits God possesses, and which He is worthy of possessing. It is worth noting that, as this verse is speaking of Christ (the "Lamb who was slain"), this passage is a good example to prove the divinity of Christ is taught in scripture.

In any case, what is the "wealth" spoken of in this verse? The root word for wealth (πλοῦτος) can also refer to "abundance," which can be used for earthly or spiritual things. In the context of that which God has, we know that God isn't like the dragon Smaug, sitting atop a mountain somewhere cuddling with a huge pile of gold. Rather, scripture always speaks of God's gifts in a spiritual context, either having an abundance of something or presenting something to humanity in abundance. We can clearly see this in other verse which speak of God's riches or gifts, such as Romans 2:4, Ephesians 1:7, 1:18, 2:7, 3:8 and 3:16, Colossians 1:27 and 2:2, Hebrews 11:26, or James 1:17. It is also worth noting that, in the New Testament, whenever πλοῦτος is used in regards to earthly riches, it is almost always in a negative context (see Mt 13:22; Mk 4:19; Lk 8:14; Jas 5:2, etc.), whereas when it is spoken of in regards to spiritual riches, it is always in a positive context (see especially 1 Tim 6:17). 

So is Revelation 5:12 about us giving money to Wave Church, let alone any church? No, it's not. The wealth spoken of here is God's wealth, and that which He lovingly bestows upon those who call upon His name. They are freely given, and they are given out of love and gracious providence. They do not require giving, tithing, or any other "if/then" statement. Keep in mind that I am not writing Christians shouldn't give or support their local church, only that this verse does not speak of such a thing, and to distract people from the context of this verse is to distract them from the love and beneficence of God. It turns something which God possesses in full to something that is required of us to do.

As usual, the leadership of Wave Church are not afraid to abuse the context of scripture to obtain money from their congregation and followers. They are the false teachers whom the apostle Peter warned would, out of greed, exploit their people with false words (cf. 2 Pe 2:3). Those attending Wave Church I would exhort to leave, and never look back. Flee from the wolves, and seek a Bible-honoring church in which you can grow and be edified.