IHOP-KC Supports "The Shack"

Recently, on the International House of Prayer's website, an article was posted about the new movie The Shack, based on the book of the same name. It was written by Jono Hall, COO of IHOP-KC, and is entitled Is the Film, The Shack Heresy? I'll be quoting the article in full, albeit in chunks, but feel free to click on the link provided and read it in one go before continuing here. For the sake of visual organization, any part quoted from the article will be typed in purple.

Before we begin the article proper, I want to, in the immortal words of Prince Humperdinck, "skip to the end," and address a section added at the end of the article:

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the International House of Prayer.

Whoa, wait a minute, IHOP-KC! This isn't a guest-post you permitted someone from another organization to put up; this was posted on your website, shared by your Twitter account, and was written not only by one of your staff members, but your Chief-Operations-Officer - in other words, someone in high-ranking leadership. That's not to mention that, according to his biography, he is "an instructor at IHOPU in subjects such as church history, basic christian beliefs, and media production," and his wife is "Director of Forerunner Media Institute at IHOPU." My point is, don't post something by one of your top and most influential leaders, go out and advertise it, then try, at the same time, to distance yourself from it, or leave some wiggle room to escape if this backfires. This is your baby, IHOP-KC - own it.

As we dig deeper into the article, the discerning reader will see just why IHOP-KC might want some wiggle room.

Across the country this week, church pastors and teachers will stand before congregations, open their Bible, and talk about God. They will try, as they are able, to convey something about who God is, His divine nature, His attributes, His ways, and His emotions. My guess is that few will get it exactly right, unless all they do is read the Bible. Some will seriously misrepresent God. Teaching about God is a heavy responsibility and that is why James said, “Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). My question is, how wrong do these people have to be to be considered “heretics” by other brothers?

The reason I bring this up is because of the hubbub around a movie that will be released today (March 3) called The Shack. I’m sure you have heard of the book; it has, after all, sold over 22 million copies. It has ministered healing to the many millions who have read it, but, on the other side of the coin, has provoked a firestorm of criticism from those who call it heresy and false teaching and say it should be avoided in the same way as pornography.

Immediately we have a classic ploy used by many to soften the blow of heresy by in essence appealing to divergent viewpoints. Mr. Hall basically tells us, "Thousands will preach the Bible on Sunday, but only few will get it exactly right, will they not?" This leads into the question, "how wrong do these people have to be to be considered 'heretics' by other brothers?"

One would think from this that we were discussing topics like who you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether you're a Postmillennial that believes the thousand years are literal or a Postmillennial that holds it's figurative. I wish this were the case, since one could rightfully say that we should be gracious about divergent views; unfortunately, this isn't at all what we are talking about. We're talking about a story which portrays God the Father bearing crucifixion scars, which talks about theological issues but never once quotes the Bible, and which portrays judgment in light of personal reconciliation sans any justice of God.

What Mr. Hall is doing here is equivocating lighter differences with larger ones, as if we should treat one like the other. While that may not seem terribly obvious here, it will become more clear as we continue.

Before I examine some of the controversy, I do want to say that we were visited last week by Brad Cummings who is both co-writer of the novel and co-producer of the film. As Brad served as a pastor at the Malibu Vineyard Fellowship during the 1990’s, we found we had mutual friends and we shared some stories before I listened to some of Brad’s personal, and at times painful, journey in the making of The Shack. We spent an enjoyable time together talking about some of the challenges that people have had with the novel before we saw a preview of the movie.

To give a little background to the storyline of The Shack, it follows a man named Mack who, after the murder of one of his children, is invited to spend time in a mountain shack with three individuals who turn out to be the three persons of the Trinity. The ensuing conversations and interactions with “God” lead to much healing in Mack’s life.

I must say I really enjoyed the movie. It was a well-told story of forgiveness and healing. I always have grace for movie directors who are trying to reduce a cherished book into a much-shortened movie format. Meddling with people’s imaginations is always going to be a challenge. However, I think that the storm of criticism surrounding The Shack is found in another area entirely!

That the story is about a man meeting God representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit inside a shack should have immediately sent up red flags for Mr. Hall. As I pointed out in my own review of the book, this is in essence a really bad metaphor of the Trinity put into novel form, now film. It's on par with comparing the Trinity to water being liquid, ice, or steam (which is Modalism), or comparing the Trinity to a man who's a grandfather, a father, and an uncle (again, Modalism).

At this point in the article, Mr. Hall begins writing on the representation of God in the movie.

The fact that, for most of the story, the three persons of the Trinity are conveyed as Papa, a black female played by Octavia Spencer; the Spirit, called Sarayu, and played by Sumire Matsubara; and Jesus, played by Aviv Alush, the first Israeli Jew to play Jesus, has been a big challenge for many. While I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack, this fictional representation is understandable in the context of the story—a black female from Mack’s childhood represented healing, safety, and wisdom to Mack.

Note what Mr. Hall says at the end there: this "fictional representation" is "understandable" because "a black female" personally represents "healing, safety, and wisdom" to the main character. In other words, because a black female is something that the main character responds to personally, it is justifiable. This is similar to some liberals who argue that women who suffered abuse from their birth fathers should be permitted to call God "mother."

I hope the discerning reader will not have to hear an explanation on why this is such a fallacious rationale. I have heard some white supremacists say that they reject Christianity because they could never worship a dark-skinned Jew on a cross - would Mr. Hall suggest that, in such a situation, presenting a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus before them would be far better? What if someone wrote such a story, in which a white supremacist encounters Jesus, who appears to him as someone who could pass for a Swedish bodybuilder? Would Mr. Hall be alright with this, since it's "understandable in the context of the story"?

What this mindset does is filter our orthodox understanding of God through our personal emotions and needs. The fact is, there are certain realities about God that we cannot deny based upon our personal feelings and emotions. What we know from scripture is that Christ Himself refers to God the Father as "father" (Lk 23:46) and encourages believers to do likewise (Mt 6:9). The Holy Spirit is referred to by masculine pronouns in the original Greek of the New Testament (cf. Jn 14:26). The reality of God and His existence simply is - and it's not too concerned with someone's personal feelings or needs.

The Shack is a work of fiction, and therefore what the authors have done is to present something of who God is in much the same way that C.S. Lewis tried to present Aslan the Lion as a type of Christ. I think we can always have the conversation of whether this is covered by the prohibition on making graven images in Exodus 20, but I would submit if we are going to apply this consistently, we must then be careful about illustrations for God in children’s Bibles and also how we describe God in the pulpit. I think what is clear is that these are not graven idols that people are physically worshipping. If we are shocked because Papa is portrayed as a black female and not a Caucasian male, then we might have some other issues!

The appeal to Aslan is problematic for a reason found within Mr. Hall's own wording; that is, he himself admits that Aslan is "a type of Christ." Aslan was meant to represent Christ in metaphor, not in reality. Throughout the history of literature and film, there have been many characters who were meant to represent a Christ-like figure, but we're not talking about that here - the Jesus of The Shack is supposed to be literally Christ Himself. To compare the two is completely erroneous. This confusion was seen even earlier in the article, when Mr. Hall wrote on Mack's "ensuing conversations and interactions with 'God,'" with "God" in quotations as if it's not really God in the Shack. The fact is, William Paul Young's book is about the literal God, and the three characters in the Shack are supposed to be the actual Trinitarian God of the Bible.

The appeal to "children's Bibles" and other artistic portrayals of God is a common one being made by some supporters of The Shack, but is likewise problematic. For one, it's an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy: that there exist other poor visual representations of God, even socially acceptable ones, does not deny that the visual representations in The Shack are unacceptable. For another, there are plenty of criticisms, and discussions, out there regarding portrayals of God (especially God the Father) in art and film. Regardless, whatever erroneous portrayals of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit as men may exist, portraying them as females only adds error upon error. As pointed out before, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are referred to in scripture, even by Christ, with masculine pronouns. In fact, one has to wonder why there even needs to be any discussion on gender and the Trinity in the first place.

As for the notion that people aren't worshiping these characters as graven idols, I would contend there are other ways to worship idols which we may not be aware of. Many who have read The Shack, or will see the movie, see the portrayal of God as who God really is, and what God really believes, when all of it is simply untrue. They will think what Jesus teaches and espouses in The Shack is what Christ really intends people to believe about him. In this sense, even if they realize God is not a black woman named Papa, they will be worshiping an idol of William Young's creation.

Perhaps of greater concern to us, however, is the subject of universal reconciliation, the belief that in the end everyone will be saved. It was unclear in the novel what the belief of the author was. Brad was very clear, as co-author, that he did not believe universal reconciliation was a teaching found in the Bible and did not want the movie to be as open-ended as the book in relation to this subject. (He did say that the lead author, Wm Paul Young, had a different theological background.) The movie, however, did not open this door. The movie did provide some initial thoughts around the subject of the wrath of God with which I would respectfully have to disagree, but here I think is the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God (Romans 11:22)—both His Father heart and His Holy transcendence. I thought they did the former well, but perhaps not the latter.

It's amazing that Mr. Hall presents so much vagueness around the original novel's interpretation of judgment: he says that it's "unclear" and "open-ended" what William Paul Young's beliefs are, only knowing that Young has "a different theological background." I think anyone who read the original book would see that, while it might have been vague enough to give wiggle room for denying "universal reconciliation," it certainly wasn't orthodox or biblical. Young's portrayal of "judgment" is far closer to the ancient heresy of apocatastasis, which was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. Gregory of Nyssa, talking about the belief, is quoted as saying:

The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist. [source]

Compare this with the notion of "judgment" found in the original Shack novel. Mack finds his father, who had abused him, struggling and suffering with the guilt of his past, and it is only after Mack forgives his father that they both find some reconciliation. Mack is then told by Sophia (the personification of Wisdom from Proverbs) that "judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right." While it would be wrong to say these two beliefs are identical, my point in bringing this up is to illustrate how William Paul Young's view of judgment fits far closer to historical heresies than it does anything that can be considered orthodox. It makes judgment a more personal, horizontal action within human society, rather than a crime against the almighty God. It makes senseless entire sections of the prophetic books and Revelation, and renders pointless the words of scripture that "it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (He 10:31).

I would certainly agree with Mr. Hall that those speaking on the judgment of God face "the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God"; it is a dangerous trap to fall into where a person might emphasize one without minimizing the other. However, to shrug off error found in The Shack with, "Well, William Paul Young is kinda vague about it, and he's from a different theological background," is to play fast and loose with what the reader is presented. William Young did not simply portray the severity of God's judgment poorly - he didn't portray it at all.

As we watched the movie, while I personally might have done things differently, I found it very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been. As I watched, I kept looking over at a security guard to my left—she had tears in her eyes. The next morning, Brad posted on social media, “So the security guard from last night’s screening in Kansas City pulls me aside while we are finishing up—a wonderful black lady—and she says: ‘I see an awful lot of movies, and hands down this is the best one I have seen—EVER!’—and gives me a huge hug and holds on. I just squeezed back, having no real idea the depth of what was transacting in her, but loving whatever it was. When we let go and stepped back, her eyes were beaming but with tears full to the brim.”

Once again, there is an appeal to personal emotion. The argument presented here is basically, "Someone who watched The Shack was moved to tears and said it was the best movie ever - surely it has to be good!" By such logic, those who wept when Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election must be justified in their reaction, and Hillary Clinton - a woman most hostile to the Christian worldview - should have become president.

Sadly, that such a mindset is coming from IHOP-KC does not surprise me. When speaking to members in the past, and attempting to show the errors of Mike Bickle's teachings, the most common response I get is, "I feel personally fulfilled, that's how I know it's right." When you listen to the testimonies of those who have joined IHOP-KC, one common theme is that they were personally moved by what was going on, and that was why they joined. This is simply the logical conclusion of the Charismatic doctrine of solus adfectus, or "emotions alone," over and against sola scriptura. If someone is moved to tears, and it involves God, then it doesn't matter what else we know about it - it has to be real. When we adopt such a mindset, we shouldn't be shocked if unbiblical portrayals of God seem alright to us, based mostly on the notion that someone is emotionally "healed" by it.

Indeed, the continual mantra that The Shack has "ministered healing" to its readers or viewers shows just why William Young's work is so seductive in its nature: because it attacks a person's soul at its worst. Many people I've encountered who liked the book read it when they were struggling with depression or some deep sadness in their life, and felt that the book assisted them. However, just as one might be tempted to harm their physical bodies by turning to alcohol or drugs to combat depression, so too can the devil tempt one with spiritual harm by leading a suffering person into false doctrine. Being personally satisfied is not a mark of being healed, but rather complete, perfect healing found in the comfort of the true God, and the true Gospel - and one will find neither in The Shack.

The final part of the article:

I am sure this movie will bring healing to many and, no, I don’t believe it is heresy!

Thank you, Brad.

Recall that earlier Mr. Hall stated, "I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack." In the process of "not defending" The Shack, Mr. Hall has...

• Claimed the book "ministered healing to the many millions who have read it."
• Defended the intentions of the novel's co-writer and the film's co-producer.
• Said he considered the movie a "well-told story of forgiveness and healing."
• Defended the visual representations of God the Father, calling them "understandable," and even comparing it to Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia.
• Played apologist for the film's depiction of judgment.
• Said he found the film "very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been," adding that he is "sure this movie will bring healing to many."
• Cited a person being moved to tears and called it the best film they had ever seen.
• Thanked the co-writer and co-producer for his work involved with The Shack.
• Deemed that The Shack wasn't heresy.

I can only wish more people would not-defend me in this way!

Let me remind the reader that Jono Hall is an instructor at IHOPU for church history and "basic christian beliefs," and yet he seems unable, during the course of his examination of The Shack, to identify historical heresies and fundamental problems found within. Gross doctrinal errors found in William Paul Young's writing, noticeable to discernment ministries and laymen alike, were gleaned over or minimized. At best, Mr. Hall said in this article that there were some points or teachings which he would "respectfully have to disagree" with, while on Twitter he said he had "far fewer" issues with the movie than the book. (A book which, if you remember, he said "ministered healing to the many millions.")

IHOP-KC can add all the disclaimers they want, and Mr. Hall can swear up and down he's not defending anything, but that won't change things. The fact remains that someone at the leadership of IHOP-KC, on IHOP-KC's website, just gave what is considered the poster boy for heretical fiction a passing grade. The COO of IHOP-KC has come out and said that he believes The Shack is not heresy.

You can't get around that.

More surprising to me is that the language used in the article is similar to that found in Emergent and progressive circles: the objections people make to The Shack are not criticisms of unbiblical doctrines, but are merely "challenges" they have with the story; erroneous portrayals of God are perfectly fine so long as someone gets some personal fulfillment from the story. I wonder if any supposed contradictions between scripture and The Shack would be shrugged off as "tensions" that we can permit to exist?

In the past, I've extensively covered the strange doctrines coming out of IHOP-KC, not only in regards to the end time prophecies, but their teachings on prayer, God's power, and Christ's humanity. In all those moments, they had maintained some level of an orthodox facade, certainly in regards to topics such as the judgment of God or the importance of gleaning from the Bible. Here, on the other hand, we have someone from IHOP-KC's leadership calling heresy orthodoxy and defending it with someone crying at a movie. Is this a sign of where IHOP-KC is going? Are they becoming more Emergent in their theology? Or are they simply growing more liberal in some areas? Is this part of the trend that many have noticed, which is that IHOP-KC is attempting to mainstream itself more?

If this is the case, I honestly would not be surprised if Doug Pagitt or Jory Micah spoke at a future OneThing conference - and I don't write that in jest. Either way, I may very well have to continue monitoring what is coming out of Kansas City.

An email I wrote about Rick Warren

Oh my, a blog post after so long! Yes, I am still alive.

The following is an email I sent to a woman, who had discovered my reservations with Rick Warren, and was curious for the reason. I decided to share it here, since it covers a lot of material. Nothing personal about the individual I was writing this to is in the email itself.

Herein are my thoughts regarding Rick Warren. For the sake of organization, I've actually divided this email up into sections. I know this might seem too formal, but you know I'm a stickler for organization, and it helped me put my thoughts together.

Introduction

Before I begin, I'd like to establish two things.

First, while I know you've told me a thousand times over you want me to be honest with you about this, I've still had too many experiences with people in the past to do this too openly and honestly. So please understand these are simply my findings (from Biblical study and my time doing discernment research) in regards to Rick Warren, his ministry, and his peers. This is not a personal attack against you, or your family, or even your home worship. As I've told you on Twitter, I have the utmost respect for you, you've been a major influence on my authorship, and I consider you a friend. I'm doing this because you've asked me to do it, but I believe in speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15). If at times I get passionate, it's because of my passion for God and His word.

Second, let me make it clear that, obviously, God is sovereign over salvation (as attested to by John 6, Ephesians 1-2, etc.). I don't deny that God can make a flower grow out of dirt, or draw a line with a crooked stick, or whatever metaphor we can use for turning something bad into something good. I knew someone who was saved reading the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible (which is one of the most corrupt translations out there). However, let's likewise recognize that God's use of a crooked stick doesn't redeem the crooked stick itself. That God can save people by using the Jehovah's Witness translation doesn't make it a good translation, or one Christians should use. God used the murder of innocent children in Bethlehem (Mt 2:16-18) to give legitimacy to Christ's position as Messiah - that doesn't excuse what Herod did.

With all that established...

Use of Scripture

I'm going to open up this part of the email bluntly. Rick Warren is, perhaps, one of the worst expositors of God's word I've ever come across. Maybe he's not the worst, to be fair, but he definitely ranks among all those I've read or listened to. I actually own a copy of The Purpose Driven Life, and have tried to get through it, but I've been unable to finish it so far. Some reasons for this:

1) He placed all his scripture references at the end of the book. To be fair, he's not the only one to have ever done this (Josh McDowell does this too), but it's annoying as heck for those of us that want to be good Bereans and examine our scriptures to see if the teachings are correct (Acts 17:11). I eventually scanned the reference pages and used them to bookmark the book, so that way I could go back and reference it.

2) Every single time he uses a passage of scripture, I have to pause and review the context. I generally do this for everybody, but I have to do it with him especially...because virtually every single passage of scripture he cites or quotes is mishandled.

Obviously, the charge of misusing God's word is a serious one, so I have provided some examples from the book itself (I could use examples from sermons/speeches he's given, but I use the book as a grounding). Below are three examples.

Ephesians 3:20: On page 31, while promising that "wonderful changes are going to happen in your life as long as you begin to live it on purpose," Warren later adds "you may feel you are facing an impossible situation, but the Bible says"...and then proceeds to cite Ephesians 3:20 from the Living Bible, which reads: "God...is able to do far more than we would ever dare to ask or even dream of - infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires, thoughts and hopes." His obvious connection is that, despite what life throws at us, God is going to bring us anything we so desire to make us happy again.

The first problem is that the Living Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation, and the original wording (and full sentence) is: "Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen" (Eph 3:20-21; NASB). Paul is praying, not giving a statement. In fact, Paul is giving a prayer to God at the tail end of a long Gospel message to the Ephesian believers. He has just gone into detail about how God's plan of salvation was carried out from eternity (Ephesians 1), and how it was done sovereign act of God upon Jews and Gentiles, not on the basis of works but by the basis of faith gifted by Him (Ephesians 2), and is how summing up he hopes the Ephesians understand the glory and majesty of their salvation (Ephesians 3). Verse 20 is not about how chipper God can make us after a bad day - Verse 20 is part of a praise by the apostle Paul towards God for this wonderful salvation gifted to us. Paul is talking about salvation, not a therapeutic fortune cookie message, which is what Warren transformed it into.

Philippians 3:13: In one of the most amazing uses of scripture in the book (and one which made me literally scream "WHAT?!"), Warren writes: "...the apostle Paul almost single-handedly spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. His secret was a focused life. He said, 'I am focusing all my energies on this one thing: Forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead.' [Php 3:13; NLT]" To understand just how badly Warren mishandled this passage, we need to review the full context of the chapter.

Paul is taking a moment to attack the Judaizers (the "false circumcision," as per verse 2) who believed that in order to be saved, you had to become Jewish and follow the Jewish ritualistic and ceremonial laws. Paul says that if anyone has confidence in the flesh, he should, because he meets all the criteria of that time for what amounted to a "perfect Jew" (verses 4-6). However, all those things Paul mentions, which the Judaizers would have greatly envied, he considers nothing - in fact, he literally considers them, as per the original Greek, "crap" (the NASB says "rubbish"), if losing them means knowing Christ, his salvation, and the resurrection promised through faith in him (verses 7-11). To Paul, it's not how great your lineage or standing before the Jewish Law was - it was knowing Christ and the eternal promise the Good Shepherd had for his sheep.

Not we get to verse 12, where Paul says: "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus." Meaning that Paul hasn't already obtained the resurrection of the dead or anything like that, but he's striving forward so that he may one day see Christ in all his glory. Now we get to verses 13-14, which show an even fuller context for what Warren quoted: "Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

So immediately, let's talk about what Paul is saying here. Is he speaking about how he made Christianity so big in the Roman Empire? No, not at all; he's talking about focusing on faith in Christ. Warren's application of Php 3:13 in this scenario is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, is Paul talking about how much "focus" he has in his day to day life? No. Paul is saying that he puts all his faith in Christ, and he looks forward to the day when there shall be a resurrection of the dead, and the saints shall be glorified with their king. As you can see, Rick Warren completely mangled this verse to try to teach people to stop living crazy lives. He blatantly used it out of context.

Jeremiah 29:11: He quotes this on pages 31 and 78 of the book, but he's actually used this verse a couple of times in other sermons. In fact, a lot of people use this verse, and always in the same way: as if God has some wonderful, super duper plan for their current life, like he's going to make our earthly time better. AND THEY'RE ALL DEAD WRONG. Every time I hear this verse misquoted, it's like nails on a chalkboard for me. If you go to the beginning of Jeremiah 29, you see that it's addressed to the Jews living in the Babylonian captivity. If you look at chapter 10, you see that God is promising to fulfill His word that the exiles will be restored back to the holy land after the seventy years of captivity are up. It has nothing to do with us. In fact, to be perfectly blunt, I find the misuse of this verse insulting to Christian men and women of the past. What were the "plans for welfare and not for calamity" that God had for the apostle Paul, who was beheaded under house arrest? What was the wonderful plan God had in store for the early Christian martyrs who were torn apart by lions? What was that wonderful plan which God had for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great Lutheran theologian who was hung naked in a Nazi concentration camp? See, Jeremiah 29:11, ripped from it's original context, may look great on a bumper sticker you can buy at Lifeway, but it loses all meaning when you look at the original context, or you try to apply it to Christians throughout history.

One of the most common problems I see with Warren's use of scripture is he interprets it therapeutically. He's even openly said that when you read a passage of scripture, your first motive should be to think on how to apply it to people's daily lives. Um, no. That's not how I would want someone reading my books, so why would I read God's book that way? A passage of scripture teaches what it teaches. Yes, it could be made applicable, but within the context of which it speaks, not in a spiritualized understanding that removes the original context. We saw this already in the passages I examined before.

Another major problem with Warren's use of scripture in the book, and one which has often been lodged against him by critics, is his erratic use of multiple translations. In Chapter 9 alone, for example, he uses excerpts from the NLT, the Message (which is a paraphrase), the Living Bible (again, paraphrase), the NIV, TEV, CEV, the KJV, and the GWT. That's eight translations used in just one chapter. 

Now, I'm fully aware that his excuse is, "It's good to review different translations in regards to nuance of language." The problem is, I never see him doing that in the book. I've done that before, where I might use the NASB, but I'll say, "The Hebrew word means this, which is better rendered in the NET," etc. Warren, however, doesn't do that. It's quite obvious that the reason he uses so many translations is he's trying to get a certain wording out of them in order to prove his point - in fact, if you look at the original language or a better translation, his point suddenly runs into problems. 

One example I can give of Rick Warren's picking-and-choosing of translations (another one, even worse, will come later) is on page 48, when, speaking of us living here temporarily, he quotes the GWT rendition of 1 Peter 1:17 with: "If you call God your Father, live your time as temporary residents on earth." However, any Greek equivalent to "temporary residents" is nowhere to be found in the text. A better translation of the verse is: "If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth" [NASB; "on earth" is in italics because it's not in the original Greek, but is put there for translation clarity]. Peter's point was that, if we are true Christians, we should live our lives as holy before the Lord. Peter was in no way trying to emphasize, "We're only here temporarily, so make it worth it!"

Theology

Also concerning for me is Warren's general theology. He comes across as Semi-Pelagian, in that we must either work for our salvation somehow, cooperate with God for our salvation, or (speaking generally, not soteriologically) we must do something in order to get God to do something. In fact, a lot of his teachings (like a lot of megachurch sermons) are just pure Law. Even if he doesn't come out and say it's Law, it's still a matter of "God wants to do this, but first we must do this." Any time we create our relationship with God into a tit-for-tat, we bring in works, and we place ourselves under the Law. Warren, and those who follow his teaching style, continually fall into this trap. "If you do this, then this will happen." "If you do this, God will start doing this for you." Everything is works. Nothing is Gospel. In fact, sometimes the Gospel gets muddled in there.

One example of this is when Warren says in his book, "Every time you pass a test, God notices and makes plans to reward you in eternity" (pg. 44). That is blatant works; you do something, God gives you a reward. Worst still, Warren follows this up with a quote from the GWT version of James 1:12, which reads: "Blessed are those who endure when they are tested. When they pass the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him." 

Two problems with this:

1) James is not speaking about those who "pass a test," but rather the one who "perseveres under trial" (NASB). He's talking about enduring temptations (as verses 13-15 go on to show). Notice another example where Warren grabbed a translation that said what he wanted it to say.

2) The "crown of life" is not a reward we earn. Rather, it is a symbol of our eternal salvation, hence it's similar use in 1 Pet 5:4 and Rev 2:10. This is given to us by Christ, who earned it for us on the cross.

Hence, Rick Warren took a passage about our salvation being realized after enduring temptations, and turned it into a special rewards program with God, as if God is a divine credit card company. I could cite other examples from his book and lectures/sermons he's given, but that is one such example of how he transforms the message of the Bible into a quid quo pro thing that people have to do.

This is where it's important to understand where our deeds come into place. When I do good, I do good out of honor to the Savior who bought me with his blood - not because I believe I will get anything out of it. I have already received what I need from Christ. The only thing I contributed to my salvation is the sin that sent God the Son to the cross. When we are regenerated by God's grace, we are made new creations (2 Co 5:17), and that new creation will perform as a new creation should. That doesn't mean we're perfect and sinless, but the heart set to God does not look at the flesh the way the old heart used to (Rom 8:5), and hence acts accordingly.

A good example of our works flowing from Christ's work (rather than our works seeking to obtain benefits of Christ's work) is seen in the Epistle to the Colossians: because we have been raised up, we should seek the things above (Col 3:1); because we are the chosen of God, we should put on a heart of compassion, kindness, etc. (Col 3:12); because Christ has forgiven us, so should we forgive (Col 3:13). In our salvation, we always have the indicative before the imperative - not the other way around.

In short, we do not say "baa" because we want to be sheep; we say "baa" because we are sheep. A person born of God will behave like a person born of God, just as a person born of sheep will behave like a sheep. If we do things, it is from that nature God has granted us in our heart. In fact, this was the nature of the new covenant under Christ:

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ For all will know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.” [Heb 8:8-12; quoting from Jer 31:31-34]

Ecumenicism

Another problem with Warren is his soft-handed approach towards dealing with other groups. He has a bad habit of attempting to appeal to everyone he wants to speak to, and acting as if he's one of them. While it's alright to talk to people as social equals, it's another to act as if you are theologically similar, or you're exactly what they would expect someone to be. Salesmen call this "mirroring" - you sense what the other person wants to hear, or what they think like, and you attempt to mirror it back to them in conversation. Critics of Warren have pointed out instances in conversations and interviews (for example, his softball interview with John Piper) where Warren is clearly demonstrating this kind of tactic.

The result of this is plain. In some instances, Warren completely avoids bringing up the Gospel (for example, his TED Talk speech, which even Billy Graham used to give the Gospel). In other instances (such as when he spoke to Muslims), he completely minimizes doctrine so that he gives a very inclusivist presentation. You can likewise see this in how he's often unable to properly pronounce or use words; for example, when he was speaking to John Piper, and tried to come across as Reformed by using the word "monergist," but mispronounced it as mah-ner-gist rather than the correct way of mah-ner-jest. Now, no one's going to hell for mispronouncing word, but my point is that someone who is a passionate member of something would at least be able to pronounce their words right - I wouldn't expect a die-hard Communist to mispronounce Vladimir Lenin's name wrong. Warren mispronouncing "monergist" shows he's not familiar enough with the word to know how it's pronounced; which shows he's not a real monergist, he's just trying to pass himself off as one to please the monergists.

I once got in a discussion with a brother in Christ about who was more dangerous: Rick Warren, or Joel Osteen. We agreed that Warren was the worst of the two. The reason behind this was that Osteen is fairly blatant about what he is - he's a Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel heretic. Warren, on the other hand, tries to be everybody. He's chameleonic. You can't say what he is because he doesn't want to use labels or set in stone what he is, and hence straddles both sides of every fence. He reminds me of an old fable about a bat and the war between birds and beasts: when the birds went to him, the bat said, "I'm a beast!" and when the beasts came to him, the bat said "I'm a bird!"; when the war was over, no one wanted him on their side because no one trusted him.

Part of this you can even see in Warren's book, where he can be incredibly vague with his language. Warren will talk about how Jesus, in the garden, surrendered to "God's plan," but he never really elaborates what that plan was. He talks about friendship with God, but sometimes seems to confuse it with both sanctification and justification. He talks about problems and issues facing us, but never refers to sin or elaborates on how sin affects our relationship with God. He writes just enough of something so that an undiscerning or innocent Christian might read his work and think, "Okay, orthodox enough," but a lot of what he says can be taken in a secular way as well. A lot of it is just theological fluff, and is dangerously vague.

Conclusion

After reading and listening to Rick Warren over the years, I have no doubt that he is a dangerous false teacher. I wouldn't want my wife listening to him unless I was there to help her discern, and I certainly wouldn't want my daughter listening to him.

I don't necessarily believe that a lot of what he says or does comes from malicious intent. I don't think he's up in a castle on a hill, cackling away while lightning strikes. I've heard that in his early days, he was actually pretty orthodox, and pretty learned in his bible study. I'm sure, in his mind, he thinks he's helping people, or teaching what people want. The problem is, most heresies start out with good intentions. Warren probably has a lot in common with the late-fourth century heretic Pelagius, who initially just wanted to encourage people to follow God's commands of holiness but went too far. What we must remember is that the saying is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven."

Of course, all this can be a lot to take in. What I always tell people when I write or speak on this is to simply be good Bereans, and examine the scriptures. Hold everything up to the light of scripture. Don't just take my word for it - see who is honestly handling the word of God. A pet peeve of mine is when I exegete something, and I'm promptly told, "Well, that's YOUR opinion!" or "Well, that's just YOUR interpretation." My response is, "Alright, then please show me how I'm wrong." 99% of the time, I never receive a response back, because the person is making bluster, not substance. But again, I always tell people simply this: I've gone to the original languages, I've looked at the context, and I've looked to see if Warren has taught scripture faithfully. I've found, nearly every time, that he hasn't. If he has, then that should be proven from the verses he's citing.

I've mentioned authorship and misquoting before. We're both authors. It's possible to be misquoted. It's possible for people to misinterpret words. However, these aren't the words of fallible man - these are the holy words of God. They should be treated with much more reverence and honor than any other printed word. Someday we will all stand before God, and we will be judged rightly for what was in our hearts. If what came forth from our hearts was therapeutic nonsense, or words we claimed belong to God that weren't, then God is going to judge us rightly. The Old Testament is riddled with examples of those who spoke falsely in God's name, or taught falsely in God's name, and were judged harshly. Christ himself warned of those who would claim to know him and claim to do miracles in his name, and yet be cast into judgment at the end (Matt 7:22-23).

The fact is, we must be discerning sheep. We must listen for the voice of our shepherd. If we do not hear our voice, or we hear someone trying to imitate his voice, then we must flee from him. Believe me when I say Warren is someone to flee from.

I hope this email has been informative and gracious.

Some Thoughts on Tweeting

One of the things I dislike is when I click on a tweet by someone I follow, and I see a slew of responses made by people who are mainly taking pot shots at the individual. Most of them seem to serve very little purpose other than to make the poster feel good, or make them feel as if they've done something useful, and many of them are either just empty insults or contentions made ad nauseum. It can be a bit aggravating and tiresome to see, not because of what they say but because of the repetitive, empty nature of it.

Then again, I see people doing this to the Twitter accounts of heretics and false teachers as well. There are times when even that can be aggravating or tiresome to see.

Now, if previous posts are any inclination, I've made responses to the Twitter accounts of heretics or false teachers myself. What I try to do (as consistently as I can), however, is to pick and choose my battles. I try to make a response when I see something that can have a valid contention made to it. If Joel Osteen's Twitter account makes a post saying God wants you to have a good day today, I choose not to write a response because, really, it's just not worth it. On the other hand, if someone makes a poor application of scripture that is provably erroneous, I might make a post asking them to clarify their position, or pointing out the error. That's the other point I want to make: I try, as best I can, to make a post that would hopefully spur conversation, not just make a pot shot at the person in a tweet that amounts to "You suck." Most of the time I don't get responses from them, but sometimes I will get followers responding and attempting to give answers, which I have found to be useful in the long run.

It's also beneficial because, if you make valid contentions or ask a question that raises a valid point, and the other person ignores you, then you have good reason to wonder why they're doing so. On the other hand, if you keep responding a gazillion times with what amounts to "NO U WRONG BRO!", don't be surprised if you never get a response. Don't be surprised if you get blocked, either. Heck, I'd probably block you if you did that to me.

Yes I know, I can't control what other people do on the internet - but folks, let's try to pick our battles. Spamming four thousand messages on Joyce Meyer's account isn't going to make her repent of her ways (I highly doubt many of these accounts are even directly handled by said individual, any way). I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up for the truth, nor am I saying you shouldn't call out false teachers for their lies and blasphemy...but as I said before, let's pick and choose our battles. Let's not turn ourselves into stumbling blocks for others. And let's not be annoying - the internet has enough of those kinds of people already.

Joseph Prince abuses the Lord's Supper

The good brothers over at Long for Truth review a peculiar teaching regarding the Lord's Supper, as told by Joseph Prince.

Joyce Meyer's Blasphemy

The brother of a friend of mine reviews the heretical and strange teachings of Joyce Meyer, including her beliefs that we are "little gods."

Can a statement of faith be false?

A while ago, I got into a conversation with a gentleman over what constituted a true believer. His position, as he explained it, was that there was no such thing as a false statement of faith, as those who proclaim Christ as their Lord and say they believe in him will be saved. His opinion appeared to be that there was no such thing as a "false Christian." Is this the case in scripture?

Let's first review the words of the apostle John:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. [3 John 1:9-11]

The apostle John, writing to a spiritual son known as Gaius, makes mention of a man named Diotrephes. Little is known of this person, other than what is mentioned here. Diotrephes' faults are many: he seeks personal power; he denies the authority of the apostles (v. 9); he refuses to welcome traveling missionaries who need a place to stay; he hinders those who desire to help the missionaries, and even excommunicates them if they do so (v. 10).

John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.

Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. [Jude 1:17-21]

Jude has spent much of his epistle writing against the false teachers and heretics who were invading the churches. He now reminds them that the apostles had warned them about this before (v. 17), going on to give a near direct quote of 2 Peter 3:3. It is interesting to note that Peter, in his original epistle, had made mention of the prophets and Christ, and Jude now makes reference to the apostles. It is interesting to note that this shows two things: 1) the early church understood what God was doing with the writings of the apostles; 2) the writings of the apostles were seen with the same authority as the prophets and Christ, and quoted as such...but this is all getting off topic.

Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.

In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.

These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.

In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).

On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Reflections on Worship of the Eucharist

Recently I attended a funeral for the sister of a woman I hold dear. It happened to involve Roman Catholic mass, which meant it involved communion, and hence the Eucharist and transubstantiation. While my main concern was, of course, the mourning of an individual's passing, something struck me during the service, and hit me harder than it had before. This was when the priest held aloft the Eucharistic host, during which people knelt. I remained seated, refusing to kneel, and would have continued refusing to kneel even if I was asked to do so on pain of expulsion. I had attended Roman Catholic masses and Eastern Orthodox liturgies most of my life, and it was the first time it truly hit me what was unfolding in that room.

The Council of Trent outlined that, to the Roman Church, the elements used during the mass become the literal body and blood of Christ.

Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof. [Thirteenth Session, Ch. 3; source]

And likewise:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. [ibid, Ch. 4; ibid]

Most of all, and the point of this blog post, we are to worship the Eucharist as we worship God Himself.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament... [ibid, Ch. 5; ibid]

And again:

And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread... [ibid, Ch. 8; ibid]

Similarly, from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Adorableness of the Eucharist is the practical consequence of its permanence. According to a well known principle of Christology, the same worship of latria (cultus latriæ) as is due to the Triune God is due also to the Divine Word, the God-man Christ, and in fact, by reason of the hypostatic union, to the Humanity of Christ and its individual component parts, as, e.g., His Sacred Heart. Now, identically the same Lord Christ is truly present in the Eucharist as is present in heaven; consequently He is to be adored in the Blessed Sacrament, and just so long as He remains present under the appearances of bread and wine, namely, from the moment of Transubstantiation to the moment in which the species are decomposed... [source]

Returning to the Council of Trent, regarding the seriousness of this topic:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema. [Thirteenth Session; ibid]

The bowing and kneeling during the mass or liturgy itself is directed towards the Eucharistic host and wine.

In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. [Roman Catholic Catechism, 1378; source]

It was the realization of all this that hit me as almost everyone in the church, save myself and my beloved beside me, knelt down before the altar. When the priest holds aloft the elements of the Eucharist, it is to be treated exactly as if Christ himself were in the room. What's more, the taking of the Eucharist is attributed to the justifying work of Christ's sacrifice:

The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins... [ibid, 1393; source]

From a less official source:

"Christ," Father Hardon writes, "won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification." In other words, in His Sacrifice on the Cross, Christ reversed Adam's sin. In order for us to see the effects of that reversal, however, we must accept Christ's offer of salvation and grow in sanctification. Our participation in the Mass, and our frequent reception of Holy Communion, brings us the grace that Christ merited for the world through His unselfish Sacrifice on the Cross. [source]

All this grants to the hosts of the Eucharist the same divinity and justifying power as Christ himself.

Nowhere, in all of scripture, are the elements of communion given the traits that masses or liturgies attribute to it. Those who might turn to the language of John 6 forget that, early on in Christ's sermon, he demonstrates that eating and drinking are equated with coming and believing (John 6:35). In no way was Christ being literal in his wording regarding eating and drinking any more than he was when he told Nicodemus he had to be born a second time (John 3:3), or he told the Samaritan woman he was water (John 4:13-14). Those who turn to the last supper forget that the primary role of the last supper was remembrance of Christ's sacrifice (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25), and was performed in the context in which the Jews celebrated the Passover and remembered their freedom from Egypt; Christ's declaration of "It is my body" was no more literal than when the Jews declared regarding their meal of lamb "It is the Passover" (Exo 12:11). Nowhere was there anything said about it becoming his literal body and blood, nor about the atoning work of his sacrifice on the cross being given through it. Rather, it was meant to point us to that single, once-for-all act which did it for us, which was Christ's death and resurrection.

At this funeral, when this occurred, I did not bow to the Eucharist, nor did I get on the cushions and kneel. I simply sat down and attempted to be respectful to those around me. I would not have shown any honor or worship towards it even if I had been threatened expulsion. It was plain idolatry. I could not be an idolater. I recognize that these words may cause some readers to stumble or feel enraged, but they are not written with malicious intent, but from a heart with a love for God's truth. If any one desires to see me change my way of thinking, I of course welcome any attempt, but it will have to be from God's Holy Writ, and by God's command. I cannot embrace any form of worship that is not explicitly permitted by God Himself. God bless.

UPDATE - July 24, 2012: In the combox below, it has been contested that this is not idolatry, as Roman Catholics direct this worship towards the Trinitarian God, even if it is directed at the host itself. Hence it cannot be idolatry, as it is not worship directed towards another god, but the true God Himself. However, worship of any single object, even if in the name of God, is still idolatry.

Many are familiar with the story of the golden calf, and many know that it is idolatry. Many more, however, fail to remember that the Hebrew people directed worship of the LORD God towards the calf.

And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. [Exo 32:4-6; emphasis mine]

The people referred to the golden calf by the plural "gods," and yet Aaron identified their feast as that being a feast towards the LORD. The people were holding their feast in the honor of God, but it was directed towards the calf. I don't need to quote the rest of this story - most people know how it goes, and know that God isn't too pleased with this.

Some choice words from other men on this:

But this intimation of an Egyptian custom is no proof that the feast was not intended for Jehovah; for joyous sacrificial meals, and even sports and dances, are met with in connection with the legitimate worship of Jehovah (cf. Exodus 15:20-21). Nevertheless the making of the calf, and the sacrificial meals and other ceremonies performed before it, were a shameful apostasy from Jehovah, a practical denial of the inimitable glory of the true God, and a culpable breach of the second commandment of the covenant words (Exodus 20:4), whereby Israel had broken the covenant with the Lord, and fallen back to the heathen customs of Egypt. [Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary]

and Aaron made proclamation, and said, tomorrow is a feast to the Lord; that is, he gave orders to have it published throughout the camp, there would be solemn sacrifices offered up to the Lord, as represented by this calf, and a feast thereon... [John Gill]

Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord-a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]

Their sin then lay, not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him whom no symbol could represent. [Albert Barnes]

Aaron, seeing the people fond of their calf, was willing yet further to humour them, and he built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast to the honour of it (v. 5), a feast of dedication. Yet he calls it a feast to Jehovah; for, brutish as they were, they did not imagine that this image was itself a god, nor did they design to terminate their adoration in the image, but they made it for a representation of the true God, whom they intended to worship in and through this image; and yet this did not excuse them from gross idolatry, any more than it will excuse the papists, whose plea it is that they do not worship the image, but God by the image, so making themselves just such idolaters as the worshippers of the golden calf, whose feast was a feast to Jehovah, and proclaimed to be so, that the most ignorant and unthinking might not mistake it. [Matthew Henry]

Joyce Meyer: Jesus Suffered in Hell

In the often painful pseudo-social world known as Facebook, it makes me wince to see Christians - mostly women - quoting Joyce Meyer. The universe of "Christian personalities" is not unlike the various personalities in the world itself, and every "niche" has to be filled, I suppose. Meyer obviously tries to fill in the specific "niche" for women, and because she's a female pastor (which already violates 1 Timothy 2:12) that targets women, women naturally flock to her.

This is a dangerous and misguided act, and for two simple reasons:

1) She's a member of the Word of Faith heresy. To my knowledge She has yet to repent of this, and maintains fellowship with fellow arch-heretics Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, the Crouch family, T.D. Jakes, and many others over at Trinity Broadcast Network, a Christian television station in name only. Is this really the kind of spiritual food we want to be feeding ourselves? Even if Joyce Meyer says some good things, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor 5:6). She preaches a false gospel and shares fellowship with those who likewise preach a false gospel - Q.E.D.

2) She believes that after Jesus died he was tortured in hell. She claims this from personal revelation. Don't believe me? Here's an audio that covers this, quoting her books and playing audio tapes with her own voice.

"All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

This post is a little bit of a continuation of a previous post I made, but is the result of some more meditations I've had on the subject as of late.

When an American soldier is sworn in, he states what is called the "oath of enlistment," which begins like this:

"I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." [source]

The oath for officers is stated slightly differently than those for enlisted personnel, but both phrases are there: to "support and defend the Constitution," and to do so against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Foreign, of course, refers to those external threats who would seek to invade our country's territory (such as Japan during World War II), or those who would seek to do her harm (such as Al Qaeda). Domestic, however, refers to internal enemies - those who would seek to topple the Constitutional government (such as various militias or hostile political groups) or those who would seek to harm the nation from within (like the Oklahoma City bomber).

Imagine, however, if these words concerning domestic threats meant nothing. Imagine if the military, upon hearing about a home-grown terrorist cell out in the Midwest intending to do harm to government bodies, responded with, "Well, they still love our country right?" What if they heard about a political movement that was seeking to topple the democratic government and replace it with non-Constitutional one, and responded to it with, "They're still Americans, right? Can't we all just get along within our country?" What if they refused to respond to threats and instead lambasted the ones warning of the threats, saying, "Why are you trying to divide our country? They love America don't they! That should be enough!"

It's easy for the Christian church to point out our foreign enemies. It's easy to point to atheists, humanist secularists, and non-Christians and say "Yeah, that's the bad guy!" It's easy to point to atheistic, humanist secularist, or non-Christian worldviews and say "Yeah, that's the enemy, right there!" There's no question that attacks against Christian persons in Nigeria by Muslims or attacks against the Christian worldview by the secular media are foreign enemies.

Yet when it comes to our domestic enemies, it seems like what some churches call the "clergy of the laity" becomes the "clergy of the apathy." We either choose not to do anything, leaving it to our leaders to handle (while not even informing them of the error), or we choose to simply say "no harm no foul." We forgo doctrinal heresies and false teachings for superficial reasons such as "we all love Jesus" or "they aren't hurting anybody." We willingly submit the word of God to the whims of the devil and don't seem to care. We wouldn't let our daughters marry a wicked man we knew was going to hurt her and misuse her - why do we permit the word of God to be misused by wicked men?

As I've pointed out before on this blog, this isn't entirely new to history. The fear of calling out the church's domestic enemies has led to many great men of God finding themselves persecuted by supposed Christians rather than foreign enemies. It was this fear that caused Athanasius to be kicked out of his bishop position five times by the Arian-friendly church. It was this fear that caused the Monothelite-friendly church to maim (and eventually kill) Maximus the Confessor. It was this fear that caused the Roman church to excommunicate and persecute the Reformers. It was this fear that caused the Anglican church to turn on the Puritans and then the Methodists. The fact is, those who support modern day false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Mike Bickle, Todd Bentley, William P. Young, Joel Osteen, and a host of others are simply joining the ranks of a long tradition of people in the church who forsook sound doctrine for the pleasing of their itching ears (cf. 2 Tim 4:3).

The fact is, the church does have domestic enemies, and they are still prevalent. Even during the apostolic era, Paul warned the church against contemporary domestic enemies (Gal 1:6-9) as well as future ones (Acts 20:29-30). Christ warned that on the day of judgment, He would divide the church up between the sheep and the goats - that is, true Christians and false Christians (see my post here). This latter point implies that there exist within the church today goats masquerading as sheep, which means that, even on the day of judgment, there will be false Christians. The writer of Hebrews refers to them as crops which have borne "thorns and thistles," and who will in the end be burned (cf. Heb 6:8).

Scripture makes it clear that domestic enemies do exist, whether some Christians - supposed or true - would like to admit it. The question now is, whom do we desire to protect more: God's word, or our superficial idea of peace and unity?

Early Muslim Heresies

A common tactic for Muslims holding discussion over the early Christian church is to bring up the many heresies that existed around that time. Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Modalism...they're all brought in as if they're all equally "Christian," especially if, such as the case of Docetism, they hold beliefs similar to Islam.

However, was the history of Islam free from such early heresies? Ignoring the Sunni/Shia split (although it could be just as relevant) or the existence of Ahmadi Muslims, was there an isolated consistent stream of belief from Mohammad to today? In fact, there existed heresies even within the first few centuries of Islam's existence, as we will soon see.

My point in this post is not to present a kind of tu quoque fallacy, as if to argue, "Well you had early heresies, so we can have early heresies too!" Rather, it is a call for consistency: would the discerning Muslim be willing to hold the early Muslim heresies by the same standard they hold the early Christian heresies? It is simply an attempt to create more progressive and open discussion.

Ghulat (the extremists) and Ghuluww (extremism): those sects which hold either the opinion that any particular person is God or that any person is a prophet after Muhammad, are called by this title. Certain other doctrines such as tanasukh (transmigration of souls), hulul (descent of God or the Spirit of God into a person) and tashbih (anthropomorphism with respect to God) are also usually ascribed to these groups. [pg. 45]

Ulyaniyya or 'Alya'iyya...who appear to have been active around AD 800 and are also called adh-Dhammiya (the blamers) because they stated that 'Ali was God with Muhammad as his Apostle and that Muhammad was to be blamed in that he was sent to call the people to 'Ali but called them to himself. Others of this group assigned divinity to both Muhammad and 'Ali. [pg. 46]

Muhammadiyya or Mimiyya. This sect are a counterpart to the 'Ulaniyya and stressed the divinity of Muhammad. [ibid]

Karibiyya...They considered that Ibn al-Hanafiyya [a descendant of 'Ali] had not died but was concealed on Mount Rawda...and would return to fill the earth with justice. Because they believed that prior to the return of the Imam, the drawing of swords was forbidden, they fought with sticks...Two of the most famous of Arab poets belonged to this sect, Sayyid al-Himyari and Kuthayyir. [pg. 47]

The Janahiyya...In 127/744 'Abdu'llah ibn Mu'awiya rose in revolt against the last Umayyad Caliph. 'Abdu'llah was... accused of holding a number of extreme opinions: the incarnation of God in a succession of Prophets and Imams...some of his followers asserted that he had not died but was concealed in the mountains of Isfahan and would appear again. [pg. 51]

The Mansuriyya or Kisfiyya...followers of Abu Mansur al-'Ijli...The name Kisfiyya arose because Abu Mansur believed himself to be the piece (kisf) of heaven falling down which is mentioned in Qur'an (52:44). He maintained that the first thing created by God was Jesus and then after him 'Ali. He held to an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'an which among other things meant that those things forbidden in the Qur'an were nothing but allegory for the names of certain evil men. Thus his followers are accused of all manner of immorality and sin. [pg. 52]

The Khattabiyya. [Founded by] Abu 'l-Khattab Muhammad ibn Abu Zaynab al-Asadi al-Ajda'...Central to Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines appears to have been an allegorical interpretation to the Qur'an. His followers also believed that they would not die but would be lifted up to heaven. They are accused of having disregarded all religious observances and regarded everything as lawful. [pg. 52-53]

Bazighiyya. The followers of Bazigh ibn Musa, the weaver, who followed Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines and claimed that a man who had reached perfection should not be said to have died and that the best of his followers were superior to the angels. [pg. 53]

Mu'ammariyya. The followers of Mu'ammar ibn Khaytham, the corn dealer, who claimed prophethood...and asserted that the present world would never come to an end but that both paradise and hell were to be experienced here. [ibid]

Ghurabiyya. The followers of this group...are said to have held that since Muhammad and 'Ali were as indistinguishable from each other as one raven (ghurab) is from another, when the angel Gabriel was sent with the divine revelation from God for 'Ali, he gave it by mistake to Muhammad. [ibid]

Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Print.

Contra Vassula Rydén, Second Edition

This is a repost of something I had on my old blog. Those who have followed me know that the majority of my posts are aimed, primarily, at strengthening faith and orthodoxy with occasional excursions into Islam. Often I venture forth into other topics when I feel it is necessary, but for the most part I focus on these two main things.
 
Yet the most attacks I ever received were not for criticism of Islam but, amazingly, in response to one post I made regarding an internet prophet named Vassula Rydén. It was a long post reviewing the woman's teachings and beliefs in relation to scripture and church history. It was met with a shocking number of responses by Vassula followers who believed I was committing a great error. Some accused me of hiding the truth (even though I referenced from her website numerous times and cited all quotations), others suggested I was part of some vast conspiracy (even though there was nothing that inspired my post except a provoking of the spirit) - but most shocking of all, people accused me of working against our Lord. I even received an email from one of her followers which said the following:

You do a lot of damage to the church by attacking her...Please take down your blog...You are making a mistake...You have no idea the damage you do. You fight against Christ. Like the stewards left to attend the owners land you kill with the keyboard like the son was killed in the parable...Please reconsider your post. Later I hope you try to repair the damage you have done and that your eyes open and you repent. Not just to me for your offense against my faith...but to Christ.

Criticism of this women is equaled by her followers to criticism of Christ Himself. This, to me, is the greatest sign of a cult. Just as Muslims are driven into fury by attacks against their false prophet Mohammad, so too are followers of Vassula Rydén driven to defend their prophet with more zeal than they do to defend their Lord. I say this because it is clear, through discussion and dialogue with them, that they are willing to excuse and even defend, often with distortions of scripture, her teachings regarding the Trinity and other doctrines.


It is one thing to admire a Christian leader. It is another to place them beside God. I deeply admire many Christian men and women, past and present, but I consider them only men. For example, I deeply admire John Wesley, however if someone sent me an email saying Wesley was a heretic burning in hell, I would delete it without another thought. Likewise, I deeply admire John MacArthur, but if I found a blog article criticizing something MacArthur had said, I would not accuse them of acting against Christ. At best (if I truly believed they were in the wrong), I would write a simple response with citations showing that they had taken what MacArthur said out of context or were attacking him wrongfully. I would never accuse them of attacking Christ, His church, or any other form of harsh rhetoric. MacArthur, Wesley and others are godly men, but they are still men.

No one, and I repeat no one, not even myself, is above reproach. From the highest saint to the lowest layman, we are all open to criticism. If the apostle Paul could reproach fellow apostle Peter (Gal 2:11-14), and Aquila and Priscella could correct Apollos (Acts 18:26), then there is no reason we cannot at least question the validity of one woman's claim. I once asked a Vassula supporter just who she was to him really, for it was clear he could not distinguish between her and the church, let alone her and Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote: "What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Cor 3:5-7).


The following is a repost of the old article. It is still a long one, but the deep connection many have to this woman has convinced me to repost and expand it. I have included some notes in relation to this expansion, and to further illustrate points that I have witnessed in the responses to my criticism, but it otherwise remains unchanged.
----
Some time recently, a good friend of mine sent me a link to a website and told me, "The Orthodox should be warned about this." I clicked on the link and was met with a website called "True Life in God," peppered with iconography that made me think for a moment that I might be looking at the archdiocese website. Instead, it was the website for a woman named Vassula Rydén, and on the main page speaks of angels and messages.

I felt a shrill go up the back of my neck, realizing that I was dealing with someone who claimed to have had personal revelations with God and was attempting to share it with the world. As I did further research, what I found shocked me, and I began to realize that perhaps Christians in general, not just Orthodox, should be warned about this woman. I was even more inspired when I learned that friends of friends (even those attending my church) were following this woman like a prophet of old, and were even giving her prayer books to their children to read. Therefore, this struck rather close to home.

The casual reader should be warned that this is perhaps the longest post I will make on my blog for some time, but I believe the time spent will not be wasted. Heresy and controversy within God's church need to be discussed, just as they were hundreds of years ago at the ecumenical councils. No, I am not claiming to be the new Athanasius, ready to take on the Arians - God forbid the prideful thought from entering my mind! However, I do want to at least be a source of education for some and protection for others. I pray that God will allow me to be an instrument for Him and in His name alone. Amen.

Who is this Vassula Rydén?

According to her own website (source) she is an ethnic Greek from Egypt who "belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church." She claims to have started receiving messages from Jesus Himself (through an angel named "Daniel"), beginning in Bangladesh in 1985. According to her website, she has "been invited to speak in more than 70 countries and has given over 900 presentations," even being asked "at 3 occasions to speak on unity in the World Council of Churches of Geneva." She has many "Beth Mariam" charity houses for the poor and orphans. She is married to a Lutheran. Her manifestations are, according to her testimonial video, "still continuing" (source).

WRITER'S NOTE: One of the most common defenses given for Vassula states that she is good because she wins converts. This is a classic case of the "ends justifies the means," and reminds me of the current issue going on right now regarding the questionable comments made by Ergun Caner about his conversion (a fabrication being used to convert people). Christian apologist James White made the comment that when you take lies and apply them to the Truth you lead the gospel into error and fantasy, which I agree with wholeheartedly. In any case, if we are to base goodness on converts alone, then perhaps we should glorify Mohammad, who managed during his lifetime to turn the entire Arabian peninsula away from paganism to monotheism. Of course, we do not treat goodness this way, because theology and orthodoxy is everything. I would much rather win someone by the truth of the gospel than the wiles of a deceiver's personal revelations.

The first thing that caught my eye was, although she claims to be a Greek Orthodox, her Eastern Orthodoxy should rightfully be called into question. In both her visions and speeches she speaks of the "immaculate heart" of both Jesus and the Virgin Mary, a concept decidedly Roman Catholic both in origin and use. She is said to have handed out rosaries to people and paid homage at Roman Catholic shrines, even going so far as to claim a message from God saying "blessed are those who will pray the Rosary" (source). She believes in purgatory and teaches that our prayers save people from Purgatory (source). She claims to have visited hell and saw something closer to Bill Weise's view than the Church's belief on hell (source). Her teaching on the Holy Spirit is more akin to Charismatic preachers on late-night TBN than the writings of the Church Fathers. Her views on universalism and ecumenical movements (which I'll get to later on in this post) would be better placed in the sermons of the Emergent Church. Overall, I don't find anything Orthodox about her.

WRITER'S NOTE: Some have accused me, in an ecumenical spirit, of criticizing too harshly her theological beliefs. The fact is, a person who claims to belong to a certain group should reflect the beliefs of that group. For example, a Calvinist who denies the Doctrines of Grace should have his Calvinism questioned. Likewise, if a woman claimed to be a Sunni Muslim, yet believed Muslims should be ruled by an imamate and Ali was the true successor to the prophet and the 12th Imam was going to return before the Messiah...then her Sunni beliefs should be questioned. I hold people by the standards they apply for themselves. If you wish to break away from the core beliefs of a certain group, it is in your right to do so - but do not continue associating yourself with that group.

My feelings seemed to have some merit, as I found out that she really had no solid knowledge of her Eastern Orthodox faith - let alone any Christian faith at all. She admits in her testimonial video (source, again) that she "wasn't a Church-goer" and that she "wasn't looking for God at all." She knew "God existed" and "knew a little bit," but never "had any catechism." When she got married she "abandoned" her Orthodoxy and became involved in the international organization that sent her to places across the world, neither her nor her husband practicing religion in the meanwhile. Then, in 1985 in Bangladesh, she was writing down a list of groceries and suddenly saw her "guardian angel", who physically held her hand and began to write what he wanted her to say. He introduced himself as Daniel. She was excited and began to talk to Daniel. He instructed her to read scripture, and then continued to deliver messages from God afterward.

Something seemed familiar about this experience, and it was then that I realized the way that the supposed angel Daniel communicated with Vassula is a way many mediums supposedly communicate with ghosts. The method is known as "automatic writing" or alternatively "ghost scribbles." It entails a person scribbling on a piece of paper and allowing the ghost to write for the person, sending out messages that can be either crystal clear or incoherent (the 1980 film The Changeling features this). Such communication really belongs in the hands of the occult - why, therefore, should we be expected to follow theology based on unorthodox methods of communicating with God? It would be like revelation given through tarot cards.

WRITER'S NOTE: Some have accused me of straining gnats here, asking if automatic writing ever looked as elegant as those done by Vassula. Even quick research shows that there do exist copies, especially from the spiritualism craze of the 19th century, of elegantly written "ghost scribbles." This is also, shockingly enough, not the first time someone has claimed to have spoken to Christ through automatic writing. Some have also pointed to articles (sourced to Vassula's website) attempting to compare the writings of the prophets to the type of writing done by Vassula. The fact is, Vassula is hardly Isaiah or Ezekiel, and we must ask by what standards we can apply to either group. No one is able to apply to Isaiah or Ezekiel the same standards of which we can apply to Vassula, except perhaps for the orthodoxy of her theology. We shall see, as time progresses, that she is far from orthodox. We might also look at what role the prophets of old played with the people of God, and how we interact with God today, as stated at the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews (which we will see shortly).

Of course what also bothered me was the fact she was receiving supposed revelations from an angel. I couldn't help but think to myself: who else has received revelation from God? Some names come to mind: Mani, Mohammad, Joseph Smith...but perhaps this list is unfair. Daniel, for example, met and spoke with Gabriel, yet he was a prophet and the role of prophets ended with John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). Likewise, it is clearly stated by the writer of Hebrews:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [Hebrews 1:1-2; ESV]

It's also worth mentioning that the minute Daniel came in contact with Gabriel he became frightened and fell on his face (Dan 8:17). Likewise, the shepherds who saw the angel announcing Christ's birth were just as afraid, for the first words out of the angel's mouth are "fear not" (Luke 2:10). The apostle John, seeing an angel twice, is so overcome he prostrates twice and has to be told not to (Rev. 19:10; 22:8). Here we have three groups of people in scripture - a devout prophet of God, humble laymen, and the most beloved disciple - who all reacted with fear of God at the first sight of an angel. How did Vassula first respond when she met her angel?

I was so happy that I was almost flying around the house, my feet barely touching the ground and I was repeating loudly: "I am the luckiest person on earth, and I am probably the only person on earth who could communicate in such a way with her angel!" [source]

Keep in mind that this is after a supposed angel of God has manifested himself to her and has touched her hand and made it move and write - her reaction seems the polar opposite to how those in the past who simply saw an angel. This isn't entirely new - there are people who claim to be watching TV, see Jesus walk in, and kept watching TV like nothing had happened. Oftentimes when a person claims to have met an angel or Christ Himself and not given the reaction that has scriptural precedent, the very claim itself is false.

Perhaps before we pass judgment on Vassula's revelation, we should review the essence of these revelations in detail. They're readily available on her website, posted in chronological order and even in order of subject. They are also quite voluminous: I started reading from the start in 1985, and after two or three hours had only gotten to 1987. Nevertheless, they must be looked at to truly understand the essence of her message.

The "Messages from Christ"

Early on in her record of messages, Vassula records how she began to have doubts that mere experiences with God - especially on so high a level - are possible. Immediately her visions return, assuring her all is well.

(I'm reading a book in which many people reported "experiences with God", but almost all those people are told by 'experts' that they should forget what they experienced because it's not God; they tell them that only highly elevated souls experience these things from God and one has to be highly elevated too. As I know I'm none of this and far from good, I decided to stop these meetings by writing with God; I might as well 'pack-up' the whole thing. They seemed to say that to reach God you have to be a saint and they made me believe God is so far. So I will drop the whole thing, leaving my hand to write for the last time what it wants, led by "the force" that has been writing all these months.)

Vassula! do not leave Me, beloved, be calling on Me and be learning from Me; remember, I am beside you all the time; I, God, am living in you; believe Me, I am the Almighty, the Eternal God;

No. It can't be. It can't be God. Those that know would prove to me that it is not God. Only highly pure souls who are worthy, God reaches giving such graces.

I am not beyond reach! Vassula, I do not refuse anybody; I blame all those who discourage My countenance to My children to come to Me; whoever teaches that to be able to be with Me or be accepted by Me should be pure or worthy are those who are damaging My Church... [source]

In general reading, one might be forgiven for misunderstanding that it seems Vassula is being told that generally anyone can come to the Lord for help. This certainly is true - however, keep in mind that this is being done in the context of receiving personal messages from the Lord and having these Charismatic "experiences." It might have been better for her to give it up (or seek more orthodox training in regards to theology), but she then has a vision telling her not to. The next message elucidates on the last one:

...never ever fall into traps set up by evil; never believe in any message which brings you unrest; do understand why evil is trying very hard to stop you; daughter, any message condemning My previous messages1 is from evil; the devil is trying once again to stop you and discourage you; I, who am your Saviour, am confirming to you that all the messages bearing calls of love and peace, leading those that are lost to find their way back to Me, are all from the Father and Me...

And so we have an emphasis on the "personal" relationship with God, which forgoes any true understanding therein. This is emphasized by a later speech Vassula gave seminarians in Asia:

Vassula told them that it is essential to have a personal relationship with God in order to know and understand God. It is very important not to become "bureaucrats", "bookish" nor "technical" theologians. What is important is to give space to the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to them and to have an intimate relationship with God. Only then they will be able to serve God and His people, as He wants them to. [source]

I'm suddenly reminded of a Charismatic woman who told John MacArthur, after the publication of his Charismatic Chaos, that he should throw away his Bible, church history, and lexicon and just experience the Holy Spirit. How can one experience God, however, with no foundation of which to discern the spirits (1 John 4:1)?

Ultimately, this vision of Jesus tells her that he will make her his disciple.

I will guide you, little one;

come, take with you My Cross and follow Me; remember, I will help you; you will be My disciple; I will help you to reveal Me; I am Holy, I am Holy, so be Holy, live Holy; I will give you My support... [source]

After this vision, which results in several visions of the cross, Vassula wonders to herself "if it was from the devil, how dumb can he get?" Perhaps Vassula cuts the devil short - I'll get to that at the very end of this post.

In a later message Vassula's vision of Christ repeats His self-affirmation:

...many do not believe that I work in this way too; some do not believe in Me at all...I am telling you this so that you are prepared and aware of these people, since they are deaf and blind and have closed their hearts; they will want to justify their cause; they will tell you that this is not Me, that all of this comes from your mind, they will feed you with venomous theories; they will find ways of showing you that you are wrong, they will let you read their theories to prove to you that you are wrong; so I am warning you, daughter, do not let men discourage you; do not let your era destroy you [source]

Another early vision Vassula has is Christ telling the story of His crucifixion, like something out of the image of St. Brigitte:

I gazed upon the crowds, from where I was hardly seeing; from My swollen eyes, I watched the world; I saw no friend among those who mocked Me; no one was there to console Me; "My God! My God! why have you forsaken Me?"; forsaken by all those who loved Me;

My gaze fell on My Mother; I looked upon Her and our hearts spoke, "I am giving you My beloved children to be your children too, You are to be their Mother";

all was ending, salvation was near; I saw the heavens open and every angel stood erect, all stood in silence, "My Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit, I am with You now"; [source]

Christ claims that this is all the beginning of "His call."

...do not fear, why are you fearing to be holy? remember, you are in the beginning of My call;

What does this really mean?

it means that you are still learning from Me; I will be teaching you and showing you My Works; I am only in the beginning of My call, you will discover later on how I work; I will call you later on at the appointed time to find Peace... [source]

So what is the purpose of this revelation?

I want to remind you that the Revelations I am breathing in you are not just for your own benefit, they are meant for others too, who are in desperate need of My Bread; I come to feed all of you who are hungry; My Message is one of Peace and Love and to remind you of your foundations and who created you; [source]

And again:

daughter, My Church needs to be renewed; I have come to consolidate My Church; otherwise multitudes are bound to be lost [source]

And again:

...all those that have eyes, let them see; all those that have a heart, let them understand, that it is I, Yahweh Sabaoth, who speaks; I have never forsaken you; I am delivering Wisdom to re-establish My given Word; I come to remind you all of My love for you, blessing you all; I do not want to see you lost, woe to the unwise! purify yourselves for the time is near; listen to My words, for in doing what I ask you I will forgive you; I am guiding you to live in Peace and Love, for I am a God of Peace and Love... [source]

Christ needs to "reestablish" His given Word? Was it not eternal? Did He not promise that the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church (Matt 16:18)? Did He not promise that He would be with Christians until the ages of ages (Matt 28:20)? Why would Christ, the Incarnate Word, have to restore His written Word? Furthermore, why would He need human agents to carry this out, rather than His power, which, while using humans tools from time to time, is able to sustain the church by His very word.

There are times where the words of this vision of Christ seem to contradict not only His teachings, but those of the Church Vassula claims to belong to.

I love you as you are ... be My bride, Vassula [source]

His bride? The bride of Christ? This contradicts Eastern Orthodox theology that Christ's bride is reserved for the Church and the Church alone. This is why Christ is called the bridegroom, and why so many metaphors of bridegrooms in the gospels are obvious metaphors for Christ. There are times when Christ even clearly refers to Himself as the bridegroom.

I can hear some responding to this by pointing out that nuns call themselves "brides of Christ" (Vassula brings this up in one revelation), and that virgin saints were often called brides to Christ. The problem is that those were metaphorical titles obviously given because of their virgin or abstaining lifestyle - they were not dedicated to another man. Vassula, on the other hand, is married. Why then is Christ calling a married woman His bride?

The messages are continually attacking those who would doubt Vassula, even claiming they are turning against Christ's church.

...I love you, son, understand that by trying to stop Vassula you are unwillingly damaging My Church... [source]

I don't recall even the most devout saints being given such a defense. One could rightfully argue that attacks against the Church are attacks against Christ (Jesus asks Saul, "Why are you persecuting Me?" when Saul was only attacking the Church) but never was this reserved for a single individual. This is only the trait of false prophets who seek to protect themselves of any criticism from followers.

WRITER'S NOTE: The spiritual threats consistently given in Vassula's revelations (and by her followers) are, as stated before, similar to those of cults and false prophets. For example, in a vision recorded by Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, he wrote: "And now, because I foresee the lying in wait to destroy thee, yea, I foresee that if my servant Martin Harris humbleth not himself and receive a witness from my hand, that he will fall into transgression" [D&C 5:32; source]; and "They who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall amelt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun" [D&C 121:11; source].

Some of the messages present some peculiar dialogue between the vision of Jesus and Vassula.

Vassula, do you know why I chose you?

No, I don't, Jesus.

I will tell you then; I chose you because you are helpless and by far the most wretched from any man I know of; wretchedness attracts Me because I can console you; you are helpless and insufficient, unable of mastering any language [source]

Vassula was "the most wretched from any man" that Christ knew of? Seriously? Osama bin Laden, Ghaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe...all these other men out there were not better choices? When Christ took Saul, persecutor of the church and zealot of Jewish theology, and transformed him into one of the greatest of the apostles, that was a miraculous sign of grace. I don't want to sound demeaning, but turning an agnostic into a charity worker is not any greater sign of grace by comparison.

As I said earlier, Vassula's messages support more Roman Catholic dogmas than Orthodox. This message, for example, claims that Vassula's love for God is freeing souls in Purgatory:

Vassula it is I, Jesus Christ; I am with you, beloved; do you know that I am guiding you through Hades?...your love for Me is healing them; I use your love as a remedy to cure them; heal them Vassula, heal them; you are bearing My Cross with Me, Vassula; these works are heavenly works that My Father is revealing to you, many heavenly works are still hidden and are but mysteries to you... [source; in the footnotes, Vassula identifies "Hades" and "healing them" as referring to those in Purgatory]

And again:

daughter, today you will follow Me in the dark dominion of My foe to see how those souls who refused Me suffer;

Jesus, are they lost?

those in hell are, but those in purgatory are saved with love by My beloved ones who make prayers and amend; do not fear for My Light protects you and I am with you; [source]

WRITER'S NOTE: Purgatory is a belief solely held within Roman Catholicism. No Protestant church believes it as dogma, and the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in it at all. It is generally agreed upon by the majority of Christian denominations and churches that this belief came long after the apostles and grew solely within the Roman Church. It is considered neither Orthodox nor orthodox. Many Vassula supporters (even non-Catholics) have tried to justify the doctrine of Purgatory, forgetting the very belief itself is heresy. Many more try to separate from Vassula's words, claiming she is not talking about Purgatory. As shown in an earlier quotation, Vassula herself identifies the revelation's wording as referring to Purgatory and those within.

Perhaps one of the strangest parts of the messages is that the vision of Christ does not seem to understand the Trinity. One example:

Jesus, You do not really need anybody, especially me!

no, I do not need anybody, I suffice by Myself; but do I not share everything I have with you? I am your Saviour, your Healer, your Father, your Spouse; I am your God who will never ever abandon you... [source]

And again:

daughter, I always loved you, but you had forgotten Me; I yearned to be loved by you, to hear you call Me Father; [source]

And again:

Vassula, love is love; I want you to love Me without restraint; I am your Holy Father who loves you intimately; approach Me and love Me intimately; I want to be intimate with you... [source]

At one point, the vision of Jesus even reprimands Vassula for not calling Him Father.

Vassula why, why were you avoiding calling Me Father? Vassula I love being called Father; I am Father of all humanity;

I love you, Father.

I love you too; [source]

Christ is her Father? We should call Him Father? Not even the apostles were told this!

At one point, Vassula admits confusion about the calling of Jesus Father. The vision returns and confronts her about this, explaining it.

(Here I felt embarrassed. I still do not understand, who is the Father, and what is the difference between the Father and Jesus. If He refers to God the Father, then how could Jesus say He is also Father?)

listen Vassula, give your attention to Me; learn that God and I am One; I am the Father and the Son; now, do you understand? I am One, I am All in One, I am All in One,

You are all in one?!

I am;...

(Here I thought it would be difficult to understand and write down as also the question of Holy Spirit was in my mind too.)

let us try; the Holy Spirit comes from Me; do you understand now? all in One, the Holy Trinity is One; you can call Me Father too; Wisdom comes from Me, I am Wisdom too; [source]

On the surface it may be hard to discern what is happening here, as Christians do believe that God is one. The problem, however, is two-fold:

First, Vassula claims that the vision of Jesus says "the Holy Spirit comes from Me" - this is the filioque, or believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son, which was added to the Nicene Creed by the Roman Church and has been condemned by Eastern Orthodoxy ever since (Photios, patriarch of constantinople in the 9th century, wrote an entire book against it). We must therefore ask, again, if Vassula claims to be Eastern Orthodox, why does she hold up so many non-Orthodox beliefs?

Second, the entire explanation is very modalist in tone. Modalism, remember, believed that God was One Being revealed through three "modes," much like ice can be solid, liquid and air at one point or another but not all at once. God is one, this vision of Jesus says, and therefore He may be called Father. Yet in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, God is one Being revealed through three distinct Persons - you cannot call the Son by Father because only the Father is Father, just as you could not call the Father the Son, because only the Son is Son. The Persons in the Trinity, while being united in Essence, are still distinct from one another.

Therefore, whatever this is teaching her the Trinity...it cannot be God.

WRITER'S NOTE: This is one of the greatest signs to me that, if Vassula claims a role similar to a prophet, she is a false one. To say that Jesus "is the Father and the Son" contradicts 2000 years of orthodox Christian thought. In speaking with Vassula's followers, I have continually seen them ignore her own words, and either claim she never makes the argument or (sometimes in the same breath) attempt to defend calling Jesus "father" by distorting scripture. When pressed to address what Vassula herself says or what scripture really means, this defense falls apart.

It should be noted that not only did Vassula have visions of Jesus, but visions of the Virgin Mary as well. Here is one such conversation, which leads to a strange announcement:

remember, daughter, Wisdom has brought you up; do realise why;

It is not just for me? All this, it's meant for others, too?

yes, you are being formed to be God's bearer;

I do not know how to be God's bearer.

God has preached to you and has taught you to love Him; trust Him for His riches are innumerable and His Mercy unfathomable; He loves you with ineffable tenderness and watches over you with loving eyes; every heavenly word lives forever; [source]

God's bearer? This is a sign that if Vassula ever was Orthodox, she forgot what she was taught. God's bearer is what the Virgin Mary is - her title, Theotokos, literally means "God bearer," and she is the only one. Even if Vassula is not speaking in this context, her use of the phrase is completely erroneous. Incidentally, Vassula also refers to the Virgin Mary as "St. Mary"...Eastern Orthodox do not consider her one of the saints, again calling into question how orthodox her Orthodoxy is.

The vision of Christ tells Vassula that he will give her secrets:

I will continue My teachings in giving you a secret; Vassula take your scrap book; fear not for My teachings come from Wisdom, all mysteries have not yet been revealed; all works are given to those who know how to love Me;

(I will take my scrap-book now ... Jesus gave me the secret. Then He said: "I will reveal many more hidden works to you." That was the third secret.) [source]

Then, like something out of the history of Islam or Mormonism, the vision of Jesus tells Vassula to read from a book He possesses and she is unable to.

(You have a book? which You took out from Your mantle from the left side with Your right hand?)

I have a book;

(It's not very big.)

exactly, you are discerning well, Vassula; look inside and read what it says;

(I try, but I am not very good at it.)

It says...

My altar is you;

I can't Jesus, I can't figure out the rest!

try again, My altar upon which I will...

(I can't see. I think I'm reading wrong!) [source]

The identity of the book book is later revealed:

...its cover is golden; look inside it and read, "I will make of you My altar, upon which I will place My burning desires of My Heart, My Flame will live within you; be drawing from My Heart and fill your heart; I, the Lord, will keep My Flame ablaze for ever and ever;"... [source]

Vassula is the alter of Christ? Christ's alter is the cross, upon which He died as the final sacrifice for God's people.

Also peculiar is how the vision of Christ claims she receives the revelations.

Vassula, I desire that My words be known by many; words that come directly from My lips, for all the revelations I breathed into you are from Me [source]

Christ breathed into Vassula the revelation? The revelations are god-breathed? Such a title is solely reserved for scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

The revelations continue from here, with many events such as a visit to God's "holy abode" and seeing the gates of Purgatory near Hell (source), but I think from here we should look and see how Vassula applies her revelations and influence.

The Messages in Application

From these messages comes Vassula's teachings, all of which center on love and unity, even across denominational lines. She teaches that all Churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) should unite, and that to keep divided is to follow the devil. In one interview she even said that "Christians are in sin because of their division...lay people and Church authorities have to humble them selves and unite" (source).

She also teaches interfaith dialogue...and, unfortunately, preaches universalism. Her message, she says, is one for all mankind (ibid), which even extends to non-Christians. Though this is not always clear, some of it came out in a speech she gave at an interfaith conference:

As a Christian I believe that our Creator created us all from His Sublime Love to be able to return this love and live holy, as He is holy. We are all equal before God' eyes. St. Paul says there is no Jew nor Greek, slave or free man, man or woman. All, in the Eyes of God, are one. Those who are in different religions are no less creatures made in the image of God and destined ultimately to live in the house of God...

And as one of our Greek Bishops said to us in Egypt in an inter-religious pilgrimage we had, I will take his words and quote them: "as we gathered today in the Church under the same dome and we didn't differentiate Christians from non-Christians or of other religions. From today we will announce to the whole world that men can live in reconciliation as long as they learn to love first their God, whoever He is, whatever His Name is, and then I'm certain that love for their fellowman will spring up as well..." [source]

The apostle Paul would certainly be shocked to hear her using his words of equality among Christians as equaling salvific equality along interfaith lines, which was not Paul's point at all and completely contradicts his ministry. Paul does say there is neither Greek nor Jew, etc, but he says this is because they are all one in Christ (Gal 3:28). To say that men simply need to love "their" God "whoever He is" and they are "destined ultimately to live in the house of God" contradicts Christ's statement that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one gets to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It also contradicts His warning that any one who denies Him will be denied before the angels of God (Luke 12:9).

Such blatant distortion of scripture cannot come from a messenger of God. Such ready acceptance of false religions over the living faith of God is further evidence that her message cannot come from God. If she is indeed speaking to an angel, it is not an angel of God. If there is anything within her teachings that confirms to me that she is a false prophet, this is one of the strongest.

WRITER'S NOTE: I would just like to reiterate here that this is also one of the biggest signs to me that Vassula is a false messenger. Universalism is a heresy through and through. It was a heresy at the time of the apostles, and it is a heresy now. It is one of the most dangerous heresies for it denies the sovereignty of God and permits error. Vassula supporters often ignore this part of her ministry, but, like her confusion of the Trinity, it is one that cannot be ignored.

Many times the tenant of Vassula's preaching seem to be her messages, or inspiration from them. Indeed, some of her speeches (such as this one) seem to quote her own messages just as much as scripture. They are treated with equal authority. She states opinions given in her messages and states that it "belongs to God and comes from God" (ibid), and therefore must be followed. In a speech to Bangladeshis, she says that they should feel honored that "God chose their country to reveal His message of 'peace, reconciliation, unity and love'" (source) as if Bangladesh is on par with Jerusalem. She also said that God "told her from the beginning of this revelation that the messages of True Life in God will spread all over the world. A prophecy that is being fulfilled!" (ibid) At the beginning of this post I mentioned the prophet Daniel, and it should be noted here that the only people who received revelation from God were prophets, and what God handed down was usually written into scripture and made canon. When you hear the words, "God said to me," it's usually quoting from a prophet in the Old Testament. When these words are spoken in our modern times, we have to be careful.

Some Eastern Orthodox who support Vassula might interject and point out that the Church Fathers and those considered saints of the church often claimed to have spoken to an angel or even Christ. Of course, few of these saints ever claimed their sightings to be a canonical revelation (on par with Isaiah, Ezekiel or others), nor claimed that they were being given messages non-stop to spread love to mankind. Anthony the Great, for example, is said to have spoken to Christ, but it was simply to give him strength and was more a personal matter between himself and God - the encounter itself was not the basis of his preaching which was the gospel that had been handed down to him.

The problem with the Church Fathers might be that they were all "'bureaucrats', 'bookish' and 'technical' theologians," who did not "give space to the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to them" so that they could have "an intimate relationship with God," as only then could they be able "to serve God and His people, as He wants them to." Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and John Damascene would all be saddened to know that personal revelations trumped their hard work and dedication to studying the scripture of their faith.

Does she have ecclesiastical support?

Most notable on Vassula's website is the page featuring supposed statements from various religious leaders showing support for her cause (source). She also includes "testimonies" from various clergy from various churches (source). Is this the case? It would seem sad, given that there are some large names there, especially among the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Yet is this truly the case? Does she have widespread support among the various Churches? Deeper research proves otherwise. It's interesting to note that, while she claims to be Greek Orthodox, the Orthodox Church in Greece has declared her self-excommunicated:

The Committee, having examined the evidence, has reached the conclusion that Vassula Ryden has expelled herself from the Orthodox Church, although she still presents herself as a member.

In addition it should be known that the Church periodical "Dialogos" in its issues number 14 and 17...has printed extensive reports regarding Vassula Ryden's organization.

Vassula asked the Greek Minister of Justice to bring to trial for slander and libel both the Secretary of the Greek Orthodox Synodal Commission on Heresies, Fr. Kyriakos Tsouros, and the Church publication. The trial was scheduled for 30 June 2000; however Ryden withdrew the charge two days before the hearing. [Dialogos, issue number 25, page 32, 2001; quoted from here]

WRITER'S NOTE: In a humorous example of bad apologetics, I've had Vassula supporters respond to the statement that she has been cut off from the Greek Church with, "She's not excommunicated but self-excommunicated"...as if that's somehow better! This makes about as much sense as responding to the statement someone is dead with, "No, you're wrong, they're not dead because they committed suicide rather than get murdered."

In addition, many Eastern Orthodox officials do not believe her word has any real validity, nor should it be taken seriously.

In 1996, Mons. Damaskinos declared that Vassula Ryden, in the eyes of all those who are considered as the authentic bearers and continuers of the tradition of the Orthodox Church, was opposing the conscience of that Church which believes that Divine Revelation has been achieved once and for all through the Apostles. He also criticized in that occasion the attitude of the seer, who had organized a broadly advertised meeting on the same date that the Geneva Churches and Christian communities had scheduled their annual gathering for the Christian Unity Week. [ibid]

And again:

In 1995, Fundacion SPES of Argentina asked the representative of the Greek Orthodox Church in that country about the case of Vassula Ryden. The answer was given by Fr. Demonstenes in the name of Mons. Gennadios Chrysoulakys. He stated that the Greek Orthodox Church does not recognize any voice outside the established ecclesiastical hierarchy and if Mrs. Ryden has something to communicate, she should do it through the hierarchy. [ibid]

Even Coptic Orthodox have attacked her:

1. In receiving the sacraments at altars other than those of the Orthodox Church [justifying this by quoting the Decree Orientarium Ecclesiarum of Vatican II], Mrs Ryden is disregarding Orthodox canonical discipline which forbids it.

2. Mrs Ryden should seek the canonical permission and blessing of the local Orthodox hierarch having jurisdiction in each place, prior to addressing public meetings, rather than act in the face of their sometimes expressed opposition and criticism.

3. Until such time as a canonical Orthodox hierarchy is able to make a detailed and full examination of the messages received by Mrs. Ryden, they should be regarded with grave caution and their authority attributed solely to the views and aspirations of Mrs Ryden herself, rather than any angelic, saintly or divine source. [taken from this website]

In addition to this:

...the statement in the True Life in God UK Newsletter No. 6 (November 2005) that His Eminence Abba Seraphim along with H.M. Queen Elisabeth II and the Archbishop of Canterbury, "sent us their good wishes for the meeting" is untrue. [ibid]

Roman Catholic officials have also criticized her. Here is a letter sent by the Archbishop of Monterrey to his flock:

An invitation of the True Life in God group and of the Dos Sagrados Corazones Prayer Groups [Two Sacred Hearts prayer groups] is circulating in the Archdiocesan community of Monterrey, regarding their January 30 and 31 retreat-conference at the Best Western Valle Real Hotel with Mrs Vassula Ryden (Greek Orthodox) and "renowned Catholic priests". I therefore consider it my pastoral duty to make the following declaration:

1) First of all I must clarify that I was not previously informed of this event.

2) The True Life in God group and the Dos Sagrados Corazones Prayer groups are not registered nor recognized by the archdiocesan commission of lay people [Comisión Arquidiocesana de Laicos – CAL].

3) In accordance with repeated notifications from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on some essential points of Mrs Vassula Ryden's writings, I cannot authorize the spreading of her writings and teachings in our local Church of Monterrey.

4) Regarding the "renowned Catholic priests" who are supposedly participating in this event, since we do not know who they are, from where they come nor to which Diocese they belong, they are not authorized to exercise the sacerdotal ministry in this Archdiocese. [source]

In one article, Vassula mentions meeting dozens of Catholic bishops in India on the subject of Christian unity, and hints that she received support from them. The bishops were later written to by inquisitive minds, and the following responses were received from two:

Bishop Thomas Mar Koorilos, recently appointed to the office of Metropolitan Archbishop of Tiruvalla, wrote that Mrs Ryden was not invited by [the KCBC] to address the conference. She was visiting Kerala and then she requested for a word to speak to the bishops which our chairman has allowed, that is all (private mail dated July 18, 2007).

Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Mar Thomas, Auxiliary Bishop of Trivandrum and recently appointed Apostolic Visitator in charge of the Malankara Catholic Community in North America and Europe, added that it was not intended to support her or to promote her preaching. On the contrary the Bishops council gave her an opportunity to present her faith before the prelates clergy, religious and the selected laity so that they must get a first hand knowledge about her teaching. The general conclusion was that her teaching was questionable and therefore [the KCBC] is not endorsing her. Hence the matter is over and we are fully following the teaching of the magisterium of our Church (private mail dated July 18, 2007). [source]

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, renowned Catholic scholar and apologist, has commented on Vassula himself. He wrote on his experiences in an article entitled "The Spirit of a Prophetess." The very opening of the article alone is frightening:

Vassula had asked me to examine all five volumes of her published notebooks for problematic statements. She suggested that notes could be added to later editions to correct any confusing or imprecise statements about Christ. I read her books, wrote my notes, and in the fall of 1992 sent them to her spiritual advisor, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp., for his response.

I then received a call from Fr. O’Carroll, who was then promoting a trip by Vassula. Father O’Carroll strongly suggested I not publish my findings. He said I showed “not one single sign of Christian charity”...

What I particularly did not like about Fr. O’Carroll’s subsequent letter was its spiritual threat (which also appears in Vassula’s writings): “Since your article and the distress, the real hurt, it inflicted on Vassula, God the Father has spoken to her. He is very severe on those who oppose her. This [book] will be published." [source]

Pacwa rightfully attacks the confusion of the Trinity that Vassula (or her angel) seems to portray:

In Vassula’s own handwriting (the handwriting in the notebooks changes depending on who is speaking) she calls Jesus the Father, and so does “Jesus” on numerous occasions. He also says “I am your Holy Father,” and writes, “Little one call Me Abba” and in Greek, “call Me Baba”; “say, Abba to Me every now and then”; and “Come in your Father’s arms.” “Jesus” instructs people to pray to him, “You are the-One-God-and-Only, the Just One, you are indeed the Lamb, You are our Heavenly Father.” Still more problematical are the times “Jesus” writes statements like “the Father and I are One and the same.”

“Jesus” responds to those who would criticize Vassula for calling him Father: “If they accuse you because you call Me Father it is because they have not understood that the Spirit of Love you received and speaks through you, brings you peace and love to cry out: Abba!” This fails to answer the objections about calling Jesus “Father” or to remove the confusion among the divine Persons which Vassula introduces. [ibid]

It seems therefore that her claims of approval among the general Christian faithful do not hold water.

Many times it seems that when she receives support or words of kindness from leaders, they admit later that they were not aware of who she was. This is very similar to the trend among Evangelical pastors who readily supported Gail Riplinger's KJV-Only book New Age Bible Versions, only to later admit that they had never read it.

WRITER'S NOTE: This section has also received harsh criticism from Vassula supporters. Some have responded by simply name-dropping various church officials, both Catholic and Orthodox, who have supported Vassula, as if the approval of men equals the approval of God. This borderline argumentum ad populum, however, cannot be a rational reason to consider someone a valid messenger of God. If this were so, then Arius would be a great Christian leader, because at one point nearly the entire Roman Empire, high ranking bishops included, supported him and his heresy. Still others try to find some personal fault in the ecclesiastical bodies or personalities who have criticized her. This has been found, under scrutiny, to simply be character attacking without documentation or evidence. Even more shocking than this may be the threatening position some people take with her critics within the church; an email I received stated: "You will not find a lot written negative by high Greek Orthodox officials about Vassula. They know better. They at least have the discernment to remain quiet."

Conclusion

Vassula claims she works in the interest of the Church. She claims to be Eastern Orthodox. She claims to have God teaching her, training her, and giving her understanding for passages of scripture. She claims to know Jesus on a personal level. Yet she claims that Christ calls her his bride, a title solely reserved for the Church and the Church alone within the context of Eastern Orthodoxy. She distorts scripture to suit her personal philosophy. She seems to present revelation based around her universalist and politically correct world view. Her messages seem to be Emergent modernist thinking mixed with the revelation style of St. Brigitte. All in all, I do not even know if I would call her a true Christian in any sense, let alone a true "prophet."

I can see many interjecting here that she is doing nothing wrong, as she is merely preaching that people love each other - how could that not come from God? The problem is that prophecy and prophethood given in a time when the era of prophets is over cannot be considered sincere. Furthermore, this love which Vassula focuses on and preaches across interfaith lines is simply an easy "feel good" love that even atheist hippies would agree with. It is not the love of God transmitted to humankind, for how can it be? It allows the denial of God within its universalism. Love is good, yes, but like all things love can be distorted and used for evil. Maximos the Confessor warned that "demons attack us invisibly in the guise of spiritual friendship, pretending that they want to accomplish the death of sin by means of which in themselves are good" [Third Century on Theology, 78].

Let us ask ourselves, what is the situation of these revelations? A woman with no strong theological education, using occult methods of communication, begins to speak to an "angel" who gives her a revelation that quite often contradicts the scripture she admits to not being familiar with beforehand. No where else could I find a more fitting place to quote the warning from Peter of Damascus, found in the Philokalia:

There is nothing astonishing in the fact that the devil assumes the form of "an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14), for the thoughts that he sows in us also appear to be righteous when we lack experience. [Book II, Chapter IX]

One begs to question whether or not Vassula truly believes all this. Is it all an elaborate hoax? If so, she is guilty of blaspheming God and deceiving perhaps thousands. If, however, she truly has received visits from spiritual forces and is deceived, I pray that God will free her from this deception. In the meantime, many are being deceived by her supposed revelations, and we must fight this with education and sincere love from our sincere God.

There is a famous quote by the apostle Paul in Peter Damascene's warning, one that I'm sure many reading this have been thinking the whole time. I will end the blog with the full passage of scripture, quoted in context:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14; ESV]

WRITER'S NOTE: Comments to this post are closed. Responding to this on other posts will result in a deletion of your comment. If you would like to discuss this matter, for or against, feel free to email me by the address on the right side of this blog.

------------------------

EDIT - MARCH 17, 2011: The Ecumenical Patriarchy of the Greek Orthodox has finally stepped in and decided they've had enough of Vassula, and her and her followers have henceforth been removed from communion. The link to the individual proclamation can be found here.

A very special hat-tip to John Sanidopoulos for sharing the news, as well as for supplying the following translation:

Hence, we call upon the proponents of these unacceptable innovations and the supporters who maintain them, who henceforth are not admitted to ecclesiastical communion, not only to not be involved in the pastoral work of the local Holy Metropolis, but also to not preach their novel teachings, to prevent the appropriate sanctions under the Holy Canons.