Talking about IHOP-KC: My Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

Recently I was asked to come on the Long for Truth podcast to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. We talked about a variety of topics, from Bickle's teaching of a Kenotic Jesus to what IHOP-KC teaches on the power of prayer, as well as a bit on prophecy and what Bickle teaches it means. I pray that God uses to reach out to His sheep and save them from false doctrine.

The original blog post can be found here, over at the Long for Truth blog.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "The Dangers of Mike Bickle Part 2 With Tony Allen" on Spreaker.

A Simple Review of "War Room"

Introduction

Last year, my wife and I watched the 2015 Christian film War Room, made by Alex and Stephen Kendrick. Just the usual warning of any detailed review: there are gonna be lots and lots of spoilers here. If you haven't seen the movie, and you don't want to know how it ends, if there are any twists, etc., then don't read this review. If you don't care, continue on - just don't say I didn't warn you.

It should be noted that, before watching this movie, my wife and I were big Kendrick Brothers fans. We own Flywheel, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and Courageous on DVD and Blu-Ray (depending on the availability). I'm not hugely fond of modern "Christian" films, but the Kendrick Brothers' movies were the rare exception. If you want an example of how highly I can praise one of their films, go and read my review of their first film, Flywheel. The point of me saying all this is we didn't go in ready to bash this movie - while we had heard some questionable things about it, we had an open mind, and a past experience of glowing opinions regarding the Kendrick Brothers' work. As it turned out, watching this film was a completely different experience for us entirely.

In the DVD commentary, the Kendrick Brothers say that the point of the movie is to teach that we fight our battles in prayer before anything else. Does it live up to that? Does it live up as a movie? Let's talk about this...

Plot Summary

The story centers around a couple by the name of Tony and Elizabeth Jordan, who have a young daughter, Danielle. Tony works for a pharmaceutical company, while Elizabeth handles real estate. Not all is rosy in the Jordan household: Tony and Elizabeth are constantly fighting, mainly because Elizabeth sends money to her deadbeat brother-in-law, to Tony's disapproval. Furthermore, Danielle feels ignored by both her parents, who seem to show no interest in her lifestyle. To make matters worse, a woman at Tony's job begins to show a blatant interest in him, and he reciprocates.

Then Elizabeth goes to appraise the house of an elderly woman named Clara Williams. Clara is a widow, whose husband Leo had served in the army during the Vietnam War. Clara takes a liking to Elizabeth and invites her over for coffee. While they have coffee, Clara confronts Elizabeth about her familial and spiritual situation, and tells her that she needs to fight back not against her husband, but what's harming her marriage. At this point, Clara presents her "war room," which is a regular closet she's transformed into a literal prayer closet. At first, Elizabeth doesn't take the idea of a "war room" seriously, but soon begins to post up Bible verses on the wall, praying in earnest for much of the day, etc. Suddenly she's alerted by a friend that Tony is at a restaurant with another woman. Elizabeth responds by praying for God to prevent Tony from doing anything drastic. This results in Tony having a stomachache that prevents him from sleeping with the adulteress.

Tony discovers, by looking in Elizabeth's texts, that she knows about the dinner with the woman, though he remains silent about it. He loses his job due to mishandling numbers and keeping some of the drugs for himself, but Elizabeth remains calm and understanding throughout. After reviewing his own life, Tony repents to Elizabeth and decides to be a better husband and father. This involves him getting involved in Danielle's jump rope competition, and admitting to his bosses that he had been making money on the side. The latter conflict is resolved because Coleman, one of the company heads, is overtaken with Tony's sincere repentance, and decides to overlook the crime. The former conflict is resolved when Danielle and Tony partake in the jump rope competition and come in second place. The film ends with Clara giving a long prayer asking God to raise up people who would be faithful to him; as she speaks, we see a montage of schools, sports fields, and even the Congress building. The End.

'Murica!

Storyline

As I watched, I couldn't help but think that everything we were witnessing had been done before. I started picking up things we had already seen in previous Kendrick Brothers movies. Some out there might give the "there's no actual 'original' story" argument, but my point here is that, if you've seen the other Kendrick Brothers movies, you'll notice a ton of rehashing in this one. As I watched with my wife, we both noticed many similarities with Flywheel, Fireproof, and Courageous. Don't believe me? Let me go through some of the things we noticed...

Here were some elements from Flywheel:

• There's a business-minded dad who is disrespectful to his wife, ignores his kid, hates going to church, and commits dishonest tactics at his workplace.
• The business-minded dad, after deciding to become a better Christian, wants to restore the wrong he did to those affected by his dishonest business practices. 
• There's a scene where a parent overhears their child telling another kid how much they don't respect their parents.

Here were some elements from Fireproof:

• An elderly person comes into the main character's life and saves the day with some practical idea.
• Best buds are seen sitting around a weight room, exercising and talking about the facts of life, including marital difficulties.
• The main character's best friend is a Christian that serves as his voice of reason and conscience.
• There's a "plot twist" involving the background of the elderly person and how the practical idea was related to their own personal life.

And here are some elements from Courageous:

• A character delivering drugs (in this case, legal drugs) keeps some to himself for profit, and later has to face up to the consequences for it.
• A character is faced with a tough moral question about their job which might lead them to getting fired or worse. (Though in this case, the character already was fired.)
• At the end of the movie, a character gives a big speech calling on people to action based on the moral of the film.

Ultimately, it comes across like the Kendrick Brothers wanted to promote "war room" theology, and just mixed plot elements from their previous films together to shoehorn it into a script. Indeed, much of the film feels like a bunch of ideas or elements strung together, with little time for the plot points to develop. This actually ends up hurting the movie, because you're constantly reminded that the previous films handled these issues better.

Here would be a good time to lament one of my biggest complaints about the movie: it just gets boring. It keeps dragging things out with one thing after another, to the point that you sit there wondering when it's going to end. The worst part is Danielle's jump rope competition - oh yeah, they show you all of it. It never felt like this important subplot that had to be resolved, and it doesn't offer anything for the characters other than for Danielle to proudly say "This is my dad!" (And even by then, we've already established she and her dad were on better terms, so it was completely unnecessary.) Even after this part is concluded, the film continues. I was seriously reminded of that episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 where Tom Servo asks, "Shouldn't this be over?" Some internet reviews have opined that the film feels like they finished the main conflict twenty minutes early, then padded the rest of the movie with filler - that's not too far off a description. Even during the final speech, you'll be screaming, "Kendrick Brothers! Let my people go!"

Actual Photo: My wife and I waiting for War Room to end

If you want to know just how disinterested in the story I was, let me tell a little anecdote. Shortly after the mugging scene (see below), two policemen speak with Elizabeth and Clara. One of them is played by Ben Davies, who also played the rookie deputy in Courageous. I was reminded of that character's story, with the cheerleader he had gotten pregnant, and the little girl he now wanted to be daddy to. I started to talk to my wife about how I hope he and the woman ended up together, and he did become a real father to his daughter. I started talking about how awesome the final shot of him stretching out his arm to offer a present to the girl was. I then realized that I had become much more emotionally invested in another movie than the movie I was actually watching - and all because of a minor character who's in there for a few seconds.

Most interesting character in the whole movie...and he's barely in it

That's how bored I was.

Characters

Usually in a Kendrick Brothers movie, I can relate to the characters, or feel for them. Here, their usually strong delivery simply falls flat, or doesn't succeed at all.

Let's talk about Tony. What do we know about him early on? He yells at his wife, ignores his kid, and is committing adultery. True, the main character in Flywheel (sans the adultery bit) did that too, but there was still some humanity about him; you could tell he was an everyday man who was struggling to support a family and a business, but he had begun to forget the authority of God, and hence the rest of his life was falling apart. By contrast, Tony gets very little character development for most of the movie - heck, we have zero reason to believe he's even a true Christian. The only real character development he gets is in the last third of the film, and it comes across as incredibly forced. You're ultimately only supposed to like him because, hey, he repented, and this is an Evangelical movie, and you're supposed to like someone after they repent. This is especially unfortunate because TC Stallings, who plays Tony (and who played the gang leader in Courageous), can indeed act, and in the few parts of the film where he's allowed to let Tony breathe, he does a good job.

Now let's also talk about Elizabeth. We're supposed to sympathize with her for her struggles. We're supposed to care about her. We're supposed to feel bad for what her husband's doing, and how her family is. The truth is, as my wife and I watched the film, neither of us felt any sympathy for her. I can list two big reasons for this:

First, Priscilla Shirer, who plays Elizabeth, just isn't that great of an actress. Her delivery isn't believable, even in the scenes where she's supposed to be showing some subtlety. For example, when her daughter admits that she's unsure if Elizabeth loves her, Priscilla Shirer barely shows any change of reaction, whereas most parents would surely have been at least a little bit affected. (I know I would feel absolutely heartbroken.) In all her crying scenes, it basically amounts to her staring at the camera with a blank expression while a single tear goes down her cheek. In the more comedic moments, her delivery is deadpan, and warrants no laughs. In fact, the only laughs from scenes with her are given by other characters. (For example, the delivery man and his "take your breath away" line.) It's not that she's the worst actress ever; it's just that, since you're supposed to care for Elizabeth, her acting doesn't help the other problems. What astounds me is the Kendrick Bros. say she did a great job, and Shirer herself was happy with the results. Why either of them came to this conclusion, I don't know.

Second, Elizabeth's sins and faults are on blatant display, and yet are never really repented of or rebuked, either by herself or others. She's disrespectful to her husband, who does have legitimate concern for how she's using their money without telling him. Her daughter admits that she feels just as ignored by her mom as she does her dad. Elizabeth admits her and Tony aren't sexually active, suggesting she doesn't show any sexual interest in him (and it's not like Fireproof, where they establish the husband was unrepentantly looking at pornography, hence the wife's own physical disinterest). She acts bitter and selfish when upset, as shown by one scene where she frightens Danielle's friend at the dinner table by repeatedly slamming her fork down on the plate. Point is, she has a lot of character to change, and yet the only fault given to her directly is "You don't pray enough." That's basically it. The only thing that comes close to a repentance scene is when her daughter admits she's unsure of Elizabeth's love, and mother and daughter give each other a hug. By contrast, Tony repents to Elizabeth, repents to Danielle, and repents to his boss. It's not that Tony didn't have anything to repent of, it's just that War Room has the same fault that many cite against Fireproof: all the focus is on the sins of the husband, and it's he who must repent, while the wife gets off with a slap on the wrist.

Some here might protest that Elizabeth does change during the movie; and indeed, she shows Tony more respect after she begins her prayer closet, rather than ragging on them all the time. It won't be denied something goes on with her, but there's still no visible repentance from her. That's it - a character change. Tony could have simply done a character change as well, but instead he's made to be in tears and apologize for everything he's done the entire movie. Elizabeth, by contrast, gets to skirt all this. Heck, even Clara, when talking about her deceased husband, talks about all the things she had to forgive him for, yet never talks about any of her own sins or transgressions. It's all on the men: men are the sinners who need to repent; women just need to change their attitudes, and they're good.

(By the way, before anyone wants to respond to this with "Thanks for mansplaining," I want to point out that, as we watched, the harshest criticisms against Elizabeth came not from my own masculine lips, but from the lips of my wife. She, even more than me, thought Elizabeth had to repent, and was failing in her role as mother and wife.)

Yet the biggest offender regarding characters who fail is, ironically, Clara. I say ironic, because she's supposed to be this wise, elderly sage who helps Elizabeth with her marriage, but in the end it only works out that way because the script says it does. Otherwise, she comes across as either creepy or intrusive. When Elizabeth is presenting a quote for her house, Clara begins asking about personal details about Elizabeth's religious and marital life, and won't stop even after Elizabeth makes it clear she feels uncomfortable. I'm a Christian who believes in the resurrected Savior and salvation through Christ alone, and even I thought the old bat was being nosy. Plus, all her humor scenes involve her rambling and babbling, and come across as a woman on the verge of going insane. I have a feeling they were trying to make her like the black woman in Flywheel, except whereas that woman was actually funny and likable, Clara is just senile and annoying.

To be fair, it's not just Clara who comes across as creepy. In fact, many scenes with characters, played for laughs, just come across as weird. The biggest offender is the scene where Danielle finds her mom eating and drinking in the prayer room. You're supposed to laugh at it, but Shirer's delivery, the bizarre nature of the whole situation, and the look of shock on Danielle and her friend, make the entire scene more creepy than entertaining. Seriously, take out the background music and start playing something like the Nightmare on Elm Street theme, and tell me it has the same humor as before. My wife and I left that sequence more confused than amused. I was reminded of a line from Mystery Science Theater 3000 where a movie attempted to be funny, and Tom Servo remarked, "That was supposed to make me sad, right?"

Theology

Putting cinematic themes and motifs aside, one of the biggest complaints lodged against the film was the theology found within. Much has been written on this already by men who are much more learned and godly than I (for example, an excellent commentary from Justin Peters), but I feel this to be an important topic to cover if we're going to review this movie in detail.

Let me quickly clarify, before I get into any theological criticism, that I firmly believe prayer is important. I don't think any Christian reading this post is going to deny that. We're commanded by scripture to pray, as a way of giving thanks, offering praise, or making requests to God. It is a duty of all Christians, and part of a healthy spiritual life should be a healthy prayer life. The only problem lies, as with any theological doctrine, in how far we take the power and means of prayer. Can we change God's mind with our prayer? Do we, as some Word of Faith heretics claim, give God permission to act on earth by prayer? Can God only do things if we pray for Him to do it, as some Hyper-Charismatic heretics teach?

If we're going to talk specifically about War Room and its theology of prayer, then we need to get to the big elephant in the room: the infamous devil rebuking scene. This scene happens shortly after Elizabeth begins her prayer room in earnest, and after she receives a text that Tony is with another woman. She steps out of her prayer room, then begins to directly address the devil, telling him that he no longer has power in this house. She then (I swear I'm not making any of this up) walks the devil out of her house, and tells him not to come back. (My wife literally responded with, "She freakin' walked the devil out of her house? What the freakin' crap!")

The problem is that this scene, and many others involving prayer, takes what is God's power and makes it ours. The Kendrick Bros., in the DVD commentary, defend this scene by saying that all Elizabeth is doing is what Jesus does in rebuking the devil. Yet why could Christ rebuke the devil, as he did during his temptations? This was because he was divine. He was God the Son incarnate. Contrast this with what Jude tells believers to do:

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” [Jude v. 9]

The best comparison I might make is with a retail employee dealing with an irate customer. If a customer gets super upset to the point of becoming insulting or derisive, the employee doesn't say "Get out of my store!" Rather, the employee says "Talk to my manager," and the manager can kick the person out of the store - a store which he, not the employee, manages. Likewise, if we feel temptations from Satan, we rest on the authority and power of God, not by any personal commands from ourselves (even if "in Jesus' name"). I don't have any authority to rebuke the devil - I pray to God that He save me from such times, just as Michael the archangel did before Satan. In fact, the idea that we can go around fighting Satan while tossing in Christ's name reminds me of the counter-rebuke from the demoniac in Acts: "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"

Some might try to appeal to the verse appealed to in the movie: just before her meltdown, Elizabeth reads James 4:7, which reads (in the NASB): "Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The script interprets this verse quite literally, as if we're supposed to get up and start attacking Satan. The truth of the matter is the film takes the verse out of context and applies it in too broad a way, as often happens in Pop Evangelicalism. Here is a fuller context for verse 7 (the verse itself is in bold):

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. [James 4:1-10]

James is not talking about prayer closets. He's not talking about jumping up and running around the house screaming at the devil. Rather, James is talking about personal sin struggles. James is addressing those who might be creating quarrels and conflicts because of their personal sins and desires. By doing so, the people had been creating two authorities in their life: the world (which gave them what they wanted), and Christ. You cannot, however, have two masters; as James himself says, friendship with the world is enmity with God. James, however, gives hope to the convicted Christian reading these verses: God gives grace to the humble - that is, those who can see their errors. Therefore, he commands them to "submit to God" (rather than to the world). Of course, submitting to the world will bring about temptations from our previous worldly desires. When this happens, we then "resist the devil" - that is, submit further to God, and fight against these temptations. God will not abandon us in this struggle. With this in mind, James gives the commands for believers to "cleanse their hands," "purify their hearts," etc.

The point of this is that War Room not only forgets the model scripture plainly gives us in dealing with the devil, but it misinterprets a verse about personal struggles and applies it to a much larger meaning. As a result, the film tells Christians that they can, by an extended authority, go around cussing out the devil and kicking him out of places. The fact is, the only authority we have is God's, and we rely on that and not our own. Likewise, James 4:7 does not give us a right to engage in such spiritual warfare, but to turn to God in our more troubling moments of sanctification.

Another problematic scene, directly related to this, is the mugger scene. When confronted by a man with a knife, Clara tells him, "Put the knife down, in the name of Jesus." What happens next? Without any hesitation, the mugger lowers his knife. End scene. That's it. My wife and I had to pause the DVD a moment because of how dumbfounded we were. The Kendrick Brothers claim that such situations really do happen, and can be verified with news stories. I'm aware of such stories, and while certainly people have driven off muggers by witnessing, it's been a lot more complicated than simply demanding they put the knife down. Yet here, by a mere command, a man with a knife just gives up.

Putting this aside, there's the whole issue of the importance of a prayer closet. The Kendrick Brothers clarify in the DVD commentary that the idea of a "war room" is not to say you need a prayer room in the house, but merely a private place to pray. The problem is, such a general teaching isn't taught in the movie itself. Everything happens, and the blessings pour out, because of the "war room" used by the characters. The causal effect is not a more God-centered life, but the "war room" all the characters participate in. Even Danielle starts to have her own "war room," and finds her wishes fulfilled. Near the end of the movie, a pastor walks into Clara's prayer room and says he knows it's a prayer room because it "feels like it's baked in" - in other words, this film makes a connection between prayer closets and what one might call "Evangelical mysticism."

In fact, there's so much mysticism or psychic-like ability given to the Clara character that one expects her to be turned into an Eastern Orthodox icon by the end of the film. One scene even jokingly acts like Clara can see things though she's not there. She's given this aura like she has some sixth sense thanks to her extensive prayer life.

There is likewise the ending of the movie, which feeds into the Evangelical mentality of how we need to in essence pray our problems away. Again, I'm not minimizing the importance of prayer, but God doesn't expect us to pray and then wait for things to happen. The medieval Poles, upon approaching Vienna, were definitely praying to Christ... they were also readying their spears to charge headlong into the Muslim hordes. The problem is modern Christianity treats prayer as if by doing so there'll be another outpouring of the Spirit, or God is going to miraculously do something while we sit back and twiddle our fingers. This is why you have Evangelicals who on the one hand want revival in America, and yet on the other hand want lots of Muslims to invade America so we can convert them. While the Kendrick Brothers would probably accuse me of misrepresenting how they were trying to represent prayer, that's nonetheless how it comes across in the film. Even the movie poster advertises itself with "Prayer is a powerful weapon." No - God's a powerful weapon, and our prayers are an appeal to Him to utilize Himself given the circumstances.

These aren't the only theological problems with the film. One problem I didn't expect was in regards to submission. Obviously, we've established the disrespect shown by Elizabeth towards her husband, both in her attitude, how she speaks to others about him, and how she handles their finances. Another problem in her character's attitude of a relationship to her husband is heard in a scene with Beth Moore. Yes, that Beth Moore. If you don't know who Beth Moore is, you just need to know she's a heretical Evangelical pastrix who thinks God gives her private revelations, and who literally teaches women to read themselves into Bible passages about other women. If you don't know what she looks like, or just how crazy she is, here's a hint:

But returning to War Room, Beth Moore plays Elizabeth's boss. While they're talking about her marital problems, Beth Moore delivers this line:

"Sometimes submission is learning to duck so God can hit your husband."

I shared this line with someone else, who promptly responded with, "That is smug as heck!" Want to know something even more astounding? The Kendrick Brother told Beth Moore to just be herself in that role... and it was her who made up that "submission" line. Yes, that's right - the line wasn't originally in the script, but they let it stay in the film. This, despite the fact that the line is absolutely terrible. It's an example of the soft feminism so rampant in Evangelicalism today, which otherwise likes to pretend it's free of any form of feminism. It's just a Christian version of the tendency among secular women to laugh at their husbands and treat them like idiot manchildren.

Let me put it this way. Suppose you had a scene where some Christian men were hanging around the office, complaining about how disrespectful their wives are. Imagine one of the men saying with a smirk, "Sometimes 'nurturing' is stepping back and letting God make an ass out of your wife." Of course, all the soft feminists in modern Evangelicalism would be in an uproar - "Boo hoo that's mean be nice to women blah blah blah." Yet here the Kendrick Brothers (who emphasized the need for husbands to be respected in their DVD commentary for Flywheel) have permitted that kind of terrible theology to seep into their film.

And such an erroneous line was sourced to a heretic - who would've thought?

(Once again, let me do a little "mansplaining" here. After that line was delivered, the most vociferous reaction came not from my own XY-chromosome lips, but from my wife. She was utterly horrified by that line, and found it offensive.)

How It Should Have Been

It's easy to rant and rave against a movie, but it's another to suggest how problems can be fixed. The sad thing is that, as I pondered on the movie after watching it, I realized that somewhere in here is a good movie. Let me present how I think it should have gone down instead...

We start with Elizabeth and Tony Jordan. Tony works for a pharmaceutical company, while Elizabeth works in real estate. They have a daughter, Danielle, who is working on a jump rope competition. Tony and Elizabeth are having struggles, both in balancing their careers and family time, as well as Elizabeth sending money to her deadbeat brother. This leads the two to fight. Meanwhile, at work, Tony is receiving praise and attention from a woman, who is clearly showing interest in him. 

Elizabeth meets Clara, and the two share coffee over the appraising. They start to bond, and Elizabeth opens up more and more about her family. Meanwhile, Tony and the office woman are bonding more emotionally as well. Tony is starting to struggle with how far he takes this connection, given problems at home. At home, Danielle starts begging Tony to help her with jump rope practices, but he continually refuses, because of his work schedule. 

While walking about, Elizabeth and Clara are mugged at knife-point. Clara shows absolutely no fear, despite the mugger's attempts to frighten her. She begins to witness to the mugger, about his sin and the death due to him for it. The mugger eventually feels guilty and leaves in a hurry. Clara explains to Elizabeth that she is strong in her faith and life eternal with Christ, and hence she isn't afraid of death. This makes Elizabeth more interested in Clara's religious life, and she begins to reflect on her own. She comes to a realization that she has forgotten about God's authority in her life, and she tearfully submits to God, praying for renewed strength in her life. 

The Jordan home environment starts to change. Elizabeth tries to help Danielle out for her jump rope competition, although she makes it clear she wants her daddy to help. Elizabeth repents to Tony for how she had been treating him, and promises to be include him in their decision-making. Tony isn't sure yet how to respond to this, and still struggles with temptations to commit adultery. Elizabeth's humility, in fact, creates a spiritual struggle of his own, making him want to become more involved with his family. One night, while Tony works late, he is texted by both Elizabeth and the other woman, both of whom are in essence offering to give him late-night company. Tony struggles in his office, torn between marital loyalty and his fleshly desires...but finally decides to go home to his wife. He arrives and they cuddle, showing affection for the first time in the movie. 

When he goes in the next day, Tony is laid off from his job. He becomes a broken man, feeling useless without the one thing that he had found purpose in. Elizabeth gives him tenderness, promising to stay by his side. Moved by her kindness and love, Tony apologizes for how he had been treating her, and asks for forgiveness for his attitude. He then goes to Danielle and promises to assist her with her jump rope competition. After much practice, Danielle, Tony, and the rest of the jump rope team perform at the competition, with Elizabeth and Clara in attendance. They win first place, and head home, where they have a special dinner, and give a prayer of thanks to God for all that has happened recently, good or bad. Roll credits.

Alright, I'll be the first to admit this may not be the most perfect story idea ever written. However, I'm sure others who share my view on the film would agree it's at least a much better delivery than what was offered in War Room. The ironic thing is that, as I thought more and more on how to make the story better, I realized that any idea completely removed the "prayer room" subplot.

There was plenty more in the movie that seemed like a drive-by concepts that could have been expanded upon. For example, a nightmare sequence has Tony trying to save his wife from a mugger, only to turn the mugger around and see it's actually him. This sequence comes out of nowhere and feels like a forced attempt to build on Tony's character after an hour-and-a-half of no development. What the Kendrick Bros. could have done instead was show that Tony was concerned about Elizabeth's mugger episode, but was trying to act tough to hide his sincere concern. Throughout the film, Tony could have nightmares about Elizabeth and the mugger, and every time he has the dream, he gets closer and closer to the mugger. The next-to-last dream has him waking up just before the mugger's identity is revealed. Then, with the last dream, he sees that the thing harming his wife is actually him. It would make the sequence feel less disjointed, and it would show that Tony does indeed care for his wife, even if he's trying to conceal it.

Point is, there was definitely potential in this film, and much of it was wasted on prayer room silliness and plot points that are introduced but not developed enough.

Concluding Thoughts

At this point, I'm not certain what else to say about the film that I've already clarified. It's boring, poorly written, shoddily acted, unoriginal, and presents dangerous theology. Oh yeah, and it has Beth Moore.

As I wrote at the beginning, my wife and I started out as big Kendrick Brothers fans... but by the end of this, we were both feeling disappointed. I'm not going to sit here and claim all their films are absolutely perfect (I doubt they would, either), but compared to most films in the "American Christian" market, they were of a higher quality than what you would find on late-night TBN or Daystar. This film, by comparison, was just weak. If the Kendrick Brothers decide to make another movie, good on them - but I hope they'll put far more effort and time into it than they did with War Room.

Then again, considering this movie apparently made triple its budget back, maybe bad theology is much more marketable...

Variety Episode 2

In this episode we have Jennifer LeClaire, involved with the International House of Prayer, speaking on a "breaker anointing" in Kentucky, and Joyce Meyer, a Prosperity Gospel teacher, defending female pastors; we listen and review both on today's episode.



Here is the link to the Jennifer LeClaire video.

Here is the link to the Joyce Meyer video.

Are Christians commanded to pray for Jerusalem?

Before I begin this post, let me make it clear there is nothing wrong with praying for cities. Whether it's your hometown, New York City, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, etc., that's fine. Jerusalem is included in this list. It is perfectly fine to pray that God would protect a city, bring revival to a city, protect believers in a city, have mercy on a city, etc. Again, Jerusalem is included in this list.

The question is...are Christians told by scripture to pray specifically for Jerusalem?

I recently encountered a gentleman on Twitter (his identity is not vitally important) who said that "we are told in the Bible to pray for two cities 1) your own city 2) Jerusalem." The obvious inference was in regards to the current crisis in the Middle East regarding Hamas and Israel. What struck me about this was it seemed to suggest that Christians were commanded by scripture to pray for the city of Jerusalem.

The Biblical Problem

I asked the gentleman where New Testament believers were commanded to pray for Jerusalem; he responded that, as the early church "lived in the psalms," the early believers "would have felt the applicability of Psalm 122." This was a reference specifically to the wording of Psalm 122:6a, which reads: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (ESV).

Logically speaking, note that the individual is starting with an assumption (Psalm 122 would have been applicable to early believers) and is backing it up with a vague historical fact (the early Christians used the psalms). This is begging the question, however, on the notion that early Christians would have interpreted Psalm 122 to mean a literal Jerusalem for which to pray (which we will get to in a moment). Already we see a dilemma in this kind of doctrine. While there is no doubt that the early Christians would have used the psalms, or worshiped with the psalms, we must remember that they would have to use them within context, depending on each individual psalm. There is no evidence, for example, that any Christian in the early history of the church interpreted Psalm 137:9 to mean that Christians should kill infants.

With this in mind, let's examine the full psalm (it's only nine verses):

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.” Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that is built as a city that is compact together; to which the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord—an ordinance for Israel—to give thanks to the name of the Lord. For there thrones were set for judgment, The thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you. May peace be within your walls, and prosperity within your palaces.” For the sake of my brothers and my friends, I will now say, “May peace be within you.” For the sake of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek your good. [Psalm 122:1-9; NASB]

Traditionally, this is believed to be a Davidic psalm, though some scholars have placed its dating not until after the exile; in either case, it can be safe to assume that this is about an Old Testament Jew going to the Temple. The first few verses are the language of a pilgrim, going to Jerusalem, as all Jews were commanded to do (cf. Exo 23:17; Deu 16:16).

The language suggests that the pilgrims have just arrived (v. 2) and beholding the city as a "city that is joined to her together" (as it says in the original Hebrew of v. 3). Traditionally, this is translated to suggest that the buildings were built closely together (hence the NASB's rendering of "compact together"). The NET translator notes suggest that this may refer to the duality of Jerusalem's function in the old state of Israel, as it was the center both of the religious and civil authorities (the reference to the seats of judgment and the thrones of David in v. 5 would give some support for this). On the other hand, the Targum (an early Aramaic paraphrase/commentary of the Bible) suggests that this was in reference to the heavenly Jerusalem; the Jews of Christ's time did indeed believe in the "Jerusalem below," or the literal Jerusalem, and a "Jerusalem above," referring to God's realm (hence the apostle Paul's reference to the Jerusalem above in Galatians 4:26).

This connection was broken (or perhaps, more properly, mended) by the connection between man and God brought about by the first advent of Christ, the rejection of Christ by the Jewish state, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Christ came and "tabernacled" among us (the literal translation of "dwelt among us" in John 1:14), and by His atoning sacrifice and resurrection he became a high priest and made the Levitical priesthood null and void, and gave the final atonement for the sins of His sheep, making null and void the Temple sacrifices as well.

In the last few verses, the psalmist begins to speak of how he will "pray for the peace of Jerusalem." The reason for this prayer is seen in the following verses: so that those who love Jerusalem may prosper (not meaning financially or physically, but simply that they would have tranquility or security); that peace may be within Jerusalem's walls, and prosperity within the palaces (meaning that the civil institutions would be stable); for the sake of the psalmist's "brothers" and "friends" (meaning fellow believers). For these three main reasons, the psalmist states that he will now say "may peace be within" Jerusalem. Finally, the psalmist says that "for the sake of the house of the LORD our God," he will see "good for you" (in the literal Hebrew), meaning that he will seek the good that is within Jerusalem through prayer.

Let us now highlight the purposes of this "Jerusalem," according to the psalmist:

• It is where believers go to worship God and "give thanks to the name of the Lord" (v. 4)
• Those who love this Jerusalem will find tranquility and peace (v. 6)
• Praying for peace within this Jerusalem is done for the sake of fellow believers (v. 8)
• This Jerusalem contains the good of the Lord, of which believers may seek (v. 9)

At the time of the psalmist, this context fit very well. Today, these traits could not fit within the context of modern Jerusalem, which is ruled by modern day secular Israel, inhabited largely by Jews who deny Christ and the Trinitarian God.

The fact is, this could only refer to the spiritual Jerusalem (Paul's "Jerusalem from above"), found within the modern day church and with faith in Christ. Modern day believers do not need to pray for Jerusalem to obtain the good of the Lord, for we have it in Christ, the "tabernacle" of the New Testament. We cannot consider the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem to be our "brothers," as they are not brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not need to go to Jerusalem to worship God and give Him thanks, for our bodies are a temple for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and Christ is our eternal high priest (Heb 7:26-27).

There are therefore two possibilities regarding this passage:

Firstly, this is a passage written in the context of believers under the old covenant, and the importance of Jerusalem to the individual believer.

Secondly, this is a passage with eternal implications, but within the context of each individual testament. In the old, it was for a literal Jerusalem; in the new, it is for the spiritual Jerusalem.

The Historical Problem

Related to this is the issue is that, historically speaking, most of the early Church Fathers, and most theologians afterward, saw the extension of many passages regarding Jerusalem and Judea into the new covenant within a spiritual context - that is, Jerusalem, Judea, Israel, and many other names refer to the church or body of believers within the new covenant. Just as the sons of Israel were God's chosen people in the old covenant, so are Christians, the spiritual sons of Israel according to the promise (cf. Rom 9:8), God's chosen people in the new covenant.

The contention by the gentleman I was speaking to was that Justin Martyr and other Fathers believed Christ, upon his second coming, would reign in the literal city of Jerusalem. While it is true that many Historic Premillennial Church Fathers believed Jerusalem would carry some significance at the end times, this does not negate that, at the same time, they upheld passages about Jerusalem in a spiritual context. One quote from Justin Martyr (who lived in the second century):

“Now, sirs,” I said, “it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. ‘For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;’ He exclaims by Isaiah: ‘I said, Behold Me, unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good, but after their own sins. It is a people that provoketh Me to my face.’” [Dialogue with Trypho; 25; source]

The rest of the conversation is likewise beneficial, as Justin and Trypho speak, and Justin clearly distinguishes between the literal Judea Jerusalem of the old covenant, and the spiritual Judea and Jerusalem of the new covenant. Justin Martyr cannot be telling Christian believers to literally go to the literal Jerusalem - he must clearly be speaking of a spiritual Jerusalem.

Other Church Fathers could be called into account for this. For example, Tertullian speaks of "the true catholic Jerusalem" (The Five Books Against Marcion, 3:22; source) and calls individual Christian believers "a citizen of Jerusalem" (De Corona, Ch. 13; source). Likewise Hippolytus, commentating on the psalms, states that we are citizens of "the Jerusalem which is above" (On Psalm 62:6; source). Also Alexander of Alexandria calls Christ "the Son of the true Jerusalem" (On the Soul and Body and the Passion of the Lord; source). The gentleman mentioned before had argued that, before the Council of Nicaea, a "spiritualized Jerusalem" was not a common belef...as these quotes hint at, that isn't true.

The fact is, there is no direct command in scripture to pray for the city of Jerusalem. While there is nothing wrong with Christians praying for Jerusalem of their own conviction, and while we shouldn't argue God will automatically ignore prayers meant for Jerusalem, we should not go to the extreme that we are somehow commanded, by God's holy word, to pray for a single literal word. There is simply no evidence of this in scripture, and it is foreign to Christian history.

Did I Misquote Jonathan Edwards?

As those who read this blog post know, I'm a bit of a Jonathan Edwards fanboy. I don't agree 100% with everything the man wrote and said (and I'm not Postmillennial like he was), but if I had to pinpoint a theologian who had a major influence on me, it would be him. As such, I'm fairly familiar with his writings and beliefs...and one of the things that has always bothered me was how those in the Houses of Prayer movement considered him to be one of their own. This is often because of his love for evangelism and revivalism, and certainly he had a very high view of prayer (as do I), but on many core doctrines regarding prayer and the relationship between man and God in prayer, Edwards and the Houses of Prayer movement have some significant differences.

A few days ago, I saw a tweet by Julie Meyer, who is described on her website as "a longtime and beloved worship leader and songwriter at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City since its beginning in 1999." She's also rather infamous in discernment circles because of her wild prophecies, mostly stemming (like Lou Engle) from her dreams and so-called visions. In the tweet, Mrs. Meyer wrote:

In the blog post, she wrote on a supposed prophetic dream she experienced, and made mention of the First Great Awakening:

I heard a fresh cry exploding out of Heaven – an invitation for the nations to become part of the prayer movement that is blowing across the face of the earth like an unstoppable wave leading to a Great Greater Awakening.

I was told in the dream to study and look back to the 1700s and the first Great Awakening – for this is our story. We are invited to say “yes” to prayer – we are invited to all become part of the story.

This prompted me to respond to the tweet, which started a conversation:

These two quotes are, of course, ones that I've shared before.

After I began this conversation, Joseph H. Meyer came in as well, attempting to explain my quotes with:

Then Julie Meyer came back and gave one of the most interesting responses to facts that I've ever seen.

I'm often amazed how the ones who are the most defensive in the face of discernment or critical thinking are often those who supposedly hear from God Himself. I thought Mike Bickle said that IHOP-KC encouraged critical thinking and discussion? But I digress...

Now granted, I am willing to admit that I might have misused Jonathan Edwards, so after this brief exchange, I went and examined what Edwards said around those quotes. What did I find?

Let me present the first quote, in a more fuller context:

Seeing therefore you stand in such continual need of the help of God, how reasonable is it that you should continually seek it of him, and perseveringly acknowledge your dependence upon him, by resorting to him, to spread your needs before him, and to offer up your requests to him in prayer.—Let us consider how miserable we should be, if we should leave off prayer, and God at the same time should leave off to take care of us, or to afford us any more supplies of his grace. By our constancy in prayer, we cannot be profitable to God; and if we leave it off, God will sustain no damage: he doth not need our prayers; Job xxxv. 6, 7.—But if God cease to care for us and to help us, we immediately sink: we can do nothing: we can receive nothing without him. [source]

The contention made by Mr. Meyer is that this message is delivered towards hypocrites. This is absolutely true, but if we leave it at this, we find a common problem in discussion where context can work against us. This statement might make some people go, "Wait, what?" given how, in my blog posts and podcasts, I have stressed the importance of understanding and adhering to context. However, there can be a time, either in discussion or debate, where someone might appeal to the overall context of a passage or work in order to ignore a minor or side point made, or to attempt to refute a minor or side point made.

Let me give an example to demonstrate this: a long time ago, I was having a conversation with a gentleman regarding true and false gospels and the Roman Catholic Church. I went to Galatians 1:8-9, where Paul clearly states: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" The gentleman responded by saying that Paul was talking about the Judaizers in Galatia, therefore it was irrelevant to bring this up about Rome. I replied back that, while the Epistle to the Galatians was indeed spurned on by the Judaizers and dealt with that issue, Paul is clearly here broadening out the scope not only of Judaizers, but other people as well. We see this when he says "even if we" (meaning the apostles, who were not Judaizers), or "an angel from heaven" (again, a non-Judaizer), should preach a false gospel, they should be anathema. He repeats this again with "if any man," hence broadening this out to all non-Judaizers. Therefore, bringing up that Paul was writing to the Judaizers is really a non sequitor - Paul is clearly talking about much more than just Judaizers here. While most people miss the forest for the trees, the gentleman's problem here was the exact opposite: he was missing the trees for the forest!

So in our case, is Jonathan Edwards addressing and discussing hypocrites in the overall point of this message? Absolutely. Does that mean every single tiny thing he wrote in the message was about hypocrites, or solely referring to hypocrites? No, not at all. In the section regarding God not needing our prayer, two things are painfully clear:

1) Edwards is talking about more than just hypocrites, as he switches from "you" to "us" and "we," implying even himself in this group. He's clearly, in this section, talking about more than just hypocrites.

2) Edwards is not talking specifically about hypocrites and their use of prayer, but is speaking of a general reality regarding prayer. He even cites Job 35:6-7 as a scripture to back up his viewpoint, in which the question is asked: "If you are righteous, what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand?" Obviously, Edwards was expecting a firm "Nothing at all!" for this question.

The point Jonathan Edwards is making is that God will be neither harmed nor helped by our praying or lack of praying. In Edwards' mind, the righteous person does not contribute anything towards God that God would somehow need or otherwise lack. Compare this, now, with a quotation from Mike Bickle:

Today, God requires our intercession to release the fullness of His power and justice on earth. As we speak, or pray, God’s will back to God, the Spirit releases it on the earth. If we do not speak out God’s Word, then the power of the Spirit will not be released in the same measure. God requires holy, persevering, believing prayer to release the fullness of what is in His heart. The fullness of God’s justice will only be released in the context of night and day intercession. [pg. 36, Seven Commitments of a Forerunner]

Jonathan Edwards taught that God profited nor lost anything by our prayers. He taught that God did not need our prayers. Mike Bickle, and many others like him in this Houses of Prayer movement, teaches that God requires our prayer in order for His "power and justice" to be released on the earth, and the fullness of this can only be realized by continual night and day prayer. Jonathan Edwards would have heard this and probably argued it put too much focus on the power and role of man, which it most certainly does.

Let us now turn to the second quotation:

Though it would not be reasonable to suppose, that merely such a circumstance, as many people praying at the same time, will directly have any prevalence with God; yet such a circumstance may reasonably be supposed to have influence on the minds of men. [source; emphasis in original]

Jonathan Edwards had been writing on the importance of prayer, and, up until this point, the power and importance of prayer. Then he pauses to open up with a certain truth: it is not reasonable (that is, it would be wrong) to suppose that a bunch of people praying at the same time will have any significant effect on God. He will go on (as we see in the quote) to talk about the effect it will have on the body of believers, and while IHOP-KC followers will no doubt say here, "Yeah, we believe that too!", we must understand the limitations Edwards has placed on the body of prayer. That is, Edwards has stated that gathering a bunch of people together and having them pray at the same time for something (ie., the "prayer culture" of IHOP-KC, TheCall, etc.) will not have any direct effect on God, or be in any way different than one person praying alone in their prayer closet.

It should be noted here that Edwards is nowhere talking about hypocrites in this quote; he's simply touching on prayer. In fact, the full title of the work cited is: An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God's People in Extraordinary Prayer, for the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christ's Kingdom on Earth (whew!). In other words, he's touching on a subject many people at IHOP-KC harp on. As I said before, Jonathan Edwards is often quoted at IHOP-KC because of his love of revivalism and evangelism, but the real problem is what specific beliefs did he hold regarding some of their core tenets related to the subject? As we've seen here, he would have thought the IHOP-KC theology was founded upon erroneous doctrine.

So did I misquote Edwards? Actually, I used him perfectly in context, and my conclusion from them was the same conclusion drawn by Edwards.

Prayers for the Dead

Is there a Biblical teaching in praying for the dead? I recently discovered that three passages are cited in some Roman Catholic circles as irrefutable evidence of this: the raising of the widow's son by Elijah; the raising of Lazarus by Jesus Christ; the raising of Tabitha by Peter. Before we begin, however, let's review the Roman Catholic teaching regarding prayers for the dead, starting with a passage from the Catechism (specifically pertaining to the subject of Purgatory):

From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead. [Roman Catholic Catechism, 1032; source]

And from the Catholic Answers website, regarding prayer:

As the prayers themselves witness, the Church teaches us that we should pray not only directly to God, but also to those who are close to God, those who have the power to intercede upon our behalf. Indeed, we pray to the angels to help and watch over us; we pray to the saints in heaven to ask their intercession and assistance; we pray to the Blessed Mother to enlist her aid, to ask her to beg her Son to hear our prayers. Further, we pray not only on our own behalf, but also on the behalf of those souls in purgatory and of those brothers on earth who are in need. Prayer unites us to God; in doing so, we are united to the other members of the Mystical Body. [source]

We will first grant that most people, even Protestants or general non-Roman Catholics, pray for the dead in one way or another: we might pray that family members who died repented and put their faith in Christ before passing on; we might pray that we will see departed loved ones in paradise. The Roman Catholic belief, however, goes far beyond this: prayers for the dead are offered, along with other acts, in the hopes of freeing them from purgatory and giving them penance - that is, paying for the legal demands of the sins they committed. Traditionally, the most passage turned to for this doctrine is from the apocryphal 2 Maccabees 12:46 (although Eastern Orthodox interpret that as simply memorial prayers for the dead, sans justification) - however it would appear many today believe the three previously cited stories likewise teach this doctrine.

Now, let's begin our review of the biblical stories cited, first with the raising of the widow's son by Elijah:

After this the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill. And his illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him. And she said to Elijah, “What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance and to cause the death of my son!” And he said to her, “Give me your son.” And he took him from her arms and carried him up into the upper chamber where he lodged, and laid him on his own bed. And he cried to the Lord, “O Lord my God, have you brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by killing her son?” Then he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the Lord, “O Lord my God, let this child's life come into him again.” And the Lord listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life of the child came into him again, and he revived. [1 Kings 17:17-22]

Let's ask a few quick questions:

1. Did Elijah's prayers offer penance for the sins of the deceased boy?
2. Were Elijah's prayers in any way made in intercession for the justified status of the deceased boy?

The answer to all these questions is: NO. Elijah's prayers were specifically for the raising of the boy from death onto life. It did not deal with his justification.

Now let's review the raising of Lazarus...but I think it's vital we review what Jesus said when news first came that Lazarus was ill.

Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” [John 11:5-15]

Note two things:

1. Christ purposefully waits a while, as if willingly permitting Lazarus to die.
2. This waiting and permitting Lazarus to die was not empty, but for a purpose: so that the disciples may believe.

Already we see that something bigger is unfolding here. Christ is doing something meaningful with the raising of Lazarus.

Now let's review what happens when Christ gets to the tomb, after Lazarus has been dead many days.

So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” [John 11:20-27]

This exchange shows the bigger significance of Lazarus' raising. Firstly, Christ is affirming his messianic status. Secondly, Christ is connecting himself to the resurrection. That is, Christ is not outside of the resurrection and the life, but he, himself, is the resurrection and the life. On top of this, Christ presents to Martha the important knowledge that whoever believes in Christ shall live, even after death. Faith in Christ leads, even in this present time (for Christ states "everyone who lives and believes"), to eternal life. The whole point of the raising of Lazarus, therefore, was to demonstrate that Christ is the source of resurrection and life, and that belief in him will lead to eternal life even after death. Lazarus's death and raising was a precursor for the death and resurrection of all those who believe.

Now let's get to the final part, where Lazarus is raised.

Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” [John 11:38-44]

Again, as with Elijah, let's ask a few questions:

1. Was Christ praying? No - he wasn't praying, he was ordering. The Greek word for "come" (δεῦρο) is in the imperative - in other words, it's a command. Last I checked, you didn't make commands in prayer.
2. Were Christ's words offering penance for Lazarus' sins? No, they weren't. They were commanding Lazarus to come out, so that Christ may prove to the people there that he was indeed the resurrection and the life, and they would believe.
3. Were Christ's words in any way made in intercession for the justified status of Lazarus? No, they weren't. See the previous point.

Therefore, the passage here is completely unrelated to the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning prayers for the dead. Quite frankly, taking a passage about the power of Christ and the role of God the Son in our resurrection and making it about something that can happen through us is a bit disrespectful towards God.

Now, finally, let's examine the raising of Tabitha:

Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she became ill and died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, urging him, “Please come to us without delay.” So Peter rose and went with them. And when he arrived, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping and showing tunics and other garments that Dorcas made while she was with them. But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and raised her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. And he stayed in Joppa for many days with one Simon, a tanner. [Acts 9:36-43]

Let's ask some questions similar to the ones we've asked before:

1. Was Peter offering a prayer for Tabitha? No - similar to Christ, he was not giving a prayer, but an order. The word Paul uses (ἀνάστηθι) is in the imperative form - again, signifying clearly that it was a command demanding compliance.
2. Were Peter's words done for penance or to pay for the sins of Tabitha? No, not at all. They were an order for her to rise up.
3. Were Peter's words done for intercession for Tabitha while she lay in Purgatory? Again, not at all.

Before we conclude this post, it will be granted that many Roman Catholics admit these passages do not specifically teach the Roman Catholic doctrine pertaining to prayers for the dead, but nonetheless do present some form of prayers for the dead. This is, however, a fine example of straining gnats. As we demonstrated, at least two of these passages do not show prayers for the dead, but rather orders to the dead. The one passage which does contain some form of prayer for a dead person simply involved praying for their raising, and can hardly be used to justify a doctrine which attaches justification with prayer and penance. This latter point is especially important: we should be wary if someone, presenting an argument from a collection of scriptural passages, shows no sign that one could logically come to a doctrinal conclusion from said passages. The justification of the dead through prayers and penance could never be read from these passages, unless one chose first to read it into them. This, however, is eisegesis, not exegesis.

In short, none of these passages demonstrate the Roman Catholic doctrine pertaining to prayers for the dead. We should be very careful when any one (be it a Roman Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) comes to us and attempts to read a large, well defined doctrine into a verse which, if graded on a scale of one to ten in regards to clarity, would barely surface a three. If it is not clearly found within the verses cited, then the verses are not speaking on the subject.

Re: Worship That Shakes the World

Recently, Misty Edwards, the International House of Prayer's worship leader, wrote an article for Charisma Magazine on the subject of prayer and music in worship. The full article can be found here. When I read it, I felt compelled to write a response, not so much because of what was said, but because of what wasn't said. That is, Misty Edwards would touch on the subject of prayer and worship music, but not clarify what she meant by it, or what she really meant by it. We need to understand a person's theology not by what we want them to mean, but by how they themselves define what they mean. Someone reading the article might assume from it that IHOP-KC was a theologically sound place, or might think that their beliefs regarding prayer and worship are like any other Christian group. As we go through the article, however, we'll see that's not the case.

Worship and prayer are inseparable. Through worship, we agree with who God is, and through prayer, we agree with what He promised to do. I don’t believe worship can be disconnected from prayer at all. The only thing that makes “worship music” worship is that we’re talking to God; otherwise, it’s just music.

Prayer is a dialogue with the Invisible, and there are many expressions of this conversation. Sometimes it is a contemplative meditation on Scripture. Other times it’s a heartfelt plea for help, a cry for justice or a lament of repentance. Prayer also includes a declaration of who God is and gratitude for what He’s done and will do, as well as a prophetic declaration of what He’s saying today. Intercession, worship, praise and the prophetic are all one seamless flow involved in this holy conversation that we call prayer. When we combine these elements with music, there is a dynamic impact on our hearts—individually and corporately—that affects society at large.

To those unfamiliar with IHOP-KC and its theology, this might all sound well and good. However, just as a Mormon means much more than an orthodox Christian when he says he believes God is the "God of this world," so too does Misty Edwards mean a bit more here. In fact, she fails to mention a couple of things here.

One thing she fails to mention here is what she means by "contemplative meditation on Scripture." While I agree that it's good to meditate over Scripture (that is, ponder what a verse means, study it in depth, etc.), she means something entirely different by it. At IHOP-KC, they teach what amounts to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Lectio Divina, which teaches "praying God's word" in order to receive feedback or a deeper "communion" with God. They likewise teach the monastic (and also pagan) teaching of contemplative prayer, where you attempt to discover the deeper secrets of God by meditating (in a pagan sense) over a verse (I talk about this somewhat here and here).

Another thing she fails to mention is exactly what she, and IHOP-KC, believes prayer can do. That is, they believe that through our prayer we in essence give God permission to act on earth, similar to the beliefs of Word of Faith teacher Myles Munroe; God cannot release great conversions or miracles or powers until we pray for Him to. To quote from Mike Bickle's book Seven Commitments of a Forerunner:

Speaking forth the Word of God back to God is the catalyst for releasing His power. The Father has chosen to govern the earth in partnership with His people through intercession. [pg. 35; Forerunner]

And again:

Today, God requires our intercession to release the fullness of His power and justice on earth. As we speak, or pray, God’s will back to God, the Spirit releases it on the earth. If we do not speak out God’s Word, then the power of the Spirit will not be released in the same measure. God requires holy, persevering, believing prayer to release the fullness of what is in His heart. The fullness of God’s justice will only be released in the context of night and day intercession. [pg. 36; Forerunner]

Another thing she fails to mention is what she means by prayer being "a declaration of who God is and gratitude for what He’s done and will do, as well as a prophetic declaration of what He’s saying today." IHOP-KC believes that through prayer, we actually receive personal revelation of God's intentions for today, especially for the end times. This leads into the rather Gnostic belief held at IHOP-KC that those who engage in heavy prayer (especially if they join the Forerunner movement or something like it) will receive from God "deep secrets of His heart."

Prayer is much more than a spiritual discipline to be performed, or the means by which we find our way out of difficult circumstances...Rather, it is the place of encounter with God where our spirit is energized as we grow in love with Him...As we dialogue with Him in prayer, He reveals glimpses of His personality, giving us revelation of His thoughts and feelings toward us. This is a necessary foundation for all who wish to grow in intimacy with God. [pg. 30-31; Forerunner]

Again, there's far more under the surface here than we may realize.

Often we use these two words—worship and prayer—to mean singing and speaking our conversation with God. I believe there’s a powerful connection between spoken prayers and those that are sung. In Revelation, we see both spoken word and song offered continuously around the throne. We see a harp, signifying music (Rev. 5:8), and a bowl full of the intercession of the saints (vv. 8-9). And we know that if this is the way it is in heaven, it’s also a model for how it ought to be on earth.

Today we see prayer meetings springing up around the world where the intercessors are being carried and sustained by enjoyable prayer (Is. 56:7). One way such prayer becomes enjoyable is through the combination of spoken prayer with prophetic, inspirational music and singing.

It is common for those at IHOP-KC to take the vision in Revelation 5:8 as a literal representation of what it is like in heaven, and while I don't deny that it's probably close, I would likewise ask if they believe there is also a bloodied lamb with seven horns and seven eyes walking around heaven (Rev 5:6).

Also note that she says the bowl in verses 8-9 are the "intercession of the saints" and that it is "full." This is because at IHOP-KC (according to the end-times beliefs of Mike Bickle) they believe the first seal will not be broken until the bowl is full of the intercession of the houses of prayer (a clear teaching that is not clearly taught in the text). To put it another way, God's automobile of judgment needs gas, and praying fuels it up, hence one reason those in this movement are so adamant about prayer. They in essence believe that they are praying Jesus back.

In fact, the forerunner movement gets a silent nod at the end of this section, when Misty Edwards talks of "prayer meetings springing up around the world where the intercessors are being carried and sustained by enjoyable prayers." I talk more about the forerunner movement here, but suffice to say IHOP-KC believes that these prayer meetings (more accurately prayer cultures, as Lou Engle calls them) are being raised by God to bring about His end times plans. In fact, God personally spoke to Mike Bickle and personally told him to help start this movement. Almost everything at IHOP-KC is grounded on personal revelation...one of the traits, by the way, of a cult.

Music originated from God. The human spirit is musical because we are created in His image. There is something mysterious yet simple about song and the connection it has to our emotions, our memory and our ability to focus mind, body, soul and spirit. It is a beautiful gift God has given each of us.

Even if you don’t consider yourself a singer or a musician, you are musical. Paul said that he sang spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). I doubt he was a worship leader, but he was a man of prayer, and he sang in the spirit to God (1 Cor. 14:15).

Note how she says that music has the ability to help us "focus mind, body, soul and spirit." If you listen to the music at IHOP-KC, especially at their special events, one thing you'll notice quickly is that they tend to repeat words a lot and use music in a rather hypnotic way. This is something done in New Age music and some pagan rites, and is simply a manipulative use of music done to help the people get into a kind of spiritual high. Somehow, I don't think this was what Paul was talking about. If you read all of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, you'll find that when he spoke of "spiritual songs", he was talking about "psalms and hymns". Psalms and hymns don't do what the music at IHOP-KC does.

In our individual lives, singing our prayers is beneficial in many ways. One way is by giving us the ability to focus at a greater level. When we sing Scripture to God, it has a way of leading us into meditation, due to the repetitive nature of song. It also writes the truth on our hearts in a way the spoken word does not.

For example, if I said, “Twinkle, twinkle, little star,” you would immediately remember the song and likely be able to sing it word for word. But if I said “Ephesians 1:17,” many of us would not know that prayer at all. However, if we put this prayer of the apostle Paul to music, even children would remember it. Add in the spontaneity and development of Scripture a teacher would bring to such a text—yet do it through song—and you would not only remember the text, but you would also understand it.

Note that here, in a way, Misty Edwards confirms what I said before: we can "focus at a greater level" and hence lead us "into meditation, due to the repetitive nature of song." IHOP-KC has their musicians repeat the same lyric over and over and over again so that the listeners can get into a kind of meditative state -however, this form of meditation belongs more in monasteries and false religions than it does in Christianity.

In regards to the second section, while I agree that putting scripture to music (as many hymn writers did) can assist even children in remembering the verse. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I've rarely seen it happen at IHOP-KC in such a way that one would "understand it." Usually what might happen at IHOP-KC is someone would take Ephesians 1:17, repeat it a few times, then focus in on one thing and say something like "Give us the wisdom and revelation!", and repeat that over and over again. One time, while I was personally visiting the prayer room, I was listening to the music and realized that they had taken a well known hymn (I forget which one) and just repeating the first verse over and over and over again. That's hardly edifying to anyone.

As I've said before, it seems like those at IHOP-KC's prayer team believe that Christ said "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words", they believed it was a friendly suggestion.

In our corporate life, singing prayers has a dynamic impact too. Through song, we are able to become one voice and one heart as we sing the same thing to the same Man at the same time. Through song, we can also feel the same thing at the same time while either declaring the truth or interceding for a breakthrough. 

Again, do you see the subtle hint at IHOP-KC doctrine here? When she says "interceding for a breakthrough," she means praying to God to grant Him the ability to perform something.

Song is a powerful tool to unify the body of Christ. Whenever you have the combination of spoken prayer and singing, an entire room or a whole stadium of people can come into agreement with what is being prayed through simple songs that make us one voice. I believe this unified intercession and worship is one thing that changes the spiritual atmosphere of a city or a region. 

Once again, a subtle reference to IHOP-KC's doctrine. When she says "unified intercession and worship" can change "the spiritual atmosphere of a city or a region",  she's saying that when we pray, we release "spiritual energy" (as Lou Engle called it) into the atmosphere, to combat demonic forces. If you listen to Lou Engle talk about the house of prayer movement, you'll hear him talk about Christian houses of prayer are literally in direct spiritual warfare with non-Christian houses of prayer, because according to this doctrine mosques and synagogues and other non-Christian places of worship are blasting energy into the atmosphere. The house of prayer movement believes that when we pray, we combat that spiritual energy, and hence break it away and help bring revival to a city.

You don’t have to add music to the conversation—prayer—you’re holding with God, but music combined with prayer opens our hearts, writes truth on our minds, changes the atmosphere and facilitates sustainable, enjoyable corporate prayer that leads to a unified heart with one another and with God.

As I said earlier, all this sounds good, and perhaps if it was someone else writing this, I would give a hearty "Amen!" But we need to realize something: theology matters.