January 6th, 2021 - The Fruits of Dominionism
I used to write fiction. In fact, my last novel was an exploration of this festering idea that the western church was somehow persecuted. While I liked the book, the storyline, and the characters, the sequel never materialised. I’ll tell you why: I’m not prophet, that’s for sure. But I am logical. In my mind, the logical flow from dominionist theology (seven mountain dominionism, or the idea that God has mandated the church to take dominion in “every domain of society”) was not good. In fact, it scared me. It may have even helped scare me into deconstruction.
What I saw yesterday as Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol looked eerily familiar to what I had seen in my minds eye. I could not, and did not, foresee a Trump presidency when I wrote that book. Like I said, I’m not a prophet. But I was deeply concerned by the attitude of entitlement that went along with the dominionist idea that political dominion was God-given. I watched, mystified, as Christian leaders abandoned their own moral convictions to rally behind an obvious narcissist with a checkered marital history, allegations of sexual assault, and a thin-to-the-point-of-laughable veneer of Christian allegiance. How was it anything but bleedingly obvious that this pathologically selfish, power-hungry thug was doing anything other than saying what he needed to say to lock up the nomination?
There are multiple flaws within the church universal that allowed for this to happen. Bad theology, poor discernment, prophets who confuse their own ideas or desires with the voice of God, the toxic mix of capitalism, dominionism and church to name a few. Perhaps the most significant issue was the tendency for neo-charismatic spokespeople to herald a “greater truth” when referring to the schism between the natural world and the spirit world. How could that not be cherry picked alongside scriptures about the “kingdom of God suffering violence and the violent take it by force”? How could that not result in prophets claiming supernatural overthrow of election results that church leaders hadn’t prophesied? How could that not end up in protests and riots?
It was not arrested then, and it hasn’t been arrested yet.
Now isn’t the day to go into a deep-dive on the issues with these sub-doctrines that seem to have combined to create a perfect storm for Christians to get caught up in the collective right-wing delusion. I have neither the heart nor the time for it. But I will say this:
We must take a keen, unbiased look at every doctrine and belief we hold, realising that if it is not good, if it is not kind, if it is not pure, if it does not build up what the Bible called “the least of us”, then it is not of God.
We must root out the heretical, damaging and unbiblical doctrine of dominionism that has woven its way into evangelical Christianity. Where money and power are promised, corruption can grow. The church is simply another at-risk organisation in this way.
We must give no pass to subtle or clandestine racism, misogyny, anti-government rhetoric, or false prophecy in our midst.
We must be about the hard work of reconciliation. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
And we must realise that until the church is given back to the marginalised and disenfranchised for whom the person of Jesus dedicated his earthly life, then we are not the church he intended to be.
Now is not a moment to listen to a single church leader who excuses the behaviour at the capitol yesterday, or who claims it was “actually peaceful”, or that it was “necessary.” This was seditious and lawless. God is not glorified.
To my American friends, be safe. If it weren’t for Coronavirus, I’d offer my house up for your escapism! What a mad world we live in right now.
What a mad world indeed.
Deconstruction: Why the Church Needs To Do It Too
I was reading a critique of the Christian deconstruction phenomenon this week (because I like to challenge my own thoughts, too, not just everyone else’s!). It seems the movement is greatly misunderstood. Several articles I read alleged that the problem with deconstruction was that people who went through it seemed determined to do away with absolute truth, or the concept of sin, or the deity of Jesus, or the authority of the Bible. They seemed to believe that the only way to be a Christian and a progressive is to erase these fundamentals in order to line up with our own changing ideals.
As a deconstructor, and as a Christian progressive, nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the process of deconstruction calls us to delve further into truth. It causes us to search for it beyond dogma and beyond what we have been told scriptures mean, sometimes from the days of early childhood. Deconstruction is applying critical thinking to the concepts we just assume are true. It calls us to really look for truth, and once we find it, to wrap thoughts and words and ways of living around it.
Here’s the kicker: If what you are living by is the truth, then you shouldn’t fear to apply critical thinking to it. The truth will survive examination. If anything, it will become more meaningful because of it.
I’ve been listening to a podcast called “This Cultural Moment.” It’s been fascinating, and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything these guys say (because my analysis on certain things differs), I love the process of looking at cultural moments and current affairs through the eyes of what it means to be a Christian. But a thought hit me when I was listening to it: this phenomenon of “deconstruction” doesn’t just apply to Christians. It applies to churches as well, and that’s a very needed, very good thing.
I look around church establishments these days and I see a few things (and I should note at this point that this article is wholly and solely my opinion!). I see some institutions trying to hold on to relevance by arguing old ideas, asserting dogma because “God says so” in the face of civil rights advancements, and generally bunkering down in some ill-fated attempt to hold on to influence and relevance. I see other churches trying to get hip in order to maintain relevance. Here are fancy stage designs, cutting edge music and tech, coffee machines in foyers, sermons that are less like delivery methods for spiritual and scriptural truths and more like Ted Talks. What is the “right” way, if indeed there is one? I don’t know. Some of these ways of staying hip are very much enjoyed and appreciated in my corner! But I can tell you one thing for sure:
The church needs deconstruction too.
Church attendance used to be every week. Now, to be a regular, you need to go only once every three or four weeks. (I go almost every week. That must make me a zealot. Or a musician). Attendance is deconstructing. Church used to be a moral measuring stick. Now, it isn’t. Church used to be a place where we found God, grew convicted of our sin, and sought the way forward in terms of living a more Godly life. Now, we figure out ethics and morals within the context of our own spheres of influence and our own devotion. Evangelism isn’t so cut and dried. These aspects, too, are deconstructing.
Of late, I’ve found myself asking whether it’s possible to have Christianity without the fear and self-loathing. The answer I came to is that it should be possible: because Jesus was the highest example of love, compassion, and progressive ideas when it came to the inclusion of those the religious system had shunned. He was/is the highest example of life above temptation, of grace and truth in the face of persecution and death. He is always worth following. He doesn’t require me to hate myself so that I can follow Him. He only requires me to love, acknowledge and follow Him, knowing that in my humanness I will mess up and that in those moments, His grace is sufficient.
As more people embark on this journey of deconstruction, and as modern life marches on, there are a few changing realities we can expect: digital church attendance will matter more to people, so our web presence’s need to offer more than shiny pictures and short clips of sermon highlights. Depth will matter. Preaching, being an experiential thing, will take precidence over teaching in many settings, but this does not negate the need for good teaching. If anything, it makes it more important (especially as more independent churches pop up, which has many benefits but also the ever-present risk of bad theology and cults of personality). The community of faith will maintain its importance, but the way this manifests may be faced with challenges.
These are my hunches. There are better experts with more thoughts, I’m sure. But what I’m saying is this: deconstruction is here, and it applies to groups as well as individuals. If the church doesn’t change, it is done. But Jesus isn’t. Because He is still relevant and will always be relevant. Now is not a time for digging in and attempting to maintain old structures of power, influence, dogma or even format. The structure we have now is something we have inherited generation after generation since Constantine. But even that didn’t bear any resemblance to the early church we saw in Acts. So why we have such a devotion to the old familiar format is a curious thing.
Maybe its time to reinvent it.
Just some thoughts! See ya’ll next week for something a touch more scholarly!
Peace out,
Kit K.
Hey – if you like my stuff, make sure you follow my socials and subscribe! Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Riding the Third Wave: The Neocharismatic Movement
I feel like this blog post could open with a Matrix pun. In fact, as a kid who grew up in the neo-charismatic movement, I’ve heard a good many youth-centred messages that included the old “red pill, blue pill, choose your reality” message extracted from the wisdom of the Wachowskis (who wrote the screenplay). But I’ll refrain. I’m about to launch into an interesting series on the link between modern spiritual warfare and paganism. But in order to preface that, we need to know what the New Apostolic Reformation is (see last weeks post) and what the Neo-Charismatic Movement is. They are intertwined, but also quite distinct from each other. So here we go: the history-hack takes on the third wave. Up, up and away.
The Third Wave Charismatic Movement is known by a few names. Among them are the terms neo-charismatic and hyper-charismatic and of the two, I think the latter makes the most sense. Essentially, it’s a relatively recent movement within evangelicalism, which in itself is a broad term taking in a good many expressions of faith (all of which involve evangelism or the spread of Christianity). To understand the neo-charistmatic movement, we need to know what came before it and what it looks like today.
The first wave: Pentecostalism circa 1900
This “first wave” as some historians call it was undoubtedly an exciting time in the life of the church universal. Marked by revivalists and revivals (such as Azusa Street), it was a renewal movement within protestant Christianity that did away with the cessationist idea that the spiritual gifts had disappeared from the church. The Pentecostal movement saw the restoration of prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues to the church. Since Azusa Street (which seems to have become the historical marker of Pentecostalism’s emergence), this movement has swept across the world and with it, the classical beliefs within Pentecostalism have spread. These include but are not limited to (because lets remember I’m a hack of a historian):
Evangelism
The reliability and infallibility of the Bible (in fact, many pentecostals seem to be Biblical Literalists)
Salvation by grace through faith, and then transformation of ones life through Jesus.
Baptism, as in baptism into Christ at salvation, then Baptism in water and Baptism with the Holy Spirit where the gift of tongues is received.
The eminent return of Jesus.
Other doctrines such as divine healing, spiritual gifts, and worship through songs, prayers, communion, giving and other methods.
All in all, pentecostalism has offered great gifts to the world. It seemed to be an alternative to the stagnation that other faith institutions were/are experiencing. It offered a shared experience of faith which was a relatively new experience. There were some big names in this movement, of course. People like Charles Parham and William J Seymour were teaching on speaking in tongues, divine healing and evangelism. Gone were the silent observances of faith, mediated by the much revered clergy, and in came the participatory revival experiences that immersed believers in a new experience of Christianity.
There have been a good many big names, controversies and developments within the Pentecostal movement over the years (which would take forever to cover off on). I can’t help but think of the tele-evangelists of the 1980’s and 1990’s and wonder where they fit in – names like Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Yonghi-Cho and others that rang loud through-out my childhood. They were hardly the revivalist types (like Parham and Seymour), but attempted to take the Pentecostal church experience into lounge rooms.
Truthfully, you could exist in a Pentecostal church, be touched by the evangelical charismatic movement and still be influenced by the neo-charismatic movement in tandem. One wave seems to roll into another quiet seemlessly.
The second wave: The evangelical charismatic movement of the 1960’s
Charismatic Evangelicalism amassed a wide following and built on the pentecostal doctrine with two major differences: it did not major on speaking in tongues as evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit, but it did major on the spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing, faith, healing, miracles, discernment of spirits, tongues). While, as I said above, these two “waves” or movements seem to roll in pretty effortlessly with each other, there were clashes aplenty. One was this “the failure of Charismatics to embrace traditional Pentecostal taboos on dancing, drinking alcohol, smoking, and restrictions on dress and appearance [that] initiated an identity crisis for classical Pentecostals, who were forced to reexamine long held assumptions about what it meant to be Spirit filled. The liberalizing influence of the Charismatic Movement on classical Pentecostalism can be seen in the disappearance of many of these taboos since the 1960s. Because of this, the cultural differences between classical Pentecostals and charismatics have lessened over time.”
Looking back through my experience in Christianity, it seems that many people don’t know exactly where they fit on the Pentecostal/Charismatic scale. It is said that Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is necessary evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that they are more strict on the taboos mentioned in the quote above, while Charismatics aren’t too fussed on either of these things. I guess I grew up Charismatic, but even within this, I was touched by the purity movement which (functionally if not explicitly) placed restrictions on dress and appearance). I had my first drink of alcohol at age 25, and dancing was always a matter in which one had to be careful not to be too sensual. In my experience, Pentecostalism and Charismatics seemed to roll together. The clashes between the movements seem to be put on the back burner as people plunge ahead and roll with the waves when it comes to faith movements. This is fine, but as you know, I’m all about knowing what you believe.
So that was the second wave. The third wave was yet to come:
And here we are: The Neo-charismatic Movement.
In the third wave, we saw the power evangelists gain fame. I’m sure Billy Graham was the trailblazer here. But as time marches on, it’s the big ministries like the Bethel types, the Todd Whites and Heidi Bakers of the world that fly the flag.
Early on, there were a couple of movements that raised eyebrows or attracted a lot of criticism. Two such movements were the so-called Toronto Blessing (marked by so called “holy laughter” and lead by Rodney Howard Browne) and the Pensacola (or Brownesville) Revival. Criticisms that spanned both movements included a lack of sustainability, and potentially capitalising on the naivety of believers who may have been swept up in a hyped atmosphere that may have had little or nothing to do with God at all. There was also a bucket of theological issues raised. (I’m not going to critique these revivals today. You can read up on them here if you want).
As a child, I never experienced the Brownsville/Pensacola revival. That was considered to be “geographically specific” and unless you visited the so-called “power centre” you wouldn’t be touched by it. This, of course, is jarringly opposed to the omnipotence and omnipresence of God which leads me to ask “Which spirit was ruling the roost over there?” I did, however, experience the Toronto Blessing. I sat beside my parents in a crowded auditorium in 1996 and witnessed the immersive worship that was the preliminary to Rodney Howard Browne striding onto the stage and singing “This is that” – his self-penned revival theme-song. To be honest, I was more taken with the lady on the piano who could run a whole band from her seat behind the ivories. She was the one I wanted to emulate. (And kinda did, I guess).
ANYWAY! This movement characterised by laughter and being “drunk in the spirit” did reach my corner of the world – little Gippsland region in the back blocks of Australia. I remember watching the adults roll about on the floor in church meetings barking and laughing and falling on each-other. I had no idea what was going on, but it proved the perfect opportunity to find your friends and cackle your way through church. No one ever noticed if you leaned in to your bestie, made a quiet remark about how ridiculous someone looked, and then laughed raucously. It was “the Holy Spirit at work”. That was our cover.
Years on, I see little or no fruit from that movement (although I’m happy to be proven wrong if anyone has data). Not a soul saved in my area because of it (that I can recall). No lasting sense of renewal that I know of or could observe. No larger churches. No socio-economic change. No patches of the world touched by this movement that showed lasting declines in depression and anxiety statistics that should go with an outpouring of holy peace and joy. Maybe there were miracles, but these can’t be attributed directly to a movement. If the scripture says “Lay hands on the sick and they will recover” and that happened, then it’s because of the Holy Spirit and not because of so-called “Holy Laughter.” I guess 1 Peter 4:7, which cautions us to be sober and watchful, is my big caution here.
What was the Toronto Blessing then, and if it was God, why did He do it? I don’t know. Ask the real historians. But the thing we have to be watchful of now is the theological issues that are raising their heads as the neo-charismatic movement beds itself down and marches forward under the current big brands in Christianity.
The Big Theological Differences in Neo-Charismatics
In the neo-charismatic movement, we have gone from the gifts of the spirit, to emphasis on signs and wonders, and the supernatural. I find this interesting. We seem to be upping the ante from one movement to the next and I have to wonder whether this is at least partially manufactured to fit an audience that demands more from the entertainment it consumes and has less of an attention span to consume it. Tv scenes are shorter and more intense. Movies are more gripping, with more special effects and quickly escalating plot lines. Social media has seemingly affected the attention spans of readers to sound-bytes and status updates.
Why do I mention these seemingly unrelated issues? Because along with these shortened attention spans and the escalating nature of entertainment in the secular world, we see shorter sermons, more intensive immersive worship experiences, electric atmospheres, shows of signs, wonders and miracles and (in my opinion) less emphasis on a well-considered and well informed faith. How do you build a solid, deep and well informed faith in a short sermon that is often more loaded with pop psychology than with scripture? (Look, there are some wonderful churches out there! I’m taking a broad brush to the issue)
My big concern within this third wave is that we can’t and shouldn’t treat Jesus like a drug. If we don’t feel Him, that doesn’t change His reality. It shouldn’t. But if we have been raised into Christianity on a steady diet of signs, wonders, miracles and spiritual gifts, immersive worship experiences and communal expressions of faith, then if our faith suddenly becomes rocked by an estrangement from church or community, and those feelings go away or we pray and don’t get healed – who is God? Where is God? Did He disappear? Am I going to Hell now?
Many a theologian has raised concerns over the errant teachings that have come out during this third wave. A personal concern of mine is that with increasing numbers of independent churches, and a decrease in emphasis on doctrine and qualification (with calling taking its place as if we don’t need both), then it seems we are perfectly poised for an epidemic of toxic, authoritarian or even cultish churches to emerge. These do not serve the body of Christ. These can leave immense damage in their wake when a believer wakes up to what is going on and has to extract themselves and their family from its grasp. (Read more here)
We don’t need bizarre manifestations for Christianity to be relevant. In fact, that could make it a laughing stock. We don’t need to ‘use’ Jesus like a drug to fix our mood or elevate our faith and devotion. Christianity, true followership of Christ, comes from a deep place within us. It is not a political stance. It doesn’t demand Dominionism (as we see in the NAR) or showiness. If we continue to create this hyped-up Christianity, then we are prepping ourselves for a mass exodus from the faith when inevitably, the individuals that make up the massive evangelical following worldwide hit hard times and start to question their faith.
True faith, to me, is deep, sober, grounded in the word, grown in compassion and love, and practiced regardless of church attendance (which of course we are exhorted to do so we don’t lose faith in the hard times anyway). How do you build such a faith if yours is built purely on the experience of neo-charismatic Christianity? For all the hype, for all the miracles, for all the songs and sermons, surely the personal expression of faith offered to God in the quiet, unseen moments is more meaningful. Just my take on it!
So there you have it: third wave/ neo-charismatic movement. I’ll admit, I’m a participant in the third wave. I just do it with my own Bible in hand rather than a firm reliance on my pastors wisdom. To be honest, I much prefer it that way.
See you in a few days for one heck of a series!
(Okay Kit. Stop procrastinating and write it!)
PEACE!
Kit K
The Prosperity Gospel - Truth or Convenience?
When I started this blog, I started with a list of must-write topics as long as my arm. But when it came to actually writing any of them, the big question became "Which one first?" I had two options: procrastinate forever or rip the bandaid off. I'm choosing the latter, and I'm starting with something that popped up in my Facebook feed: Benny Hinn saying he was guilty of taking the prosperity message outside the realms of what was actually Biblical.
Before we get too far in, check out the video. You can see it here, and the comments start around the 9 minute mark.
For those new here, what is the prosperity gospel? Wikipedia, the font of all well-researched knowledge (heh, heh), says it's this:
"Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success)[A] is a religious belief among some Christians, who hold that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity.
The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for his people to be happy. It is based on interpretations of the Bible that are mainstream in Judaism (with respect to the Hebrew Bible),[1] though less so in Christianity. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession."
Okay, so where do we start here? First of all, I'd like to say I don't think prosperity is wrong. Joshua 1:8 talks about having good success. Some translations of Jeremiah 29:11 say "I know the plans I have for you. Plans to prosper you..." Enter "prosper" or "prosperity" into your search function on your Bible app and you'll come up with all sorts of fun.
But does faith in God mean oodles of money? Does His will for us mean ease in every area as the prosperity gospel indicates? Heck no. Exhibit A: Job. Almost the entire book of Job! The examples cited by Benny Hinn were Jesus and Elijah. Did they walk in abundance, flashing around the best chariots of their day? Nope. Were they outside the will of God? Well, Jesus was God. And Elijah, though he had his moments, was pretty ok! They had no lack. This is what Hinn now believes the truth of prosperity in accordance with the Bible to be.
If prosperity theology was it and a bit, then I reckon Jesus would have chosen something a little more palatial than the side of a hill in the middle of nowhere for the loaves and fishes thing. And he probably could have catered the event properly rather than having to scrounge at the last minute. I'm being overly flippant here, but you get my drift. His was a modest lifestyle.
I read a quote on the Internet the other day. It was someone quoting the message they'd listened to that Sunday. It said "Scarcity is a myth."
I face-palmed pretty hard. Partially because I studied economics and anyone who has knows that scarcity is the cornerstone economic theory is built on - Human wants will always exceed the resources available to fulfill those wants. Partially because the Bible is full of scarcity - famines and such. Yes,God looked after His people but some went without for a time. Their faith didn't erase scarcity.
The other thing that saddened me was this: even in an age of good literacy, we still don't read our Bible enough to know when something is a little bit off. Does it matter if something is only a little bit off? Well yes. If we build our lives on things that are only a little bit off, and those things lead to other things, we can end up facing the wrong direction entirely.
But thats a diversion. I did want to point out that, originally, reading the Bible was reserved for those scribes and teachers who had the ability to do so. We do these days! The majority of us (in the Western world at least) can read! We can access free apps so we don't even need to buy a Bible! It is so readily available. So why aren't we educating ourselves on what it actually says.
It doesn't say scarcity is a myth. It doesn't say we will all be rolling in cash because we love Jesus. It says we will have no lack, that we ought not worry about our needs. He has that all in hand (Matthew 6).
It also warns against greed (1 Timothy 6:10-11, Hebrews 13:5 and Luke 12:15), and it is this that the prosperity gospel is in danger of glossing over. Is success ungodly? Heck no. Are riches? Absolutely not. But are we failing as Christians if the budget is a bit thin? No, no, no.
Are we failing in our faith if we don't get the healing we are praying for? Also, nope. One of the greatest Christian women I've ever known died of cancer. It was a shock to all who were steadfastly believing for her healing. But was she failing in her faith? Absolutely not. I'm my eyes, she was a Hebrews 11:13 person who received her promise after having passed on.
I would hate to be one of those preachers who misleads people by touting this money gospel. Because right there in my Bible is a line about the love of money being the root of all evil (Matthew 6:24).
There was a comment in the video that Benny Hinn made me cringe and then think - "Wow! True." He said that there are many Christians out there who aren't actually Christians, whose Christianity has become deluded.
Wow. Ouch. Wow again. But goodness he is right. This is the danger when we don't become students of our faith. Even Hinn said he had listened to those around him, but as he grew and read the Bible more and more, his Christianity became more balanced.
I've often wondered when I see an ocean of people worshipping at mega-churches, how many of them read their Bible enough to know if a doctrine preached from that stage is on the mark or not? How many of them get swept up in the emotion of the moment, the swell of the crowd, the electricity in the air and let that become the guidepost of their faith instead of the red letters that should be our guidepost. Every preacher is human. Every preacher can have an off day, or even an off doctrine if they aren't surrounded by good counsel that picks up on every little thing. To err is human. But the safeguard is the word of God, and knowing it.
I'm not saying I haven't ever been guilty of following blindly, or of getting swept up in the moment. Eh. Who hasn't? All I'm saying is we need to be students of our faith so we know when something isn't quite right. The prosperity gospel, in my opinion is one of those not quite right things. The Bible shows us that our Heavenly father will look after our needs (Matthew 6:31-33). It says His plans are for our good.
It doesn't say it will all be easy. It doesn't say we will never face hardship. It doesn't guarantee private jets and palatial homes (The book of Job, Hebrews 11:13).
If riches is what God has in store for you. Awesome! I'm thrilled for you. But as Hinn challenges in the video, don't let those riches become the centre point. Jesus needs to hold that territory all for Himself.
Just some thoughts hey! I've never been a big Hinn follower. But I've got to stop and applaud the guy for saying "Hey I got it wrong here." That's big.
Over and out
Kit K