A Summary Critique: Welcome, Holy Spirit


Just a few miles from Pastor Benny Hinn’s Orlando Christian Center (now called World Outreach Center) in Florida, at Universal Studios, one can see what, at first glance and from a distance, looks like a New York street. A closer took reveals cleverly built facades with nothing behind them.



Hinn’s latest literary offering, Welcome, Holy Spirit, is like those facades. He has crafted a book intended to be mainstream and as inoffensive as possible. He has even tried to paper over some old errors. But a closer look reveals the same Benny Hinn who fabricates events to demonstrate his alleged supernatural powers from God.



One example is his backing off the claim that his father once was the mayor of Jaffa, Israel. His new characterization of his father as having “a prominent position... in the political life of Israel” (p. 74) still remains an overstatement.



Another is his story of escaping serious injury in a 1983 plane crash. “I did not have a scratch,” he writes on page 254. Newspa­per and other reports from the time, howev­er, reveal that he was in a state of shock and was hospitalized for three days. He might not have had a scratch, but the inference one draws from his statement — that he was not harmed — is hardly accurate.



Hinn writes on page 50 that he knows whom God is healing and from what. Yet during a March 1993 interview with Inside Edition, when questioned about an actress who pretended to be healed of polio, Hinn told reporter Steve Wilson, “That was one we missed.”



The most notable example of Hinn’s per­sistence in fabricating the miraculous begins on page 230, where he claims fulfillment of prophecies by Demos Shakarian and Kathryn Kuhlman. Shakarian prophe­sied that someone would walk through a hospital and instantaneously heal patients. Kuhimans prophecy was an aspiration that all would be healed in one of her own ser­vices. These “prophecies” caused Hinn to wonder, “Would God raise masses of people from their beds of affliction?” (230).



In 1976, Hinn went to Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario for a crusade at the invita­tion of Pastor Fred Spring at Elim Pentecostal Tabernacle. Hinn said that “God moved mightily in that city” and that his meetings drew overflow crowds (231).



Hinn continues: “I received a special invitation from the Reverend Mother of a Catholic Hospital in the area. She wanted me to conduct a service for the patients — along with three other Pentecostal preachers and seven Catholic priests. The chapel of the large hospital seated about 150” (231). Hinn describes the chapel as being filled with chronically ill bed and wheelchair patients, with doctors and nurses watching “from the balcony.” Some were turned away because of limited space (231).



The hospital under discussion is General Hospital, located at 941 Queen St. E., in Sault Sainte Marie, and has 182 beds. The picture being paint­ed here is that many of the patients from those 182 beds were at the meeting, since the 150-seat chapel was so full “that many could not attend because of the limited space” (231).



Hinn recounts that he took control that day, and with anointing bottles in hand, ministers and priests were told to anoint and pray for everyone present. Hinn says one priest kept knocking down patients as he anointed them. Hinn adds that patients all over the chapel were being healed instantly (233-34).



At this point even Mother Superior got caught up in the excitement, according to Hinn: “After the service in the chapel, the Reverend Mother asked, ‘Oh this is won­derful. Would you mind coming now and laying hands on all the patients in the rooms?’ …More than fifty doctors, nurses, Pentecostal preachers, priests and nuns joined this ‘Miracle Invasion’ team as we headed for those hospital rooms” (234).



Hinn recounts that as they walked down the hall “you could feel God’s Spirit all over the building. Within a few minutes the hos­pital looked like it had been hit by an earth­quake. People were under the power of the Holy Spirit up and down the hallways as well as in the rooms” (234).



Even the visitor’s lounge could not escape the power: “We entered the lounge...One by one, they fell under the power. In fact, as we began to pray for one gentleman who was smoking, he fell under the power with a lit cigarette still in his mouth” (235).



The detailed account of the miraculous in Welcome, Holy Spirit tops anything in the Book of Acts or in the annals of church his­tory. Something of this magnitude probably never would have been forgotten in Sault Sainte Marie (1977 population: 80,219) or especially at General Hospital. Yet there is neither anyone at the hospital who remem­bers it as Hinn tells it, nor any records to confirm facts clouded by faulty memories. The real story is neither extraordinary nor miraculous.



Contacting the hospital got us the response, “Benny who?” Lois C. Krause, director of community relations for Sault Sainte Marie General Hospital, denied all that Hinn claimed. She said it could not have happened in the way Hinn’s book describes. She laughed after reading a copy of the story. No miracles occurred in the hospital as Hinn claims, she said, adding that “no patients left that day” due to mirac­ulous occurrences.



Some older staff members did recall Hinn’s name, but did not remember anything as extraordinary as his book describes. They did not deny the possibility that the chapel meeting was held, but did not recall the meet­ing as recounted in Welcome, Holy Spirit.



Mother Superior Mary Francis, of the Gray Sisters of the Immaculate Conception order, also disputed Hinn’s account. She said she did not invite Hinn, but reluctantly allowed his chapel service in deference to the pastoral care department, which initiated the service.



The hospital then released a statement, which included the following remarks: “No such events have ever occurred at General Hospital. His pronouncement can neither be verified through the medical records nor by testimony from past or present personnel of this hospital. Mr. Hinn’s claims are Out­landish and unwarranted.”



Equally offensive to Hinn’s myth-making in Welcome, Holy Spirit is his appealing to the likes of Charles Ryrie, Lewis Chafer, John Walvoord, D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, and A. J. Gordon to support his teaching on the third person of the Trinity. It is obvious that Hinn is working overtime to make it appear that he is in line with many of the greats in recent church history.



Bearing in mind that Hinn (a Pentecostal) has spent the last year or so with one foot in the Word-Faith camp and the other in the Assemblies of God camp, anyone familiar with the above list of theologians and evan­gelists is going to see a contradiction akin to Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses favorably citing the works of Walter R. Martin. Ryrie, for example, believed the Pentecostal posi­tion of tongues “is not valid” (The Holy Spirit, 89) and that sign gifts “were also temporary” (92). Lewis Chafer, in volume 7 of his Systematic Theology, lists seven errors of professional healers (183-85), call­ing their teachings cruel and unscriptural.” He says that “many are driven insane” by the treatment and teachings of modern-day healers.



A.J. Gordon was a Baptist minister in Boston during the 19th century, and evangelist heavily involved in foreign and local missions. He was clearly a noncharismatic who lived long before the modern Pentecostal movement. The book Who Was Who on Church History (Keats Publishing, 1974) details the sound, sane, scriptural, and practical life (168-69) of this ardent supporter of D. L. Moody.



R. A. Torrey deplored mysticism and emotionalism, writing, “filling with the Spirit that is not maintained by persistent study of the Word of God will soon vanish…Anyone who wishes to obtain and maintain fullness of power in Christian life and service must constantly feed upon the Word of God” (How to Obtain Fullness o Power, 18).



The way Hinn uses sources is misleading and wrong. It creates an illusion of credibility, respectability, endorsement, and scholarship. The cults have been doing this for years. Indeed, it is a cultic distinctive to make it appear that there is scholarly support for one’s position when there is no such support.



Hinn, like many big-name Christian authors, has editors and ghostwriters who help produce his books. However, the buck still stops with Hinn. His name on the book’s cover confers responsibility for its contents. Hinn and the creators of Welcome, Holy Spirit have promulgated a scholastic deception.



- G. Richard Fisher and M. Kurt Goedelman



G. Richard Fisher and M. Kurt Goedelman serve on the board of directors of Personal Freedom Outreach (PFO). PFO materials on Benny Hinn and other Christian discernment issues are available. Write to Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, St. Louis, MO 63136.

Excerpt from an interview with Derek Webb:

What does it mean on your new album when it says don’t label my music?

DW: It’s more of a personal liberty type comment, more than put a label on my music that I listen to so that I can discern between what is safe and right and what is dangerous and wrong. The whole secular/Christian thing, which is a total fiction, rather than just teaching me to listen to the Spirit and have the Spirit guide me into the truth and learn how to discern truth and beauty and find it in all kinds of places, which is more of the Francis Schaeffer model. Discern truth and beauty and don’t put your faith in categories.

Don’t let your local Christian bookstore do your thinking for you and believe that everything they have there for sale is good and spiritually beneficial to you. If anything, we have proven that the Church unfortunately is identified with really poor art. The Church certainly does not have the market cornered on beauty. A lot of what we do is not very beautiful. The art we make is not very good. A lot of the songs I have heard on Christian radio are just outright misrepresentations of the character of God.

I think you have to learn to discern and look elsewhere and say, “I need to learn how to engage with a God everywhere I can find truth and beauty, regardless of the intention of the maker of that art.” I really believe that is a more biblical worldview. It also keeps us from being people who live in fear. There is no room for living in fear. There is no reason to be afraid. There is no reason to be fearful of secular music. We should learn how to chew on the meat, spit out the bones, to discern the truth and beauty, to commend that rather than to be just completely fearful and put all our security in these categories that don’t mean anything. It’s a dangerous way to live.

The Christian industry, ridiculous as its existence I believe is, is an industry that literally markets records based on the worldview of the artists, which no other industry does. The one thing they do really well is get resources to Christians. I thought this is something I want in the hands of fellow believers. I think that is the audience that this content would be relevant to and so that is the avenue that I took. Providentially, I landed with a label that I had no idea was really given the freedom to go beyond that. That is what I’m trying to do now. I’m not making records specifically and exclusively for the Church anymore.

Like I said, Mockingbird, I believe, deals with much broader issues. There are many more points of connection with even our neighbors that don’t believe what we believe about Jesus but do believe it is right to care for the poor. Maybe that is our connection point. Regardless, the label allows me the freedom to do that. That is a great provision for me, but I do think it is strange that I am in Christian music.

See the entire interview at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/beta/issue_20_webb.php

“The contemporary American church is so largely enculturated to the American ethos of consumerism that it has little power to believe or act.” These words are written in some of the very first pages of Walter Brueggemann’s The Prophetic Imagination. If one year of seminary has done anything for me, it has made me conclude that the American way of life, our focus on consumerism, materialism, and greed, is wrong.
Bruggemann talks in detail about what he calls “The Royal Consciousness,” going in detail first of all about the alternative community that Moses portrayed, breaking away from Egyptian consciousness, and then the days of Solomon. The reign of Solomon was the embodiment of the royal consciousness because it contained sexual immorality, a large bureaucratic government, an army that no longer acted on authentic national interest, a fascination with wisdom (which Bruggemann argues was an effort to rationalize reality), and conscripted labor. Although the Solomic empire was one of affluence, it also led to an oppressive social policy and static religion. These three things, according to Bruggemann, embody the royal consciousness. No longer did Solomon stand in the Mosaic tradition of equality, but affluence gained the upper hand. Justice was replaced with oppression. When criticism came, he silenced it through prohibition or imperviousness.
So what is the prophetic imagination? Bruggemann says that it is the task of prophetic imagination “to cut through the numbness, to penetrate the self-deception, so that the God of endings is confessed as Lord.” The prophet offers symbols that confront the numbness. The prophet brings to the surface those fears which we no longer even admit that we have. The prophet speaks metaphorically about the death we feel around us with anger and passion. Bruggemann says, “The riddle and insight of biblical faith is the awareness that only anguish leads to life, only grieving leads to joy, and only embraced endings permit new beginnings.”
As I read this book, I was struck at how the comparisons between the Solomic empire and America today. I commented to my professor that the books he assigned to read were “really screwing my world up.” Dr. Hawk smiled in that fantastic smile he has and his eyes lit up and he said, “Heaven forbid you should be forced to think in seminary.”
One of the more interesting things about going to an evangelical seminary that has seventy different denominations represented is the frequency you will run into someone who disagrees with you. This has been the case this year at the Brethren-sponsored school that I attend. Although the school is sponsored by Brethren Church, it also has a large United Methodist influence. Being the “questioning Calvinist” that I am, I’ve had some interesting conversations. The funny thing is though that I now count among some of my very best friends a member of the PCUSA, several Anglicans (broken off from the Episcopal Diocese), several United Methodists, a Quaker, and at least one American Baptist. There are others who I do not consider my friends, in particular, one man who likes to spout his borderline prosperity theology and even had the guts to try and use this book to support it. (You ever met one of those guys that when he talks, he is so wrong, you do not know even where to start?) With this consortium of people sitting in our Old Testament class the last day of class, we discussed this book. While others were tip-toeing around the tulips, and my very wrong colleague spewing venomous thoughts, I finally had to say something. Below is a paraphrase:

“As I read this book, I found it hard not to compare the culture of Solomon to American culture. The American church has slid so far downhill that it has embraced the philosophies of the culture and replaced the gospel with marketing strategies and feel-good theology and the [I raised my voice a bit here] the absolute heresy of prosperity theology. We want to sit back in our comfortable chairs and watch life get better while out brothers and sisters in other countries are being persecuted and discovering what it really means to be Christ-followers. I find it hard not to believe that very soon, the American church will soon fall under persecution.”

There were audible gasps. And then there was silence. Until my professor finally broke up the silence and said, “Well on that note…” At that point, a nervous laughter escaped from the class. “…we’ll dismiss the class.” Suddenly, and only for a moment, I was a celebrity. I was getting pats on the back and handshakes. People were saying, “I have been thinking that and wanted to say it all year.” I gingerly approached Dr. Hawk who greeted me with a smile. “I didn’t ruffle too many feathers, did I?” I asked him.
“It’s ok. I was trying to get someone to speak up and contribute to the conversation and you did and you said exactly what I was thinking.”
After class, I was a little dismayed. I did not consider myself a prophet at that moment, but I thought of Jeremiah and his weeping. I did not want pats on the back or handshakes. I wanted someone to say it before I had to. I wanted to turn around and look at all my friends and scream at them, “Why can’t you see this? You are all good students of God’s Word and good student theologians. Why can’t you see this?” I admit, I was even a bit angry. For someone to congratulate me that I had announced that I thought that this country would fall under judgment some day just seemed to not leave me. I really did hurt for my country and I still do.
This is the part of the essay where I’m supposed to give concluding thoughts and wrap up this nice little story in a neat package and serve it to you. The problem is that I can’t. I do not what to say or what to write that will make you or me feel as sense of conclusion, nor do I think that you should. I will say that I am finally learning what it means to be called to ministry and it is a burden that I would not wish on anyone.

So I took a “spiritual retreat” last week. There were some things in my head and in my spirit that I really needed to get straight. I went out to the local park, Brookside Park, here in Ashland. I found a nice park bench and just sat there for a few moments. I really had no plans, just wanted to spend some time with God. I finally started to read about the kings of Israel and Judah and all the fun that they had trying to duke it out and find who was going to be on top. Although I love history (btw, someone should make that a movie), it was not really spiritually nourishing. I went back to watching the ducks in the pond…and I think I learned more from them than I thought.
There were about five families of ducks. Each family of ducks seemed to be in a different stage of development. There were the very young ducks, the ones that had just learned to swim. The mama duck kept pretty close to them. Then there were the slightly older ducks; the mama duck was close, but not too close. The third group of ducks were like junior highers, always wanting to run off and get themselves in trouble, but the mama duck was never far behind, honking her admonishments. The fourth and fifth groups looked like teenagers, getting ready to leave home for good. You could barely tell the difference between the ducklings and their mama.
Then there was the mallard, the guardian of the pond. Of course, he is regaled in his green-feathered head, very much looking like a warrior and acting like one. He would slowly circle the pond, for the most part, and if any, and I do mean any duck tried to get in the pond and did not belong there, he would honk and flutter his wings, and do his best to get those ducks out of there.
I guess what struck me the most is how much God is like a mama duck. By the way, this isn’t going to be some huge theological argument. It might even sound trite, but bear with me. I think that God lets us explore a bit on our own until we get to a point where we might go too far. He continually honks at us to let us know that He is there and when we might go too far, those honks get a little louder.
That mallard duck reminded me of a guardian. The church really needs those. Its not that we do not want people to come to church, but even in that, we must be on guard against those people that only come to us to stir up trouble, those “other ducks” that might only be there to destroy the pond, i.e., the church.
The rest of the retreat was great. I read some in 1 Peter and walked around and prayed. The biggest thing on my heart was Kandice. It has been so hard seeing God through all of this. There are times when I feel like he is just out of reach. I think that it is these times that he uses to test us. There seem to be many competing and confusing voices in my head and somehow I am supposed to discern the voice of God. It’s not easy, let me tell you.
June 22nd is coming soon, so please keep her in your prayers. You will be undergoing a total colectomy (her entire large intestine will be removed). We both covet your prayers.


I Can't Do This - Plumb
Genre/Lang. : Christian
I woke up late. Guess I'm never really early. I hesitate, Only to fail. I get so tired Of procrastinating. I need a change. I can't do this. I can't do this. I can't do this by myself. I can't do this. I can't do this. Oh God, I need your help. I'm standing still, Moved so peaceful. I can't pretend That I'm fine. I get so ill, Crazy, agitated When I'm not really dying. I can't do this. I can't do this. I can't do this by myself. I can't do this. I can't do this. Oh God, I need your help. Press into me. (Press into me.) Breathe the air. (Breathe the air.) Bask in me. (Bask in me.) You'll be free To do anything. I can't do this. I can't do this. I can't do this by myself. I can't do this. I can't do this. Oh God, I need your help. I can't do this. I can't do this. I can't do this by myself. I can't do this. I can't do this. Oh God, I need your help.

Announcer:
And now, a message from the President of the United States.

President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.

In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.

In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.

As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.

We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.

I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.

I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.

On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.

But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.

But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.

There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?

What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.

But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!

As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.

Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"

In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.

Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?

And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!

test

SHUT ME OUT (Kutless)

Video Code provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Thoughts on the Eucharist


As a person who grew up Southern Baptist, I held a memorial view of the Eucharist. It is called "The Lord's Supper" in the SBC. I have since left the church, not really for doctrinal reasons at the time, but more for geographical reasons. Moving into the reformed camp a bit stronger, I have also adjusted my view of the Eucharist. I called it a "high symbolism" at the time, but now I am beginning to understand the direction that I was going.

From everything that I can read in Scripture and from other sources that have helped to clarify what I believe, I have moved to a more Presbyterian view of Communion. I do not believe in the Catholic view of transubstantiation and I do not believe in the Lutheran view of consubstantiation. I am now leaning very strongly toward a Calvinistic view of the Eucharist, not because I am Calvinist in my beliefs regarding election, but because this just seems to make theological sense to me.

It seems relatively obvious from the way I read things in the New Testament, that when Jesus said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," he was not simply using a metaphor or even a "high metaphor" as I would call it. The bottom line is that it is either symbolic or it is not. I tend to believe that it is not symbolic. That imagery is beautiful, even as mere symbolism, but it does not seem to be meant as mere symbolism. This is a much better view:



"Following a phrase of Augustine, the Calvinist view is that 'no one bears away from this Sacrament more than is gathered with the vessel of faith'. 'The flesh and blood of Christ are no less truly given to the unworthy than to God's elect believers', Calvin said, 'but those who partake by faith receive benefit from Christ, and the unbelieving are condemned by partaking. By faith (not a mere mental apprehension), and in the Holy Spirit, the partaker beholds God incarnate, and in the same sense touches him with hands, so that by eating and drinking of bread and wine Christ's actual presence penetrates to the heart of the believer more nearly than food swallowed with the mouth can enter in.'

Calvin specifically rejected adoration of the Eucharistic bread and wine as "idolatry", however. The elements may be disposed of without ceremony; they are unchanged, and as such the meal directs attention toward Christ's bodily resurrection and return." [Italics and bold type mine]

Any thoughts on this are appreciated.

David M.

The Fundamentalist on My Shoulder

Many people have seen the old cartoons of the devil sitting on the shoulder of the person or animal and the angel on the other shoulder. The devil whispers in the ear of the person or animal “Go ahead and do it. You’ll enjoy it. You know you want to.” Then the angel will whisper in the other ear of the person and say, “But the better part of you knows that it is wrong to do this. You want to be a better person so resist the temptation to do evil and do what is right.”
As I sit in seminary class, I often hear this little fundamentalist that seems to be sitting on my shoulder. As I listen to my Old Testament professor try to explain the two versions of the creation story that appear in Genesis, the little fundamentalist whispers in my ear that this professor is denying the validity of the Word of God. As I sit in my Christian Theology class and hear my professor explain the good points of postmodernism, the little fundamentalist on my shoulder whispers in my ear that she is denying the real truth.
That little fundamentalist made a home on my shoulder when I was born into a Southern Baptist home. He upgraded his home on my shoulder when I was enrolled as a kindergartener as a fundamentalist Baptist school. He whispered in my ear the whole time that I was not good enough, that there was no way that I could ever be good enough for God to look with favor on me.
When I was eighteen, the Holy Spirit joined the fundamentalist and my head and heart were often filled with the sounds of war. The moment that I began to try and apply the objective truth of God’s word to the subjective truth of my experience, the fundamentalist would whisper to me that this was not possible. The fundamentalist would demand of me that I follow the rules, that I dutifully hold my head down and submit to God’s Word. Whenever I dared to question the validity of any teaching, the fundamentalist would scream in my ear, “Who are you to question the Word of God?” The war between the Spirit and the fundamentalist took its toll and I called a truce. I did not call it because either side had won. I silenced both of them by living the life that I wanted to.
A year later, the Holy Spirit invited me to reengage…and I did. The Spirit fired the opening shot and he began to trounce the fundamentalist. Very soon, the fundamentalist was relegated to a defeated, but still very vocal part of me. He has remained there until this day.
I do not want to flick him off my shoulder and disregard him completely, because in that whispering and sometimes yelling, there is an underlying commitment to the truth. I always want to be concerned with truth, but never at the expense of the gospel. The gospel is a freeing, liberating, wonderful thing. As I read about the theology of Martin Luther and his experience with the gospel, I am reminded that the gospel liberates us from the law that we cannot uphold and brings to a place of worship of Christ.
With all due respect to the fundamentalist and the concern for truth, I now realize that God is more concerned with my love for him and my relationship with him than whether or not I get every single doctrinal issue correct. The process I now begin is the flicking of the fundamentalist off of my shoulder, but only after I have extracted the truth-seeking passion from him.
My relationship with God should exist first and foremost as just that, the relationship. Once I get that right, truth becomes secondary, but also consequential, the results of my right relationship with my Creator.

John Piper Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer
January 6, 2006

Dear Friends,

I hope this letter will encourage your prayer, strengthen your hope, and minister peace. I am writing with the blessing of the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church to help you receive the news about my prostate cancer.

At my annual urological exam on Wednesday, December 21, the doctor felt an abnormality in the prostate and suggested a biopsy. He called the next day with the following facts: 1) cancer cells were found in two of the ten samples and the estimate is that perhaps 5% of the gland is affected; 2) my PSA count was 1.6, which is good (below 4 is normal); 3) the Gleason score is 6 (signaling that the cancer is not aggressive). These three facts incline the doctor to think that it is unlikely that the cancer has spread beyond the prostate, and that it is possible with successful treatment to be cancer-free.

Before going with my wife, Noël, to consult in person with the doctor on December 29 about treatment options, I shared this news with the Bethlehem staff on Tuesday morning, December 27, and with the elders that evening. Both groups prayed over me for healing and for wisdom in the treatment choices that lie before us. These were sweet times before the throne of grace with much-loved colleagues.

All things considered, Noël and I believe that I should pursue the treatment called radical prostatectomy, which means the surgical removal of the prostate. We would ask you to pray that the surgery be completely successful in the removal of all cancer and freedom from possible side effects.

With the approval of Bethlehem’s executive staff and elder leadership, we are planning surgery in February. The recovery time is about three weeks before returning to a slow work pace, and six weeks to be back to all normal activities.

This news has, of course, been good for me. The most dangerous thing in the world is the sin of self-reliance and the stupor of worldliness. The news of cancer has a wonderfully blasting effect on both. I thank God for that. The times with Christ in these days have been unusually sweet.

For example, is there anything greater to hear and believe in the bottom of your heart than this: “God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him” (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10)?

God has designed this trial for my good and for your good. You can see this in 2 Corinthians 1:9, “Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” And in 2 Corinthians 1:4-6, “He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God . . . If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation.”

So I am praying: “Lord, for your great glory, 1) don’t let me miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for me in this experience; 2) don’t let the people of Bethlehem miss any of the sanctifying blessings that you have for us in this; 3) grant that the surgery be successful in removing cancer and sparing important nerves; 4) grant that this light and momentary trial would work to spread a passion for you supremacy for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ; 5) may Noël and all close to me be given great peace—and all of this through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.” I hope God will lead you to pray in a similar way.

With deep confidence that

“Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting.
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
1 Corinthians 15:54-57

Pastor John

With Sam Crabtree, Lead Pastor for Life Training
Kenny Stokes, Lead Pastor for Spreading
Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Council of Elders
Ross Anderson, MD, Bethlehem Elder

Project Wittenberg
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther, 1517



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

Martin Luther - Project Wittenberg

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



Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)


Published in:

Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
_______________


[10] [20] [30] [40] [50] [60] [70] [80] [90]
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.


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

This text was converted to ASCII text for Project Wittenberg by Allen Mulvey, and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:


Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary.


E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 - Fax: (260) 452-2126



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

This was written by a friend of mine named Duane Harris whom I graduated high school with in 1994. We recently reunited and I will be going to a high school reunion held in Gatlinbug, TN in a few months and will see him as well as other friends for the first time in years. Can't wait!

"I just finished watching Saving Private Ryan. I have watched this movie probably ten times before tonight. As I sit here tonight I was moved with thoughts and emotions that compelled me to write you all today. I know there is a chance that you guys would think it is just another cheesy thought from Harry, but I figured since you know how I am any way you would forgive me if you did. As I watched that movie I had thought about the ultimate sacrifice that was made by so many. We as Americans so easily forget what those who have gone before us and served in combat have given up. Not only has the cause they fought for been so just, but the life that they could have would be a life in the most privilaged nation on Earth. I think about the men and women who have served our country in war over the decades. I thought about how each man who lost his life in combat lost all of the things we enjoy every day as well. We live in America. We are the richest, most powerful, and most enveyed nation in the world. Why?, because God has chosen to bless this nation. I feel a big reason for that is because the American fighting man has always faught for what was right. He bled and died for people who he never met in foriegn countries so that they may be free from oppression, dictatorship, and slavery. The American military has been the only force capable of accomplishing those tasks. The American soldier has not only preserved our own nation's freedom but the freedom of many nations all over the world. That, I believe, is a big reason God has chosen to bless and keep this great nation we call home. The ultimate sacrifice has been made by so many, but not only those who have died need to be remembered. The ones who are currently serving over seas and the ones who have been badly wounded in combat, never to live a normal life should also be remembered. I know that Veterans Day is over but that doesn't mean that we can't take a moment to thank our God for the men and women who have made it possible for us to live our lives as we do in this great nation. Everything we enjoy can be traced back to a lonely, scared, cold, tired, strong, brave, well trained, and unwavoring soldier fighting on the battlefied of today or on the battlefieds over years gone by. I don't want anyone to thank me today for my service. This is not about that at all. I have done nothing compared to the ones I have referred to in this email. I just want everyone to take a moment today to thank God for the American fighting man, pray for the ones serving right now, and thank a Veteran if you get a chance. Especially a WWII vet. Love you guys and I hope you all have a great day. God bless America. Honor the flag, and when you see one flying today where ever it is, remember them."

TO: Commander In Chief, Spiritual Armed Forces, Jesus Christ.
FROM: Officer of Battle, Spiritual Armed Forces, Weary Warrior
RE: Request For Transfer

Dear Sir,

I am writing this to You to request a transfer to a desk job. I herewith present my reasons: I began my career as a private but because of the intensity of the battle You have quickly moved me up in the ranks. You have made me an officer and given me a tremendous amount of responsibility. There are many soldiers and recruits under my charge. I am constantly being called upon to dispense wisdom, make judgements, and find solutions to complex problems. You have placed me in a position to function as an officer, when in my heart I know I have only the skills of a private. I realize that You have promised to supply all I would need for the battle but Sir, I must present You a realistic picture of my equipment. My uniform; once so crisp and starched is now stained with tears and blood of those I have tried to assist. The soles of my boots are cracked and worn from the miles I have walked trying to enlist and encourage and instruct the troops. My weapons are marred, tarnished and chipped from constant use in battle against the enemy. Even the Book of Regulations I was issued has been torn and tattered from endless use. The Words are now smeared. You have promised You would be with me throughout, but when the noise of the battle is so loud and the confusion is so great, I can neither see nor hear You. I feel so alone. I am tired. I am discouraged. I have Battle Fatigue. I would never ask You for a discharge. I love being in Your service but I humbly request a demotion and transfer. I will file papers; anything. Just get me out of the battle; PLEASE Sir!

Your Faithful But Tired Servant,
Weary Warrior


TO: Officer of Battle, Spiritual Armed Forces, Weary Warrior
FROM: Commander In Chief, Spiritual Armed Forces, Jesus Christ
RE: Your Request For Transfer

Dear Soldier,

Your request for transfer has been denied. I herewith present my reasons.....

You are needed in this battle. If you leave your post, your comrades-in-arms will be exposed to the enemy. I have personally selected you and I will keep My word to supply your need. You do not need a demotion or transfer. You need a period of R and R (Renewal and
Rekindling) I have set aside a place on the battlefield that is insulated from all sound and is fully protected from the enemy. I will meet you there and will give you rest. I will remove your old equipment and make all things new. You have been wounded in the battle, my precious soldier. Your wounds are not visible, but you have received grave internal injuries. You need to be healed and I will heal you. You have been weakened in the battle and need to be strengthened. I will strengthen you and be your strength. I will instill in you confidence and ability. My words will rekindle within you a renewed love, zeal and passion to fight the enemy. Report to me tattered and empty for I will refill you, soldier.

Compassionately Yours,
Jesus Christ, Commander In Chief

This is a message that I sent to another group that I believe never got posted because of an "end of thread notice." It was a bit off-topic for that group, but I thought that others that read this blog might get some helpful info from it:

"I am a first-year seminary student studying for my Masters of Divinity degree at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio. I received a free copy of Today's New International Version from my seminary which I believe is the translation that the gender-neutrality has come up. I might be wrong about that, but that is my understanding of it. If that is the case, I did peruse the translation and looked up some key passages. In particular interest to me was the 1 Timothy passages on requirements for overseers and elders. It is important to note that these passages were not changed to be gender-neutral. As a matter of fact, from what I could see, there were no changes made to parts of the Bible that obviously had to do with one gender. In other words, Jesus was never made out to be a woman and masculitnity or feminity (sp?) was not stripped of anything where context showed the gender being obviously specified. What was changed was phrases such as "brothers" now read "brothers and sisters" and the like.

"David, you are right. There are no perfect Bible translations. According to the textbook which I am using right now in my Hermeneutics class, Michael Gorman lists the versions which he will and will not use for exegesis. Please keep in mind that this was written before the current TNIV controversy. They are as follows:

Versions Preferred For Exegesis:
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
New American Bible (NAB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Versions Acceptable For Exegesis, With Caution:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Revised English Bible (REB)
New International Version (NIV)

Versions Unacceptable as the Basis for Exegesis, but useful in other ways:
The Message
Good News Bible (GNB)
Contemporary English Bible (CEV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Jersuselem Bible (NJB)

Versions Unacceptable for Exegesis:
The Living Bible (LB)
King James Version (KJV) or Authorized Version (AV)
New King James Version (NKJV)

"That's right. Gorman considers the King James an unacceptable Bible for exegesis. The reason being is, "Since 1611, many older and better manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered..." and the increase in textual criticism. All of this information is taken from Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael J. Gorman. From everything that I could read, Gorman is moderate in his theology, so I do not agree with everything he writes, but the point about the KJV version of the Bible is well taken. My preferred translation is the NIV, but I also have the priviledge of being able to read some of the original Greek and there is no better way to read it. However, a caution must be added here also. If you want to learn Greek or Hebrew in order to read the Bible in the original language to "find out what it really says," you will be very dissapointed. For the most part, the Bible in English as we have it today is a very accurate reflection of what the Greek and Hebrew says. Greek and Hebrew help you increase your knowledge of what the Greeks mean when they use certain words, but rarely does it aid you in changing the meaning of a passage when it is read in English. A good example of what I'm talking about is the use of three words for love in Greek that mean different things versus the one word that we have.

A good tool for any layperson who wants to increase his knowledge of Scripture and his enjoyment of the study of Scripture is a good Hermeneutics textbook which could be recommended by your pastor and learning how to use a Greek and Hebrew lexicon. I would never suggest, however, to simply use a Hebrew and Greek lexicon without some knowledge of hermeneutics because just because that word means something and it is in that particular place does not mean that it means that in that particular place. As the old saying goes, "A text without a context is a pretext" and as my undergrad Greek professor drilled into our heads: 'Context is king.'"

The Conversational Lord's Prayer

Man: Our Father Who Art In Heaven.

God: Yes?

Man: Don't interrupt me. I'm praying.

God: But -- you called ME!

Man: Called you? No, I didn't call you. I'm praying. Our Father who art in Heaven.

God: There -- you did it again!

Man: Did what?

God: Called ME. You said, "Our Father who art in Heaven" Well, here I am. What's on your mind?

Man: But I didn't mean anything by it. I was, you know, just saying my prayers for the day. I always say the Lord's Prayer. It makes me feel good, kind of like fulfilling a duty.

God: Well, all right. Go on.

Man: Okay, Hallowed be thy name . .

God: Hold it right there. What do you mean by that?

Man: By what?

God: By "Hallowed be thy name"?

Man: It means, it means . . .good grief, I don't know what it means. How in the world should I know? It's just a part of the prayer. By the way, what does it mean?

God: It means honored, holy, wonderful.

Man: Hey, that makes sense. I never thought about what 'hallowed' meant before.
Thanks. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

God: Do you really mean that?

Man: Sure, why not?

God: What are you doing about it?

Man: Doing? Why, nothing, I guess. I just think it would be kind of neat if you got control, of everything down here like you have up there. We're kinda in a mess down here you know.

God: Yes, I know; but, have I got control of you?

Man: Well, I go to church.

God: That isn't what I asked you. What about your bad temper? You've really got a problem there, you know. And then there's the way you spend your money --all on yourself. And what about the kind of books you read?

Man: Now hold on just a minute! Stop picking on me! I'm just as good as some of the rest of those people at church!

God: Excuse ME. I thought you were praying for my will to be done. If that is to happen, it will have to start with the ones who are praying for it. Like you -- for example.

Man: Oh, all right. I guess I do have some hang-ups. Now that you mention it, I could probably name some others.

God: So could I.

Man: I haven't thought about it very much until now, but I really would like to cut out some of those things. I would like to, you know, be really free.

God: Good. Now we're getting somewhere.We'll work together -- You and ME. I'm proud of You.

Man: Look, Lord, if you don't mind, I need to finish up here. This is taking a lot longer than it usually does. Give us this day, our daily bread.

God: You need to cut out the bread. You're overweight as it is.

Man: Hey, wait a minute! What is this? Here I was doing my religious duty, and all of a sudden you break in and remind me of all my hang-ups.

God: Praying is a dangerous thing. You just might get what you ask for. Remember, you called ME -- and here I am. It's too late to stop now. Keep praying. ( . . pause . . ) Well, go on.

Man: I'm scared to.

God: Scared? Of what? I know what you'll say. Try ME.

Man: Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.

God: What about Ann?

Man: See? I knew it! I knew you would bring her up! Why, Lord, she's told lies about me, spread stories. She never paid back the money she owes me. I've sworn to get even with her!

God: But -- your prayer -- What about your prayer?

Man: I didn't -- mean it.

God: Well, at least you're honest. But, it's quite a load carrying around all that bitterness and resentment isn't it?

Man: Yes, but I'll feel better as soon as I get even with her. Boy, have I got some plans for her. She'll wish she had never been born.

God: No, you won't feel any better. You'll feel worse. Revenge isn't sweet. You know how unhappy you are -- Well, I can change that.

Man: You can? How?

God: Forgive Ann. Then, I'll forgive you; And the hate and the sin, will be Ann's problem -- not yours. You will have settled the problem as far as you are concerned.

Man: Oh, you know, you're right. You always are. And more than I want revenge, I want to be right with You…(sigh)…All right, all right…I forgive her.

God: There now! Wonderful! How do you feel?

Man: Hmmmm. Well, not bad. Not bad at all! In fact, I feel pretty great!
You know, I don't think I'll go to bed uptight tonight. I haven't been getting much rest, you know.

God: Yeah, I know. But, you're not through with your prayer are you? Go on.

Man: Oh, all right. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

God: Good! Good! I'll do that. Just don't put yourself in a place where you can be tempted.

Man: What do you mean by that?

God: You know what I mean.

Man: Yeah. I know. Okay.
God: Go ahead. Finish your prayer.

Man: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

God: Do you know what would bring me glory --What would really make me happy?

Man: No, but I'd like to know. I want to please you now. I've really made a mess of things. I want to truly follow you. I can see now how great that would be. So, tell me . . .How do I make you happy?

God: YOU just did.

Someone just brought up in a class that I am in the similarities between Gnosticism and the modern-day cult Scientology. After some brief research, I came across this famous article written in 1991 by Time magazine about Scientology.

Check it out at:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

Dave M.