Humanism and Idealism

I Wonder And Ponder, Therefore I Flounder

For the last few years I’ve observed in frustrating conversation the clash and confusion of humanistic and idealistic views.

This has been an ongoing mental problem that has infected Western thinking since the early Greek times. We see the conflict between humanism and idealism set in stone, expressed through Catholic Church and Gothic/Baroque architecture, and now thrown every which way through saturated media content.

I can’t help but think, this has a huge and devastating effect that is having on generations in their early adolescence. I can’t help but think this is the reason why their is a rise drug taking and substance abuse, depression and suicide and the increase of homosexual behaviour.

But it’s worse then that. We see this Humanism vs Idealism (HvI) appeal to us through today’s advertising. And now we can’t even have normal conversations because of these fundamental clashes when we discuss issues.

In observing my own conversations and others, we are failing to communicate effectively to each other anymore in a way that makes sense. With the way I have spoken, I have observed that I will often speak with an image in my head in what is ‘right’, with the ideal form or concept what a good government is or what a good church is. But then I am not seeing this revealed in either the country I live in or the church that I’d like to see.

Have We Been Fed A Lie?

A common marketing quote I keep hearing is ‘People don’t know what they want, so convince them what you have is worth getting’. I believe this is the lie. And I believe this lie is often hidden behind the appeal.

Let’s look at politics and see how Humanism and Idealism work in this setting.

Much to my horror, George Bush used Christian ideals to invade Afghanistan. The propoganda that the Howard government churned through the social media was one of idealistic tones. The strong faced Howard, the axis of Evil, evil North Korea, anti-abortion, anti-gay, right and wrong.

After the whole world was united singing with Autralia in the 2000 Olympic Games, ‘Share the Dream’, you have to ask the obvious – where did this dreamworld go?  War was declared a year later that divided the world! I can only see it boil down to the way we see things with our minds, or how we are taught to see or think with our minds. The ideals in propaganda were pushed on us to justify murder under false evidence.

It was sad to see that Hillsong and C3 align themselves to strong anti-Christ ideals in being silent on such issues as murdering innocent people, money is the root of all ev sign of prosperity and blessing. But very quickly, as a nation, we were getting tired of an idealisitc government. The Greens on the other hand were portrayed as very humanistic. Talk to any Christian about the Green’s and they were treated like communists.

Just before Kevin Rudd was elected, he took a very different approach to his political portrayal then Latham and Crean – he became human. He was portrayed as a family man. He lost the suit. He was wearing smart casual clothing you would see someone wear around the house. I actually believed he would start a behavioural trend in local churches – and he did. Some Pentecostal churches in my local area, C3 included, had pastors change their attire to more casual and down to earth basis.

Kevin was relatable. He seemed human. He was likable. And he was questionable. He answered questions!

And then I saw something unsettling. It was on ABC’s Q&A. Rudd was in parliament with Tony Jones, answering students questions. Maybe the students were intimidated looking like fools in front of the Prime Minister, the camera’s or their peers. But I had trouble watching this.

I felt fear. Not from within me but from within them. They were worried. Their questions were great. But they were afraid. Afraid to offend each other – but not afraid to boldly question the prime-minister. They were quick to get really fearfully offended if a comment slightly degraded the colour of a another person. They were afraid of racism and  having a difference of opinion that would look as though they might offend another peer – but those that asked questions were all idealistic. I was seeing a manifestation in these kids paralysis between humanistic and idealistic mentality’s. They were trying to be one mind with these two paradigm’s. That’s what I feel I could narrow it down too. I could only feel sad for them.

In this setting, Rudd had lost the relaxed father-like figure. Coming up to the elections, the suits were back in. Even though he was ousted by Julia Gillard, all the attire and slogans and propaganda are being drummed into us again. And the Australian public is sick of it.

But we don’t want empty idealistic slogans and promises. We want to be advertised a government that we can relate too, where we can accept their failures. But the media won’t allow fatal humanistic qualities now.

There is the ideal Right and the ideal Left. It’s the same for the US and the Brits. We’ve heard the ideal promises, but they’d lost any sense of reality with us as they make Australia ‘Move Forward’.

You could not get more of a Western Statement. We are still stuck in pagan Greece and so is the church. The current ruckus with Hillsong and the ATO has caused a serious debate among friends and family and other forums I’ve been watching. Normal people have been tainted to believe that the church just wants your money. Some want all the churches to be gone and that would help Australia a lot.

Humanism fell completely silent as ideal’s clashed. And I’ve seen myself and Facelift come up against these clashes. Then up comes the ‘Yes We Canberra’ Chaser show. Julie Bishop came on and made us all laugh with her ‘death stare’.

She became human again. Suddenly politics seemed interesting to me again. It was great to see her laugh and not take herself too seriously.

I’ve often wondered if Humanism can be associated with Arminianism and Idealism associated with Calvinism. There is something in this thinking that, I believe, has also affected the way the church perceives God and the way we live. Let’s look at two classic examples of this – Todd Bentley and Gugglimucci.

Both were praised and were mighty men of God (not in the bloggers eyes). Idealism seemed to get them to the platform as they became more the idols of different movements. People flocked to hear both and both were horribly exposed. How was their sin justified?

“You need to understand that they are human. For all have sinned and fallen short of -” No! When Idealism reigned in the minds of believers – a humanistic response JUSTIFIED their idol’s behaviour. Where did Idealism’s hold go?

From above, we have found this similar with discussions to justify failure. While seemingly opposite, they are lethal when we are not aware what happens when they work together. When in argument, this combo seems to work AGAINST our own rationality and reason. This, I believe, could be a symptom of brainwashing.

Oh The Confusion Of It All!

It’s odd to note that when the Protestant movement started, it was very similar to the early Catholic Church of the believer’s understanding that God is completely sovereign. In reading Luther and Calvin, they too were very idealistic in their faith towards God. But we’ve fallen the same way the Roman Catholic Church has. We are embracing other faiths into our own, (Gothic/Renaissance/etc art) and heading once again down a very humanistic road like the Catholic Church did (Baroque art). Jesus today is portrayed so human He’s sinful.

I’ve got a book in front of me. The title is ‘Jesus, CEO’ by Laurie Beth Jones. They’ve also written a book called ‘Jesus In Blue Jeans’.

Creflo Dollar has also redefined the Jesus of the bible, much to many Scholars disapproval. Phil Pringle has done EXACTLY the same. Influential ministers in the protestant movement are trying to make Jesus relevant today, renovating his image to make him popular among youth and hip culture. Those who have nothing to do with the church depict Jesus now as a sinner. (Believe me, you don’t want to see some of these images. Google at risk!)

In examining those hurt by religious idealism’s in America, we have seen a more humanistic movement emerge through John Crowder and Brandon Barthrop’s ministries. They engage at our level and bring God’s presence to us on a human and goofy level. Why can’t we have fun with Jesus who was human with us? Why can’t we have fun with Jesus? In making Jesus fun and relevant, they have turned him Jesus into an experiential Jesus. Their movements are focused on getting drunk and high on God

All you need to do is look at the art some of these experiential churches are using. These are churches that seem to be started up that aren’t into organised church structures. Brandon Barthrop’s church is using Bernini’s ‘Ecstasy of St Theresa ‘, an old baroque statue, to capture how we can have experiences with the divine. He uses her orgasmic-like expression to suggest that we too can have a supernatural  experience with the divine. This image is on his merchandise and youtube videos.

So we are seeing the timeline, this decade, our culture, the church, caught in this weird spiritual entanglement of spiritual mental instability. We are confused! So confused we can’t even communicate to each other properly anymore. So caught in these mindsets we can’t see the other person’s views because our ideals get in the way.

With Hollywood, we want to see our ideals become human again. Why? When our ideals are so far removed from our reality, we want to bring them down to our level so we feel connected with ourselves. To appreciate ourselves. But as soon we become insecure about anything at all, we want those ideals exalted so they can be a pillar to pretend our insecurities are dealt with.

This is why in times of fear and war, propaganda is so effective.

Once again look at the church culture. There are churches that tell us that Satan is king of the world, roaming like a lion, devouring our finances, ruining us, etc. We are told not to be unequally yolked. We are told to be of God’s House or God’s Army. We are told to submit to those who are pioneering reformation’s, bringing revivals, starting movements… the burn outs start, illusions break. Idealism weakens. People fall into exhaustion.

I’ve seen many churches go through this. Sometimes monthly, annually, every few months. It’s a cycle. I’ve nicknamed it ‘Bridal Menstruation’. The emotions of everyone are affected the way a lady is with her cycle. And it’s usually this gradual swing from humanism to idealism, then a repentance, refreshment or fall back into humanism. Or… depending on the church background, the other way round. It’s the inner tango of the mind. Does the mind of Christ focus on idealist or humanist views?

What am I saying in all this? Humanisms and Idealisms are wearing not only the world out, but also the church. Our own logic is exhausting us. Something in our thinking needs to change. What that is, I am yet to find out.

How can we overcome this? What are your thoughts?


138 thoughts on “Humanism and Idealism

  1. I was in a weird mood when I wrote this. Still am. I hope this makes sense. It was all just a massive ponder of where I’ve been for the last year.

  2. specksandplanks, when I told you that Phil Pringle is a Satanist, I was telling you the truth. Instead of evaluating my evidence with an approach that seeks after truth, you have chosen instead to poke fun at me. In so doing, you have missed the truth.

    You keep on asking, “What is the answer? What is the answer?” I am telling you that this is the answer. If you can rid yourself of intellectual pride, you will see that I have told you the truth.

    It is a sad state of affairs that people like you refuse to accept what is blatantly obvious.

  3. @ Chirpy – Apart from photos of hand gestures (“which does not a satanist make”), you have provided no proof/evidence whatsoever that PP is a satanist.

  4. That’s just the point. Why else would he be making these hand gestures while preaching?

    What is wrong with you people???


  5. You, teddy, are typical of the type of person who can talk about something for years and years and never come to any conclusion. It is people like you who are retarding the church.

  6. s&p,
    you’re looking in the wrong places. The best way to refute humanism and idealism is to ignore them and live the truth. They are false, devilish wisdom. We need the wisdom which is from above. Wrestling with worldly -isms leads to schisms and confusion, but God is not the author of confusion. By focusing on negatives you’re giving yourself a headache! You’ve started your own fog machine, and lost sight of the shakinah!


    Ephesians 6
    10 ¶ Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.
    11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
    12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

    There is a spiritual battle going on all around us for the souls of men. The only way to rescue them is to first of all know who we are in Christ, and ensure we are strong in the power of God’s might. In other words, as in first aid best practice, ensure we are safe before taking on the problems others face.

    Then we need to preach the gospel. People are delivered form the world’s system through the preaching of the gospel. It is the only thing which works. It is God’s power in our hands.

    In so doing we are already wrestling against the powers which perpetrate ‘isms and schisms.

    Focusing on what is wrong is both pointless and destructive. Focusing on the truth and the solution is effective and proactive.

    Chirpy, you’re being a wally! Teddy’s a good Christian person. It’s not teddy whose retarding the church, it’s religious conspiracy theorists like you who give us a bad name.

  7. Why else Chirpy indeed? Its your case to make, not ours, and you’ve failed miserably.

    What you have proved is that PP holds his hand in certain way from time to time.

    You have not proved why.

    You are the sort of person that was responsible for tens of thousands of people being burnt at the stake on the basis unfounded, uninformed, superstitious accusations.

    Come up with something better or shut up.

  8. mn, I’ll leave you to go round and round and round and round and round in circles about what is wrong with Phil Pringle.

  9. I dunno, Chirpy. You’re the one who’s spending hours and hours on your computer looking at Phil Pringle’s vids in slo-mo to see if he does anything secretly satanic with his hands! They call it being in La-La land up here!

    s&p, are you supporting the Greens with the statements you made about political parties and their leaders? You also seemed to think Kevin Rudd was perfect for Australia early in his leadership. Is that correct?

  10. Up? Up where? This is typical of your superior attitude, FaithLift. Jesus Christ died on a cross to serve all mankind and all you do is continually tell everybody how correct you are about every thing under the sun.

  11. Northern Territory, Chirpy, which is kind of ‘up’ unless you live on Bathurst Island or the Tiwi Islands!

    You see how your conspiratorial thinking and deep suspicion of everyone but yourself gets you into trouble!

    Anyway, ‘up here’ they call it La-La land when someone thinks silly ideas are real.

  12. Don’t worry about anything, FaithLift. There are no conspiracies on planet earth anywhere. Everybody in all countries and all parts of society are working together in harmony to promote peace, prosperity and goodwill towards all men.

  13. This is hilarious. Usually, its us regulars changing allies and opponents amongst ourselves depending on the topic. But this time, we have unity! None of us think that hand signals should label PP a satanist. LOL!

    But I did enjoy looking at the pictures. PP did provide a lot of material to work with!

    Oh dear – thread derailed right from the beginning.

    I’m not sure I understand the premise of Humanism vs Idealism though. I would have thought a lot of humanism incorporated various types of idealism. I’ll have to read the post above carefully.

  14. Sorry, Chirpy. We’re certainly not saying there aren’t problems. Just that we’d need more than hand signals.

  15. The whole point is obvious however I will spell it out anyway. It is not the hand signs in and of themselves which mark Phil Pringle as a Satanist. It is all of the false teaching that Pringle spews out which is designed to get as much money as possible from the church members IN CONJUNCTION with his Satanic hand signs which marks Phil Pringle as a Satanist.

    The whole point is that Phil Pringle is already teaching unbiblical things. His Satanic hand signs show why he is teaching unbiblical things. It’s because he is a Satanist.

    What do you want as proof? For God to write it in the sky? It’s there in front of your own eyes.

    Why do you think that the slogan for Oxford Falls Grammar School which Pringle founded is “For greatness, for excellence, for Christ”. It’s because, in Pringle’s book, Jesus Christ comes last. To Pringle, Jesus Christ is the platform under his feet that he uses to make money. He is a Satanist.

  16. Maybe Chirpy can switch this anti-Phil discussion over to one of the other anti-Phil discussions so we can get back on thread with what s&p obviously put a lot of effort and time into producing.

    Even I am conscious that s&p took the trouble to share his heart with everyone, and he should at least have the respect of people here rather than allow it to go off into La-La Land.

    I’ll be happy to talk with you about your theories Chirpy, and fend off insults, even, if you must so indulge, but there is already a thread which specialises in your little pictures, on which you can speculate to your heart’s content.

  17. FaithLift, I called you a ChristBot which is accurate because that is what you are. You don’t question anything in the church which is exactly how a ChristBot behaves.

    You called me a:

    > wally
    > religious conspiracy theorist
    > person who is in “La-La Land” (implied)

    So don’t talk to me, you hypocritical ChistBot about slinging insults because you’re the one who is slinging insults.

    You are so pure in your own eyes, you probably aren’t even aware of yourself slinging insults.

  18. Chirpy on the other thread if you have any respect for what Christ taught at all, and I will respond tonight.

    It is not obvious at all.

  19. Never mind, I googled it…. uh oh

    “Literally, one who becomes a robot for Jesus Christ.

    The christbot is almost always a whitebread protestant from the “to be avoided” parts of the United States – ie. the midwest and deep south. Frighteningly however, at least one specimen is known to have infiltrated the Yankee northeast.

    The christbot can be identified by the glazed, unfocused look in his (or her) eyes that changes to “wild” only upon mention of various pre-programmed buzzwords: gays, abortion, activist judges, Bill Clinton, muslims. During discussion of any of the aforementioned topics, christbots will mechanically refer to bible verses to support their case rather than using logic and reasoning. Oddly, every christbot seems to have the same chip in their brains, resulting in every christbot repeating the exact same worn out lines. The christbot (by nature) bludgeons the unsuspecting passerby with his or her spikey mechanical arm of ideology.

    The average christbot will also have one or more of the following traits: abnormal/irrational love for animals, a large SUV, sub-middle-school comprehension levels, several young christbot spawn, a past life involving prostitution and/or drugs, an almost fetish-like appreciation for capitalism, an unwavering affection for anyone named Bush……”

  20. “… several young christbot spawn” – that word, ‘spawn’, used in a Christian context again. It implies demonic offspring! By extension then, Christbots are satanists!

  21. I thought that I had made it up, but I think that it was a mistake for me to use this name because it takes the name of Jesus Christ in vain.

    However, whenever you come across somebody who will never admit that they are wrong about anything, you are dealing with a Bot – a person who always reaches a predetermined conclusion, that they are right and you are wrong.

  22. @ Chirpy. I really like you on Signposts02. You really make it different and add a fresh air to the place. We all have our disagreements. Bless you!

    Facelift: “s&p, are you supporting the Greens with the statements you made about political parties and their leaders? You also seemed to think Kevin Rudd was perfect for Australia early in his leadership. Is that correct?”

    This article wasn’t up hear to promote any particular political view. They were my observations in how politics seemed to use these paradigms for their own gain, for or against.

    Howard was portrayed as an ideal, strong, stable government. However, he heavily used propoganda to justify the things he did and used fear and smears to elivate his position. The smear was on those who were against him. They were viewed on a much more humanist level, which was very successful.

    When I talked about Kevin – he played middle ground and came at a time when this ideal form of government was starting to wear thin. A more relatable, down to earth figure like Kevin Rudd was portrayed to the Australian public. Less idealistic, but gave the appearance as a straight-shooting family man.

    Lastly I talked about how both sides of politics lost this humanist feel and started down the road of ideals again, which many Australians seem to be sick of. Julie Bishop last night on ‘Yes We Canberra’ really broke from that and was portrayed as a relatable woman who doesn’t take herself too seriously. Even Abbott tried on ‘Hey! Hey! It’s Saturday!’.

    I was not intending to take any side, but observe how these paradigms are used on an international scale when it comes to politics. I thought Kevin Rudd gave the Australian people the perfect image to help get him into power. He offered the Australian people a refreshing view of political figures.

    Please don’t read into what I am saying, when my focus for this thread was to highlight my exploration on the ying-yang on idealism and humanism.

  23. RP: “Sorry, Chirpy. We’re certainly not saying there aren’t problems. Just that we’d need more than hand signals.”

    I will probably be corrected by what I have written. Others who know more in these areas may point out flaws with my open thought article. I’m keen to be corrected.

    I am shocked to see this common theme manifest itself through culture time and time again.

  24. FL: “The best way to refute humanism and idealism is to ignore them and live the truth. They are false, devilish wisdom. We need the wisdom which is from above. Wrestling with worldly -isms leads to schisms and confusion, but God is not the author of confusion.”

    Priceless comment Facelift.

    I wrote this article after considering how you and me often relate to each other in discussion and also how you had that confusing discussion with mn. To remain ignorant of them Facelift is to be bound by them. How often have you considered why you think the way you do?

    After talking with Heretic about his views on the Hebraic world view, I have suddenly seen why it is important to analyse the way we think. It affects the way we interpret scripture.

    That very scripture you quoted I analysed and observed that my Western paradigm interpreted it wrongly not long after my talk with Heretic. God set me free from this world’s binding paradigms.

    I am all for truth Facelift. But when we focus in the Light of Truth, don’t you think the light will also reveal the darkness we must let go of? This means we must examine the way we think. I think this is why Paul instructed us to, ‘Renew your mind’.

  25. See, right there, specksandplanks is for real. All I get from Christendom for telling what I know is scorn and derision. I get treated like a fool. But along comes specksandplanks and throws me a lifeline by saying:

    “I really like you on Signposts02. You really make it different and add a fresh air to the place. We all have our disagreements. Bless you!”

    Well, I’m definitely going to take that lifeline of grace.

    ravingpente is pretty nice also.

    Anyway, I did hijack the thread, I suppose because the article for this thread is beyond me right now.

    See ya later. You can bet on it.

  26. Chirpy, I didn’t say you were a wally. I said you were being a wally. Saying someone is being foolish over an issue isn’t the same as calling them a fool.

    I took exception to the way you treated teddy, when you said ‘It is people like you who are retarding the church’. That is out of order, and I told you so. The church is neither being retarded, nor is teddy the cause of it.

    I stand by my statement that I think you are theorising a conspiracy. The conspiracy you are theorising is that PP is a secret satanist. I say this is unfounded nonsense. The onus is on you to prove me wrong.

    I think you are imagining that PP is a satanist, which, where I live, is synonymous with being in La-La Land, which is generally more of a term of endearment than an insult here.

    I am quite able to say I am wrong about something and apologise. It’s true I don’t think I’m wrong about this, however.

    I am wrong about something, actually. I was wrong to associate you with the name Wally. I have a few friends with that name who are very nice people.

    I have learned that it is better to comment on issues you know something about, so you can discuss them with some confidence, than to talk about things you know nothing about. So, on the myriad of things I know nothing about I say little, unless I am keen to learn more. The few things I understand I discuss.

    ‘Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.’ Pr. 29:20

    But isn’t it you who has said on this thread that we are all wrong, and asleep and foolish for not agreeing with you?

  27. Well, I can ignore a thing without being ignorant of it, s&p. I am talking about what I focus on, and how I live, not what I know.

    I don’t have to be in sin to know what sin is. I resist the temptation to sin. But, in so doing, I am not ignorant of its devises.

    I don’t have to live in the flesh to understand that the flesh is apparent. I can live in the Spirit and give no occasion to the flesh.

    I don’t have to put on the old man to know the dangers of living in the old man. I can put on the new man, and the old man doesn’t affect me.

    I don’t have to be carnal to know that the carnal mind kills. I can be spiritual and enjoy life.

    I don’t have to be under the Law to know that the letter kills. I can live in the Spirit and have life.

    I don’t have to spend years studying the devil to be aware of his devises. I can submit to God and I am automatically resisting the devil. The devil will sen his minions to tempt me, but better to kow how to submit to God than to focus on knowing how to resist the devil, since submission to God is resisting the devil.

    Better to focus on what I am called to do than on the risks of doing them. If God has called me, then the dangers will be taken care of for as long as he wants me engaged in that purpose.

    I don’t have to practice worldly wisdom to know how it operates. I can study God’s wisdom and endeavour to live in it. The world’s wisdom will come my way and challenge godly wisdom, but it is by the power of godly wisdom that worldly wisdom will be conquered.

    I didn’t find the conversations with mn confusing, by the way.

  28. FaithLift, if you don’t understand that Satanists have infiltrated the Christian church and occupy positions of leadership in the Christian church in the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia, you are simply ignorant and there is no point discussing this with you any further. I really don’t want to discuss anything with you. I would rather suffocate that read the nauseous, sanctimonious stuff you type on this website.

  29. That’s not true, Chirpy. You can’t help yourself. If you can, then simply don’t reply to this comment.

    In fact, because you were being so rude to teddy and s&p, I got out the old three-legged stool trick used to control roaring lions, and applied it to you, to distract you from your rudeness, in the form of direct conversation, and you have been mesmerised ever since. Totally focused on insulting me, in the way you were shouting down everyone else who commented in opposition to your claims.

    See if you can break away from the chair leg of this comment and resist a response, or even reading all the way through it.

    And you also don’t mean what you said about preferring to suffocate. Your own body wouldn’t let you do that, because it has more sense than your words.

    You give so much credence and fear about what the devil is doing that you have placed yourself in the position of eventually being a tool in his hand, albeit a minor one, with some very quirky ideas. When you can come up with more than a hand-signal I will listen to you. How about something one of these so-called satanists has said which confirms an anti-christ spirit is at work in them and in their ministry.

    Finally, if you’ve got this far, you are so full of yourself that you actually think that no one else but you can identify who or what the spirit of anti-christ is, or what it is doing today, including in and around the church.

    That is called arrogance.

  30. this discussion is a good example of how to get an important or at least interesting topic to death. Pure diversion spamming!

    My guess is, much of the (hopeless) idealism comes from the fact that some mental pictures of something can never be satisified by any real experience we can make (even if they are the best possible). Yet still some people pursue this “ideal” through all their lives and with all their effort, making the “ideal” their idol.

    Much of the (hopeless) humanism on the other hand comes by thinking that all the ideals are pure fiction and childish. They retreat to the position that we have to be content with the actual state (esp. if it is as comfortably rich and wealthy as it is in the west) of affairs. Even more we have to be content with (and affirm) our present human nature and have to call it good or at least o.k.

    I think this is it what is addressed with the notion about the “already and not yet”.
    Idealism and humanism collapse this paradox in one of the dimensions by declaring that either the fulfillment of what the mental (ideal) pictures suggest can be achieved right now or that the fulfillment is impossible forever and we have to stick with what we already experience and therefore should only hold as truth (achievable) what we experience.

  31. One note:

    One may see the effects of humanism in the pragmatism and conformance to the “grain of society” in many western churches and denomnations, whereas some perverted idealism rules in some extreme groups who would even take up arms to bring in the kingdom of God.

  32. Thankyou gandalf for engaging with this subject.

    “My guess is, much of the (hopeless) idealism comes from the fact that some mental pictures of something can never be satisified by any real experience we can make (even if they are the best possible). ”

    I find it interesting that the lie that Satan made Adam and Eve eat was an ideal. A suggestion.

    It’s interesting to note that no one is ever forced to commit themselves for a country or churches cause, it is suggested or promoted heavily.

  33. My respect for FL has gone up a notch.


    Chirpy may well be correct that Satanists have infiltrated churches and risen to positions of influence. Proving it is another matter entirely. Indeed, statistically it so likely true that for the whole church to be pure is astronomically much less likely!

    Try identifying individuals as Satanists is another thing entirely. In fact, I do wonder about our definitions.

    I know nothing about that religion. However, the public comments by those who adhere to worship a ‘deity’ called Satan seem to indicate a rather bacchanalian cult devoted to hedonism and pleasures of the flesh which wants to ignore Christianity completely rather than deliberately infiltrate it and undermine it.

    If chirpy is talking about ‘leaders’ operating under a satanic influence as opposed to operating under the power of the Holy Spirit then I would tend to agree with the general thrust … it would take a very bold person to say that there were absolutely no counterfeit signs’n’wonders operating today.

    It would take an even bolder person to say who those people operating under the power of the beast actually were. The burden of proof is with the accuser … not the accused.


  34. Back on topic … do a little reading and then avoid. I would tend to agree with FL’s point actually.


  35. Galatians 6
    7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
    8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
    9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

    Proverbs 4
    23 Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life.

    If we make our focus the negative things of life we will sow negativity, and our heart will reveal what is in it by the words we speak, because ‘out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks’ […or perchance, the keyboard types?].

    So what we sow into our hearts is important to our walk and talk!

  36. A couple of weeks ago, Bull accused liberal christians of deliberately breaking all of the ten commandments, and of being directly responsible for the rise of Naziism. Then Teddy chimed in, googling up some article, and agreed. FL was so busy trying to defend Phil that he made no comment on the allegation, neither did anyone else but me.

    But make some allegation against PP and Bull/FL nows ask where is the evidence, or indeed proof?

    Religion is a strange thing.

  37. “If we make our focus the negative things of life we will sow negativity…”

    So our focus (whether positive or negative) determines whether we eventually grow positive or negative fruit.

    What about our motivation though? Surely if we only ever focus on positive things, we will have to ignore the negative things, and because they are ignored, they continue to grow like weeds, and choke all the good plants, preventing them from growing good fruit?

    If our motivation in looking at the negative is to understand, grow, or assist positive change in ourselves and our communities, then we can have good fruit. Those who insist on only focussing on the positive, or on living in denial, will be left behind amongst all those weeds.

    How does constructive criticism fit into this viewpoint?

    What if we look at the negatives in order to see how they can be improved?

    Throughout history we have examples of people recognising the negative, and from that, sowing seeds of the positive.

  38. Well liberals did break all, or at least some, of the 10 commandments, which is precisely why Jesus came to break us free of the Law, because we all broke some or all of the ten commandments, including liberals, conservatives and everyone in between. What Bull means, though, I do not have a clue, so I’m sorry, but have no answers for you.

    I don’t know much either way about the rise of Naziism and the contribution of liberal theology, which is probably why I left it to the big guns to sort out! I also let the Elijah List and Joel’s Army stuff flash by, and a couple of other irrelevancies.

    You’re right though, I did ask where the proof is. Any clues?

  39. ravingpente said:

    “What if we look at the negatives in order to see how they can be improved?”


    The people responsible for the negatives and who are benefiting from the negatives do not want the negatives scrutinised nor do they want the negatives to be eliminated. That is why it is such a taboo in churches like C3 to talk about what is wrong with the church. That is why they have developed this false doctrine of positivity versus negativity. All this does is turn church members into robots who are programmed to never criticise anything in the church, no matter how blatant it is. That is why C3 has such a nauseous atmosphere – there is no freedom to speak the truth and most people there don’t want to hear it. This state of affairs has been orchestrated by Phil Pringle who is a sociopathic Satanist.

  40. The specific allegation was that liberals take the “NOT” out of the commandments, so for example instead of teaching that “Thou shalt not kill” they teach “Thou shalt kill”

    No one raised an eyebrow and several agreed.

  41. I’m certainly not advocating denialism, RP.

    I am responding to s&p’s admission of confusion, which indicates overuse of his time and resources to chase negatives. If his summary included an indication of a potentially positive outcome, then it could be said that his review of the negatives were at least balanced by a study of positive solutions.

    Surely constructive solutions are preferable to any kind of criticism. Presenting an alternative option to the perceived problem is more constructive than merely pointing out errors, faults, blame and offence.

    I also responded to his claim of being deliberately ignorant, another way of saying denial, to which I responded that I do not need to be ignorant of a problem to ignore it. See how Abraham dealt with a couple of great negatives in his and Sarah’s lives:

    Romans 4
    16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
    17 ¶ (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed–God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
    18 WHO, CONTRARY TO HOPE, IN HOPE BELIEVED, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”
    19 And not being weak in faith, HE DID NOT CONSIDER HIS OWN BODY, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), AND THE DEADNESS OF SARAH’S WOMB.
    20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
    21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.
    22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

    He did not deny the problems. He spent 25 years being perfectly aware of them, especially Sarah’s barrenness. But he did not consider them either. They were not his chief focus, despite the fact that they must have screamed at him and Sarah. He made his focus he Word of God.

    He sowed to his heart God’s promised truth above natural circumstances, or even the glaringly obvious natural evidence. He took faith as the true substance of his God-given evidence. He looked to the promise of God, not the impossibility of his situation.

  42. Wazza2,
    I would find that a harsh criticism of liberals, indeed.

    I would be more concerned that they rationalised the miraculous, and watered down the true understanding of sin and its consequences, the resurrection, death and hell, the virgin birth, etc.

    Perhaps Bull was cryptically suggesting this.

    Didn’t Naziism take advantage of a newly developing liberal theological outlook and bend it to the 3rd Reich’s own devices to bring the populace on side and diminish the effectiveness of the German Church? At the same time he demonised, persecuted and imprisoned the conservatives. Not my area of expertise, admittedly, but I’d be interested to see what people have to say about it. Is Bull referencing this to what he perceives NAR is allegedly attempting?

  43. FaithLift, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in the existence of hell and in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I cannot prove any of these things but I believe in them. I am certain of their reality.

    However, why do you believe in them? You’re always saying: “Prove it. Prove it.” Well, can you prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Can you prove that hell is real? Can you prove that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin woman?

    No, you can’t. You can’t prove any of these things.

    Ultimately, truth is apprehended spiritually by people who have the mind of Christ.

    Your clarion calls to me for proof of my claims about Phil Pringle being a Satanist ring hollow.

  44. ÷The specific allegation was that liberals take the “NOT” out of the commandments, so for example instead of teaching that “Thou shalt not kill” they teach “Thou shalt kill”

    No one raised an eyebrow and several agreed.” – wazza’s comment

    Mmm. I fail to see how liberals say ‘Thou shalt kill’. Actually, often its right wing extremists, who are the opposite of liberal, who seem to say it, or support it politically. Basically, I haven’t looked very much at that particular bit of commentary though. So hard to keep up around here!

  45. “I’m certainly not advocating denialism, RP.” – FL

    Ok then. But that focusing -ve = sowing -ve bit of speil you put up is so very much like what I heard from the pulpit when at C3OF. And not just there, actually.

    There is truth in some aspects of positive thinking. If we only see negatives in everything, we will end up going nowhere unless we respond to them in some kind of positive manner. For many people, the first step in that positive response is to discuss their concerns with their leaders. At that point, they are hopeful they will be heard, and that there is an opportunity for positive change. They may even come equipped with suggestions for that change.

    Usually it is not received that well in the environments we are discussing here. Their attempt at positive action is met with comments like, ‘you are focussing too much on the negatives…’ or ‘you really need to address this aspect of your own life before blah, blah, blah’, or ‘PP is a Great Man and we support everything he does – he has His Vision and who are we to question it?’.

    So you can see that initial attempts at positive responses are stifled. Then the people will either ’cause dissent’ by attempting to find others who share their views, perhaps with the positive idea that they may make headway if they can get the numbers on their side, or they leave, or they go slowly insane for a while, as they try to ignore the things that were bothering them.

    Ah well. In my case, leaving has been extremely positive. 🙂

  46. Simply pointing out the inconsistency:

    on the one hand faced with the allegation that Liberals advocate murder, adultery, stealing etc… look for ways that it might be true.

    on the other hand faced with the allegation that PP might be influenced by Gnosticism – “Prove it!!, this is defamatory!!!”

  47. FaithLift, this is why you really annoy me. You say things that are just not true:

    “You are now claiming that you are the spiritual person who perceives this in the spirit, and anyone who disagrees must therefore be carnal.”

    I’ve never said that anyone who disagrees must be carnal.

    I started off by warning of the danger of claiming a Christian leader is a Satanist due to Mark 3:28-30 which warns that anybody who makes this accusation against a real follower of Jesus will never be forgiven and will be damned to hell forever because they will have blasphemed the Holy Spirit who lives in that real follower of Jesus. So I am not saying that anybody who disagrees must be carnal. I think they are prudent for restraining themself from saying what they do not believe. However I also think they are in denial.

    All I am doing is saying what I know is true. Furthermore, I am so certain of it, I am willing to put my salvation on the line.

    The Holy Spirit does not live in Phil Pringle. His flippant attitude to the Bible proves it. His preference for teaching from the Old Testament as opposed to the New Testament and rarely teaching from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John which showcase Jesus Christ proves it. His flipping of Satanic hand signs while preaching proves it.

    I am not going to catalogue all of Phil Pringle’s false teaching or the way he struts about and makes himself the centre of attention at every opportunity because he wants the attention that should be given to Jesus Christ. The man disgusts me. I am not going to catalogue the way that Oxford Falls church has never got anywhere. It just goes round in circles and the money keeps rolling in. I am not going to catalogue any of these things because I have already ticked them off in my mind and I don’t need to prove them to anybody but myself.

    I am, however, going to clearly state what I know is true and that is that Phil Pringle is a Satanist.

  48. FaithLift, you said:

    “But his approach is ‘PP is a Satanist, and you’re all fools if you don’t believe me’.”

    I’ve never said that anybody on this blog is a fool. You need to tame your tongue and stop typing lies.

  49. FaithLift, you said:

    “Perhaps one of the problems is that people have a reticence to bring an issue to a leader, so they store it up, other things are added, it builds, and eventually they come with it and a host of other things, a list, which then gives the impression of being confrontational, even if it was not intended to be, and it all goes awry. Leaders don’t like these situations either.”

    So you are saying that the people expressing their concerns are confrontational and this results in problems. So you are saying that the problem lies with church members bringing their concerns rather than the church leaders to whom they bring them.

    FaithLift, you are so full of it. It has been shown time and time again on this website over several years that leaders in C3 and in Hillsong are not the slightest bit interested in listening to criticism brought to them by the church members.

  50. I am sure that others here agree with you about my current situation, FL. I understand your concern, and once would have shared it. I don’t think my disagreement needs to be viewed as a wall though. I may not be at a particular church, but I still have many friends with whom this issue has not created a wall in our relationship.

    When you decide to pursue your faith outside the walls of a church (those are the only real walls here), you have to accept that others who see those walls as necessary, will not understand. Also, you have to accept that you cannot change that.

    But just for one moment – taking the view that you are right, and I need to find a fellowship in order to be part of the church and to have real fellowship and be able to grow, and have access to pastoring, and all the gifts etc – all of which I must be missing out on now – just taking that view for one moment: Where on earth would I go??? What if there is actually no local church that would not be taking me either backwards to bits of theology I’ve already rejected and even believe are harmful, or forward into say, Catholicism – other areas that I don’t think would help me. (And I did receive overtures in that direction.) What does the Christian do, who due to their conscience, can’t sit through any of the local sermons on a Sunday morning?

    Now there _is_ one church I know of that would be fine. But its too far away for me! Luckily, this is OK, because I still, as you point out, believe I am in fellowship, am very much a part of the church, and all I am missing is some of the conveniences of having things served up weekly without as much personal effort to ensure it happens! (eg: I have to read for myself, rather than listen to a pastor’s prepared message.) But I would be wrong to expect that others would automatically hold my view, and that’s OK.

  51. S&P – maybe you should consider reposting your original article above, and the few related comments so that we can actually discuss your topic. This is now so derailed that I don’t think it will ever get back. I’ve haven’t read your original article properly yet, by the way.

  52. FL, chirpy isn’t trolling any more than you are. Both of you are sincere, and are here to strongly put your views. If anything, you are the person who prefers to protest most of what is written by various authors here, quite vociferously.

  53. Chirpy: “All I am doing is saying what I know is true. Furthermore, I am so certain of it, I am willing to put my salvation on the line.”

    Don’t be silly Chirpy.

    I take it generally you have a specific axe to grind re PP (other than your contention that he is a Satanist).

    What is your experience at C3?

  54. Back to the issue at hand….

    I understand your confusion Specks…we all are, even FL (though he may not admit it).

    My simplistic take on it is humanism refers to the way things are, you know biting on the gold to make sure it is gold. It is also exalting the human above everything else, putting man at the centre of the universe.

    Idealism refers something which we long for, aspire to, desire, yearn

    Couple of wiki headings:

    * Ideal (ethics), values that one actively pursues as goals
    * Platonic ideal, a philosophical idea of trueness of form, associated with Plato

    Humanism – practice that focuses on human values and concerns (but has several meanings).

    Interestingly both can be a positive thing and both a negative, both a take life by the horns thing (sorry Chirpy) and both a defensive thing. And by this I mean in relation to our persons and our existence.

    As Christians we have come to some sort of our understanding that the best form of existence for our own self interest is in having a relationship with God (don’t ask me what that means). But I think we can sort of come at the notion of either we have one or we don’t and the ultimate difference is life and death. Jesus said He came that we should have life, and have it to the full.

    We don’t believe Him hence all the ‘isms.

    The real question is where do we think our life is, and how do we get it, experience it, live it.

    The humanisms and idealisms are an attempt to attain that life by way of bypassing God, even if it wears the cloke of Christian – hence so many people being over the teaching of particular Christian teachers and churches – because the life of Christ is simply not in it, and people are not going to wear the poor counterfeit anymore.

    As Gandalf said they become idols, and as Specks says we swing between them constantly.

    I’m a pluralist though, and we can’t as Christians avoid living in the here and now, and longing for that life ye to come. Heb 11 talks about the ancients living by faith for something that they never saw in their lifetimes.

    We have to have both – if we don’t we die.

    The ‘isms confuse us because we think they offer us something we want that will bring life to us, as was the case with Adam and Eve. In seeking that life they lost it.

    The challenge for us as expressed on other threads is live in the here and now trusting God with our hope for the future and what is to come. Think Ecclesiastes.

    I think one issue with that is we always think we know more than we do, and we reduce things to black and white all too readily because we both think we cleverer than we and crave certainty at the same time.

    We are not comfortable with being in the dark and yet that is where we are required to be for a good part of our lives – why else the comment: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.”

    We don’t like it and fight it by lighting our own fires. God however has a response to that (Is 50:11):

    But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.

    I don’t agree with FL as usual though because all need to know enough about this stuff to at least know when we are in trouble, and also to be able to empathise with others.

    One of the points of Jesus life was not just so He could say He didn’t give into temptation, but also to acknowledge our situation – He knows how we feel.

    If He didn’t at what point could there be a relationship?

  55. RP: “If our motivation in looking at the negative is to understand, grow, or assist positive change in ourselves and our communities, then we can have good fruit. Those who insist on only focussing on the positive, or on living in denial, will be left behind amongst all those weeds.

    How does constructive criticism fit into this viewpoint?”

    What a great topic RP! 😀

  56. Its part of our human condition to have this conflict between the human and the ideal, between what we actually are and what we should be. Christianity is the only world-view that I know of that addresses this, in Christ the Divine and the Human co-exist. Its one of the few religions that takes not only God and the super-natural seriously, but also Man and the natural.

    But we cant seem to grasp this and so we continue to go between both poles. Even Christian denominations go to these extremes from the Spirit-led, Holy Ghost fire denominations (which are so Heavenly as to be of no earthly use) to the Social Gospel denominations which become like social-service organisations.

  57. FL: “Yes I can see what you’re saying, but that is the conflict of the unregenerate, not of the new creation in Christ, so why does it have to be a conflict?”

    That’s why half the Psalms were written. You draw attention to Paul but his point in a sense was precisely the opposite. He said strive for sure, and we have these benefits in Christ, and but he stated very clearly in his exalted aposotlic position that he was the chief of sinners, and he still struggled. So yes we are in the heavenly places, new creations etc etc, but we are in a constant state of confict. It is a mistake to belittle it that can have tragic consequences.

    To me to you lack empathy around negotiating the human condition. You don’t respect the struggle.

    Your response to S&P about the war in Afghanistan smacks a very human argument which is “well they did it first” which I find totally unconvincing.

    The issue that Specks raised was the use of Christianity and by extension Jesus to justify a war.

    I am not commenting on whether it was right to go to war or not, but the heart of Specks point is using Jesus to justify it under the banner of defending Christian ‘ideals’. You in effect have no comment about that at all.

  58. FaithLift said:

    “It astonishes me that you appear to hand the blame for the war on terrorism completely over to the national leaders of the nations which were made victims of the most significant terrorist attacks, in New York City, and the Australians and other nationals in Bali. You lay the blame at the feet of Bush and Howard, and by implication, Blair, the only leaders with the courage to face up tot the real enemy and take it from their shores to the land of the perpetrators. The axis of evil is and was exactly that. Iraq today is afar better place than it ever was under Saddam.”

    This absolutely proves to me, FaithLift, that you do not have the faintest idea what is happening in the world today. To use your own words, you are in “La-La land”.

  59. Good on you FL.

    You are a solutions type of guy.

    So when when we are doing this thing that we do FL, do I always feel the oxygen is being sucked out of the metsphorical room?

  60. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
    So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

  61. “So when when we are doing this thing that we do FL, do I always feel the oxygen is being sucked out of the metsphorical room?”

    And that is why mn, people leave SP02; because he has the natural ability too.

    I’m over Facelift’s hypocrisy. It’s exhausting.
    While I’ve enjoyed good discussion and challenges with him, he just exhausts people. And it’s not just me he exhausts.

    I’ve come to realise Facelift that half the questions you ask people aren’t there to be thought provoking, rather you write them to elevate yourself above others.

    Once you build yourself into a position on the threads, you hurl your self-righeousness at others and don’t hear back from those who have expressed their concern towards you.

    Years ago Lance said that you played mind games.
    I made a claim about C3. You egged me on for proof.

    I have provided some provocative material to suggest this to be true (more is coming), yet your silence seems to suggest that:

    1. you want to avoid a mine field if you reply
    2. you don’t know what to say because you actually see the error but can’t say anything or
    3. you don’t see the error and demand more proof

    So in every way possible, I can’t discuss with you the serious faults or allegations I make with C3. Even if I did prove this to be the case 100%, your silence can only be your answer to prove me wrong.

    In other words, your lack of voice indicates this serious error to fall possibly be on your behalf.

    No matter what I say to you, proof can’t be enough, because ‘Thus Sayeth The Facelift’.

  62. s&p,
    You’re in control, so do what you think is appropriate. But don’t lay the blame entirely at my feet, although I’ll take my medicine.

    I attempted wholeheartedly to avoid controversial pressing, on a thread on this blog, particularly by by wazza2, and to a lesser degree by teddy and RP, over pastoral claims they made, explaining why, but they persisted. I was doing my utmost to discuss issues in a civil way, and avoid a clash. Twice I let it go. But wazza2 added the comment to another thread, and I needed to clarify things. I know wazza2 was going to accuse me of being evasive, so, in the end, I did comment, which, then, no one really liked, so I was put in a no win situation.

    ‘Even if I did prove this to be the case 100%, your silence can only be your answer to prove me wrong.’

    I have commented on Dave Sumrall. I did explain my position in regard to looking over members giving records, acknowledged by mn. I explained my position on tithes and offerings, which was acknowledged by churchman, and the Biblical principles of giving. Those were all comments in reference to PP and D Sumrall. And your case was not 100% anything but your position, as it is for the rest of us. Let PP answer to you on your accusations. I’m not his minder. I gave my opinion, that’s all.

    You have never, ever proved a single thing about C3 being a gnostic cult. No one here agrees with you. You have only shown financial excesses, some of which, I have said, you may have a case with. I said the following:

    ‘If anyone here were to bring the accusation that C3 or Hillsong have cultish tendencies because of an overemphasis on finances and an incorrect understanding of legalistic tithing, I would actually say that this could be argued, depending on the perspective of the person bringing the charge.’

    How is that not having an opinion which potentially backs your claims?

    I responded to mn on this thread because he stated that I was confused over an issue that I am not confused over, and I explained why, and from scripture, which seems to be going out of fashion here.

    He will not retract, and still thinks I am brainwashed and confused. He can’t read my mind, or know my mental state. I am not confused. I am clear. Those things I don’t yet know I have taken to the Lord, and expect clarity when he is ready to give it to me. Meanwhile I get on with the last thing he told me. Clarity!

    Every scripture I produced and every answer to mn has been removed. Why?

    I gave commentary on the post above, and why Christians should be wary of pursuing worldly wisdom. It has been censured. Why? You prefer people to be in the dark, as you are?

    It occurs to me that you are prepared to criticise an movement of which people like myself have an affection, but not be answerable to anyone who questions both your motives and your claims. Is this the way you want to conduct this site? Not answerable to any opinion but your own? Exhausted by what? An inability to sustain a cause?

    You say I am unwilling to be proven wrong. Who isn’t? I may be strong in my convictions, but I am not the one censuring another perspective! I am not the one cutting out comments.

    If your claims are of any consequence, and level damning accusations against an individual or movement, then you need to have the fortitude and strength to demonstrate why.

    Perhaps there is another explanation as to why my comments have been removed. I’ll give you time to tell me why. Otherwise, without an explanation, it is censure.

    By the way, I went away form here for a while because teddy said she could not comment while I remained. I agreed that, rather than offend her, I would allow her to comment here and not comment. That was a few weeks ago. I kept my word.

    Then I followed up a string of GS commenters on JoelO’bell’s site, who absolutely hammered him and harassed him, so I went in and let him know where they had come from, and what to expect, for which he was grateful, since it must have been a shock to suddenly have such an aggressive group come and be so unpleasant and challenging on an otherwise gentle site.

    Next thing, teddy is relentlessly ranting at me over at Joel’s, and won’t let go, saying some terrible things, which completely made a mockery of the idea that she wasn’t going to comment where I was. I even apologised for upsetting her so much, which she refused to acknowledge, and was falsely accused of preaching a despicable doctrine, and decided that I might as well be over here if she didn’t mind talking to me like that anyway on another blog.

    Goodness, you even took down the Chirpy, Chirpy, Cheep Cheep vid! Even teddy liked that!

  63. @ FL – that’s completely unfair and exaggerated re comments over at Joel Abell’s blog. Nothing was said that hasn’t been said here on this site. I’m quite happy to have those comments of mine reviewed here, as well as the comments you made about me.

  64. In the interests of clearing the waters, I want to say that I think that there are two things required for this website to work:

    > That I don’t hijack a thread with unrelated material like I have done on this thread. I feel that that has caused alot of problems on this thread.

    > That people who post on this website be more interested in pursuing truth than being right. This is very, very, very, very, very important. It means seeking to agree with other people’s points of view where they have obviously uncovered truth. It seems obvious to me that this is the motivation of specksandplanks on this website.

  65. FL: He [mn] will not retract, and still thinks I am brainwashed and confused. He can’t read my mind, or know my mental state. I am not confused. I am clear.

    MN: Alright FL…you’re not confused. OK?

    It was a rhetorical comment if you know what that means, but you’re right I shouldn’t have written it. I have retracted. Does that make you feel any better?

    But I still think you suck all the oxygen out of the metaphorical room.

  66. To be fair I do think that FL has adequately answered the questions I put to him, he did not defend the indefensible and he gave a reasonable and responsble answer. This together with the “cultish tendencies” comment means that he has gone up a notch in my estimation.

    Now he is on notch one. 😉

    I also think the “Satanist” charge against PP is silly and I havent commented on it because I dont think it is worthy of comment, and also because there may be mental-health issues involved. I’m sorry to say it on this forum but I have seen friends go through hard times and then develop similar paranoid conspiracy theories.

  67. Facelift: “Then I followed up a string of GS commenters on JoelO’bell’s site, who absolutely hammered him and harassed him, so I went in and let him know where they had come from, and what to expect, for which he was grateful, since it must have been a shock to suddenly have such an aggressive group come and be so unpleasant and challenging on an otherwise gentle site.”

    I thought they/we were a bit unfair to J O’Bell too. I didn’t comment but I read with amusement everyone’s comments including yours and Lance’s. I was shaking my head in disbelief wondering what on earth Joel must be thinking about GS and SP.

    It was like the comedy channel took over the discovery channel. 😀

    I had a good laugh with Teddy, Heretic and RP on that. That was such and amazing explosion of dialogue with Joel O’Bell. He handled himself really well. I simply saw a bunch of passionate Christians going crazy for Jesus, arguing everything.

    I think Joel O’Bell would have been laughing showing others on staff at Hillsong our antics. 😀

    I love Signposts02. We’re a passionate bunch!
    Where there’s passion there’s friction. Where there’ friction there’s fire. 😀

    I read and watched on in disbelief. I wonder what that site would look like scripted?

  68. “I also think the “Satanist” charge against PP is silly and I havent commented on it because I dont think it is worthy of comment, and also because there may be mental-health issues involved.”

    I’m with you on this Wazza. I just like Chirpy too much to say this. Thank you for saying this for me. Sorry Chirpy!

    “I’m sorry to say it on this forum but I have seen friends go through hard times and then develop similar paranoid conspiracy theories.”

    Me too. They too often go down the road of Pringle being a satanist. Chirpy’s given more proof then them though.

  69. Well, to be part of a very small minority which knows the truth – one may as well have a mental illness. It isn’t a good position to be in.

  70. I know people without mental illnesses who believe extreme things. Can’t diagnose anyone over the internet!

    Once years ago, I went to an art exhibition of work by people who were actually diagnosed with mental illness. Some of the art work was incredible. Both very surreal and very skilfully executed. Some of it was about alien and UFO visits, so I guess that was an example of extreme beliefs by some of those who were actually mentally ill.

    Perhaps we are all mentally ill in a sense. Look at the state of the world, and parts of the church. Jesus is the only one that wasn’t mentally ill, really. Who of us would have a perfect perspective on everything? Collectively, humanity is at least partially insane. But of course there is that other, wonderful side to humanity, which is part of what God has made us to be, where we do love, and do sacrifice ourselves in various ways at times, for the sake of others. Otherwise our world would probably have ceased to exist by now.

  71. So we all need to be gentle and humble with one another, since we may all be ill in some fashion (except for FL 🙂 ) and can’t tell where we see clearly and where we might be causing harm to our brother or sister by our certainty of our own rightness.

    You know, sometimes I wonder how people acquire that arrogance that makes them believe they are fit to lead and make decisions about the lives of other people – how can they so easily believe that they are so well equipped to make these calls over other people’s lives? But there are good leaders out there, who remain humble. I think humility – genuine humility – is a hallmark of a good leader.

  72. Been a while. So catch up time.
    First to Chirpy.
    Sorry I slammed your posts. You seems sincere and gave put thought into your argument. Please realize that those of us who have been around for a ling time have heard do many allegations and theories. For the last 30 years I have heard so many different claims about who us the antichrist and when the world will end and who is really running the world etc.
    But anyway I’ll take your point seriously and ask you the following.
    1. Do you think PP become a Satanist before or after he started his church?
    2. Why would he do those handsignals? What’s the point? Doesn’t it blow his cover? If he wanted to let other Satanists know he was one of them wouldn’t there be better ways? (email? Telepathy? Turn up at the next meeting?)
    3. Have you considered the possibility that if you took stills of just about any person who gestures a lot that you would find dubious gestures due to luck. ( you might find all kinds of funny stuff as well)
    I don’t think FL has to worry too much. If what Chirpy is saying is true then good on him. If not, I don’t think PP would lose any sleep over it. If someone called me a Satanist I would probably just laugh.

  73. “I would actually say that this could be argued, depending on the perspective of the person bringing the charge.’

    That sentence doesn’t say anything! It’s a good one though and I think I’ll use it.

    “depending on the perspective” is the key phrase.

    It could be argued that you are a complete idiot – depending on the perspective of the person saying it….

    You could say that to anyone at anytime – and then retreat by saying – well of course it’s not my perspective and anyone with that perspective is a very nasty sod!

    Faithlift, my problem with your line of arguing is that I perceive you as a person who is just defending a position. You’re like a spokesman for the White House in that you will defend the position of the govt everytime. If people in real life know who you are and read this blog- then I don’t think anyone can expect you to agree with any criticism of certain churches.
    The other difficulty is that you quote a lot of bible but that could be done to defend just snout anything . It’s like a teenager with a concordance.

    For me, I understand what most of the posters say here. Many times it’s a problem of balance.
    Often churches are not so much unbiblical as overboard – and most people outside can see it. But there will always be the insiders who can argue for it quoting the bible. When I’m on sn iPhone I’ll give you some examples if you don’ get my point. Peace!

  74. Churchman, thanks for your apology. No worries at all. I don’t remember, actually, which is what people usually tell me when I apologise.

    These are good questions you’ve asked which I would really like to answer. However I’ve already said that I shouldn’t hijack this thread with this topic so I’ll stick to that.

    All I’m going to say is that evidence for theories should be fact-based. That is what I’m interested in.

    Thanks for your comments. Communication is important so I appreciate yours. You seem sincere too. Cheers.

  75. If you do find any interesting facts or interesting articles Chirpy, you are more then welcome to email me at so I can put them up. It means we can discuss what you find.

    I really didn’t know how to handle those images last time. I too am sorry if I offended you.

    I’m always curious to know what the church is doing these days. I’ll be writing an article about this soon.

  76. specksandplanks, that’s ok. You handled it pretty well.

    Thanks for your offer. I might take you up on that. There’s alot of readily available relevant information on the internet such as this:

    0:21 onwards is classic.

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then we need to consider the possiblity that it’s a duck. No offence to ducks intended.

  77. specksandplanks, let me rephrase that underwhelming comment. You’ve handled it really well and I appreciate you posting my information in the interests of the pursuit of the truth, rather than censoring it like many would do so that it never sees the light of day.

  78. None of my comments are really relevant anymore, churchman, since s&p took most of them down, so I have no appeal to the context of what I have been saying. Tough! But that’s life. I take it he did pull them down, because he hasn’t taken the time to deny it.

    Perhaps this will help end the confusion and remind us what it is all about:

  79. I’m scratching my head about this Facelift.

    I’ve been looking at wordpress WP Ban to prevent random IP generators from further popping adds up on SP02. I was hoping it would remove some too – and some of the fraudulent African adds have been removed.

    It just occurred to me that you have a random IP generator thing. I’m wondering if the WP Ban 1.50 thing I’ve tried to install on my wordpress account also deleted your comments from the last week.

    But then again, your comments are still popping up now.
    I’m stuck on this. I might call up WordPress.

    This is what I was looking at:

  80. If it is innocent, s&p, then I’ll accept your explanation. I have a usb modem, which may use random ip.

  81. FL – did you say you were from the northern territory? where abouts? i grew up/spent most of my life in Darwin..

  82. Having said that, I think you’re a smart guy Faithlift. Smarter than the average type Charismatic…

    You just remind me of too many (especially) young men I have met who defend their “upline” for want of a better word, only to later get hurt and change completely.

    I’ll be interested to see where you and your theology are in 10 years. (I know that sounds condescending, but it’s really not meant to be).

  83. Specks, this was a doozey of an article. I must confess that I might have to read it over and again, and maybe again before I comment on it.

    I decided that I needed to get a hold on the definitions for Humanism and Idealism, but if you do a search on google, this article is one of the first that came up!

  84. Teddy, I’m sorry if I went too far with comments about Calvinism.
    I often rebel against things that I later accept, so who knows. I will admit that I was brought up with Calvinism almost being a dirty word. I’ll study more.

    Raving Pente, It’s scary how much I concur with what you write.
    And you’re a woman?? Too weird.

  85. I confess I am a woman. But nobody’s perfect.

    Actually, you are not the first person here to say what you just said. The last one was a physicist. You aren’t a physicist too are you?

  86. @ Churchman – as we know, Calvin isn’t in the bible. A better definition for me would be sovereign grace.

  87. @ Churchman, interesting comments about where will FL be in 10 years? I would have fought to the death to defend FL’s position a few years ago before the “rug” was pulled from under me.

  88. Stranger things have happened RP.

    It has been known from time to time for men to speak some sense too.

    Who would have thunk it. (not a typo)

  89. Of course sometimes there is a massive rug already in place under your feet when you walk in the room…

  90. Specks, Thanks to this article I can now mention in passing at my next cocktail party that it’s remarkable how humanism, idealism and rationalism can all clearly be seen in the architecture of the Parthenon. Maybe if I become single again I can use that as a pick up line ….

    There really are a lot of isms aren’t there.

  91. Rugs:

    Implication one: a person cannot see what they are standing on because they are too busy focusing on the system, and not on the Word.

    Solution: The system is not the thing. The Word is. If you stand on the Word the rug is easily detected and avoided.

    Implication two: the person claiming to have had the first rug pulled from under them is now not standing on another rug!

    Solution: forget about rugs altogether and build your life on the True Foundation of Christ.

    Implication three: a person not in the same system as the person who had the rug pulled from under them before they joined that system must, therefore, be on a rug.

    Solution: look at the rug in your own eye before you attempt to point out the mat in someone else’s.

  92. Faithlift. I agree totally.

    Trouble is everyone thinks they are standing on the Word and building their lives on the true Foundation, but we all end up on different colored rugs.

    But I agree with you. Here’s something I always come back to. Regardless of our theology and methods of bible study, I think it’s good from time to time to just read through a gospel or more just in one go. Not saying OT or epistles aren’t important, but I like to periodically read a gospel. It’s scary sometimes but with all the “isms” there are, the most important one is Christism…err, you know what I mean.

  93. We also have to be careful we dont lay out rugs and say “Stand on this! The solid rock of Jesus”

  94. I’m in disagreement with Facelift’s view that humanism and idealism do not affect Christian’s today. Western Christianity is founded on, as Heretic pointed out long ago, Greek philosophy.

    It was through Plato’s philosophy that of the divine, we cannot glimpse the heavens and the gods in all their perfection and purity. But the Greeks less popular or divinely immoral gods or creatures were.

    To depict any true one of their gods in art, one had to capture the essence of their being and portray them with man’s ideals. Remember, our ideals of what the divine were gave us glimpses into the truly divine. It was though greek art was trying to capture the true gods perfection in that ideal divine form. Portraying the truth of the heavens in this reality.

    While often completely stunning, they were completely not relational. These fantastic artworks removed these divine figures from this creation. As centuries past, humanism crept in. Artists captured events of their gods interacting with other gods and humans. They started reacting, crying, passionate, sexually motivated, struggling, exhausted. To the point that many artworks mixed with the ideal image of man and God nothing more then Greek sex toys to arouse men. It was the young adolescent that admired the most which is why Jewish stories were also portrayed in stone such as young adolescent figures as king David.

    These artworks bought these unrelatable beings to life. But they were now portrayed in ‘ungodly’ ways.

    If we look at early Christian art, it is important to note how Jesus was portrayed. Generally speaking, he was often revealed through European art as being emotionally removed from the events around him. The long haired Jesus we see today is to suggest his age and sexual maturity, a Greek tradition.

    As a homosexual culture in Greece, the older men would actually grow their hair to make them more wiser or intimidating (like a lions mane), to at least keep up their sexual appeal or portray to other man the ideal human figure at their age.

    So Christ was been portrayed in the ideal form of man at his age. But with images that evolved around the cross, this was often a challenge how to portray the Christian God. How do you portray the ideal qualities of God when this God was just killed by humans?

    Much later through the ages, specifically in the renaissance period, we see humanism’s face resurface. In a time of prosperity (before and after the plague), the stories of the bible were placed in contemporary settings. People felt the blessings of God and also felt comfort and value in having artists depict stories of the Christ and other biblical figures in their cities, towns or houses.

    When the reformation happened, John calvin rose up and started smashing images that limited the image of God, perverted his image or images that re-directed peoples focus off God.

    You can read the writings of John Calvin’s views in this process.

    As a reaction to the rise of the protestant movement, the Catholic Church started commissioning artists to create works that would inspire people to increase devotion and seek spiritual fulfillment. This was known as the Baroque period where artists like Caravaggio, Bernini or Rembrandt would do paintings, combining elements of theater, dramatic lighting and strong emotional elements to religious artworks.

    So from Greece we have seen a swing to idealism to humanism. In the Catholic Church we have seen a swing from idealism to humanism. In the Baroque period we started seeing sexual, experiential elements and the entertainment or fascination of death. The church was back where it started – the Greco Roman era. The Greeks had their Colosseum and their orgy temples and festivals. They also had their intoxicating, drug-like experiences at certain festivals too. Are we not back where we started in our culture today? Isn’t it this culture our church is embracing today?

    We have seen people such as Luther and Calvin emerge with their grand ideals of God. This ideal, grandeur, sovereign, image of God could possibly have inspired Calvin and his followers to shape their famous Calvinism doctrines.

    We’ve seen Christian men do amazing things in spreading the Spirit and the Protestant through the America’s, Africa and bring massive social change.

    But the evangelism was in the streets and pubs. Pub-songs were turned into hymns and Christian songs. Just as the world was further exploring art, science and the globe, Christianity was exploring the Spirit of God. We were discovering the human side of God through His Spirit.

    Orphanages, schools and welfare were starting up because of men zealous for the gospel to be lived out. Slave trades and civil rights movements were underway as people were hearing that the good news that God loves all people equally. But the underground rivers of man’s understanding of God were starting to surface, and mysticisms and other spiritual influences and doctrines were coming in. God was becoming too human and to erroneous.

    We’ve then had very odd teachings about God from the 20th century onwards. There has been so much focus on the Spirit of God and Jesus and his love for us. While this is good, different movements started up with heir understanding of who Jesus is. Within the hippy movement, Jesus seemed to have lost much form of his godliness. Their were many Arminian views of Jesus and God at this time. Now we’ve heard Jesus is often described as a homeboy, pimp, formula, servant for us, mechanic, bikey, president, ceo, leader, boyfriend/girlfriend, angel, drug, etc.

    Generally speaking, in a shorter time frame the Protestant movement has also moved from the ideal image of God to a very humanistic understanding of Him.

    Barthrop's use of Baroque Art

    Now their seems to be a quagmire of how we should portray Jesus in our culture today. Thus explaineth the church redefining Jesus in today’s culture. He;s portrayed as a God who is rich and wants your money down the prosperity gospel road or something more if one walks down the roads of the emerging church.

    How human is God? Is he so human that he becomes unrecognizable as God like the Greek gods?

  95. side note: We’ve never fully dumped Greeces influence on the west. Look at the sophist movements we see today like Dawkin’s, Darwin and others.

    We also have online sophist promotional sites like twitter, Facebook and other blogsites; people demonstrating their wisdoms to others to see if they are worth being followed.

  96. I haven’t been able to participate in this thread, because I don’t understand what is meant by ‘humanism’. I know that secular humanism denies faith, and is strongly based on values of logic and reason. I don’t think Christianity denies logic or reason, so I think the two can co-exist in many areas without conflict. Obviously there is conflict where faith is concerned, but not in a way that can’t co-exist, so long as the values of diversity and tolerance in our society are held up by both Christianity and secular humanism.

    So I’ve had trouble understanding what is meant by humanism on this thread, and I still don’t, I’m afraid.

    I have done a bit of reading on the Platonic Greek worldview vs the Hebrew worldview, courtesy of Jim Thwaites’ work on the subject. It’s pretty interesting, and realising how much our thinking has been influenced by the separation of this world and the divine world in Greek thinking, and that the Hebrew mindset did not have this separation, can make you start to question some of the ways you look at the world. There are many today who don’t see this world and the divine as two completely separate things. I think the Pentecostal churches, without really thinking hard about it, do expect to see God present in the here and now, with our lives constantly interacting with him, rather than having Him removed to some distant place. This is a strength, I think. It seems more in line with a ‘Hebrew’ view to me.

    On the other hand, we are seeing doctrines emerge now which are separating people from God once again, removing Him to a distant place unless we achieve some ideal behaviour which will enable Him to bless us. That would entail tithing, giving enough extra money and time, submitting enough to His scriptural order of things (think vertical 5-fold ministry), and being obedient enough.

    All those things are ideals, which can never be entirely achieved. In the past, the Law made that point to us. We can never humanly achieve perfection in any kind of behaviour which we ideally aspire towards, as there is always something more we can do. Once we start on that ladder, or mountain, there will always be some another uphill path to climb, even when we think the top is in sight.

    The Good News – the Gospel – is that the Kingdom of God has come – is here with us now – and we do not have to climb that impossible mountain. The Good News is that we are set free from all of that. We lean on Him. We rest in Him. We don’t need to listen to the condemnation of others, or the attempts of others to use us as tools for their own achievements. We serve, as He leads us. His yoke is easy; His burden is light; he walks beside us; we don’t have to achieve an impossible ideal.

    Jesus is fully human and fully God. He is the ultimate humanist, if that means understanding our humanity and knowing how to set us free from the brokenness we suffer as a race and individually. In our brokenness, we try to wrest control back, of both ourselves and others. But the opportunity is there for us to accept His way and walk free in our humanity. If we don’t walk according to the Kingdom of God, thinking the Way Jesus thought, we will remain captive to those things. In a lifetime, many of us are gradually sanctified, and increasingly find freedom in Him. Some others are set free from some things in an instant – living testimony to God’s ability to work these things in all of us.

    So I would say that Jesus is the ultimate humanist, if that is what it means, and if we live and learn in His love, we can head in that direction too.

  97. I don’t think you can really call Jesus the ultimate humanist. Humanism is generally understood to be ‘an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters’ (New Oxford American Dictionary).

    Jesus was human when he walked the earth, but he was not offering an alternative to the divine. He was bring the human and divine into one package through faith in God, through the new creation.

    You could say he was the ultimate human being. He is the prototype of all.

  98. I agree with you Facelift on that.

    For a god to be completely humanist, that would make them a sinful greek god.

    For a god to be completely ideal, you would have an Allah/Buddah/Brahman god which no one knows how to connect with or pray too.

  99. Well, I wouldn’t structure a theology on that issue. (Jesus as the ultimate humanist.) As I said earlier in the post, I don’t really understand what ‘humanism’ is meaning in the context of this thread. When I looked it up, I found several different ‘humanist’ movements. When I say Jesus was the ultimate humanist, being bereft of a firm definition, I mean that He was the ultimate pro-human being, acting in the ultimate human interest, by being the cure for sin, providing us with a better way of living, and sacrificing Himself in order that we might come back into the relationship with God He created us for. I can’t imagine anything more pro-human, or interested in human well-being than that. But then, I have no doubt redefined the term, ‘humanist’.

    Umm – Specks – I think Jesus is the only one who is completely ideal. He might not match our human ideals though. We change our perpective and begin to understand his ideal. That’s not easy, and many people have a lot of their own ideals to lose by doing so, which is why he was crucified.

  100. Maybe we should define ‘ideal’ as well? When I say Jesus was ‘ideal’ – I mean He was perfect. This doesn’t make Him perfect looking (as reflected in art at any point in time). It’s to do with His character, understanding and way of thinking and doing things. When I read the way He answers the Pharisees questions at times, it astounds me. And completely honest, which wasn’t at all in His personal interest.

    So I’m not saying Jesus conforms to some Greek or man-made ideal. Nor an impressive physically visible ideal (the Bible is clear He was ordinary in that respect). He revealed what the ‘ideal’ really is to us, and we didn’t like it.

  101. The by-product of humanism? A tale of two graves, an article by Ken Ham.

    “Having read about the great revivals of generations ago in Britain, I was shocked the first time I visited that country to realize there was hardly a vestige of biblical Christianity in public life. The Christian consensus that had once swept this great nation had by and large disappeared.1

    For instance, thousands once attended a church at Bristol. Now the tiny congregation meets in the foyer.

    At one pastors’ meeting, I met a man whose job in his denomination was to decide who could use the unused church buildings. One day, as I walked towards London’s Westminster Abbey, I was aghast to see a sign on a building for the office of the ‘Advisory Board for Redundant Churches’.

    Yet, Moslem mosques seem to be going up at an alarming rate. Eastern religions seem to be thriving. Secular humanism has taken over the nation. The same problems that are now besetting the United States and Australia are rampant in Britain—homosexual behaviour, abortion, pornography, etc. The Church seems to have lost its influence. The absolutes of Christianity have largely disappeared.

    Britain is not the nation it used to be in world affairs either. It was said in the past that Britain ‘ruled the waves’. Now it is more likely to be said that Britain ‘waives the rules’—the majority have rejected the God of the Bible.

    We read in Judges 21:25, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ Because most people in Britain have rejected the King of creation, they have rejected His rules.

    How did this happen? When you think of the great revivals under Wesley, Whitefield and others, how could things disintegrate in Britain to what they are today? A tale of two graves tells the story and should stand as a warning to all nations.

    When the man who popularized evolutionary ideas—Charles Darwin—died, his family wanted him buried in the local churchyard. However, biologist Thomas Huxley—who ardently ‘preached’ humanism to large crowds—wanted Darwin buried at Westminster Abbey, that great church opposite London’s houses of Parliament.

    Many famous men and women (including kings, queens, and scientists) are buried in this exquisite church building. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, realized that if the church were to honour Darwin, this would help popularize Darwinism.

    Darwin’s family reluctantly agreed, and on April 26, 1882, Darwin was interred in Westminster Abbey adjacent to Sir Isaac Newton.

    At Westminster Abbey, I could not find Darwin’s grave, so I asked an attendant. I found that I had been walking over it. Darwin was buried in the floor (the foundation) of the church.

    Tears came to my eyes. I thought, ‘A man who popularized a philosophy that is a direct attack on the foundations of the Church is honoured by being buried in the foundations of a church.’

    What a picture! As the Scripture warns, ‘If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ (Psalm 11:3). Darwinian evolution, with its teaching of death and bloodshed millions of years before man evolved, is a direct attack on the foundations of Christianity and its teaching that death and bloodshed are a direct result of the sin of Adam (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:20; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:4).

    After visiting London, I travelled to Scotland. While walking, I saw a statue of John Knox, who had led the Protestant Reformation in Scotland in the sixteenth century. This man was a fiery preacher. He was one of the most influential Scots of his day. He certainly had a colourful history, but he stood for the authority of the Word of God.

    In his later years, Knox preached at St Giles’ Cathedral, in Edinburgh. I visited this cathedral. At the midday service, the clergyman told us a number of times, ‘Pray to find the god within you.’ This New Age message was not the message John Knox preached!

    Having read that Knox was buried near the church, I asked an attendant where Knox’s grave was situated. She answered, ‘I do not know’.

    St Giles’ Cathedral, where John Knox preached in his later years.
    Outside, I asked a parking attendant, ‘Do you know where John Knox is buried?’

    ‘Oh yes’, came the reply, ‘over there in car space 44’.

    I and my travelling companions went over to car space 44, and looked under a car for the grave marker. A small yellow tile with no name on it marked the spot where Knox is believed to be buried. His initials are engraved on the window of the church opposite car space 44.

    As I pondered this, my thoughts went back to Westminster Abbey. A man who popularized an idea that attacks the very foundations of the Church, is honoured by a church and buried in a prominent place for the world to see. Yet, a man who stood for the authority of the Word of God is all but forgotten, and his grave is housed in a parking lot.

    The church adopted Darwin, and trampled on the Word of God. This is what has happened to Britain. It has spread to the rest of Europe and around the world.

    In the United States and Australia, Christians are shocked at the alarming rate at which humanism is spreading. What is happening? The majority of the Church has adopted Darwinian evolution. What happened in Britain is happening in America and Australia.

    Oh, how our nations need to heed the cry of Hosea, ‘Hear the word of the Lord … for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land’ (Hosea 4:1).”

  102. I wonder if Ken Ham would like to see the heads of churches (obviously not those churches adopting Darwinian evolution) running the government of the UK? Any time we’ve had religious organisations actually running society, the results have been disastrous.

    Good things have come out of some Christian movements within society though, as people get behind social moves that look after the poor and correct injustices. These good things are the result of people being involved with their society, rather than being focussed on building church congregations.

    In so much as a church congregation can support its members involvement in good things in society as a whole, it will influence society in a positive way. By ‘good things’, I mean things that reflect the love of Christ, and his compassion for others. If church institutions or leaders want to accomplish things by increasing their control over people though, especially if that extended to control over people who don’t even share their faith, then they can really only damage people and society.

    If secular humanism as a movement sought to outlaw faith, then we’d have a problem. Providing it recognises and supports the right to diversity of faith, then it can co-exist. Likewise, the churches need to not seek to impose their values on others, though there are values that as a society we do reach consensus on, and lobbying over things is something any group can be involved in. We might not always agree, but it doesn’t mean the end of Christ’s church. When Christ’s church is in society, living out His values, the impact does not even require a church institution, though they can support the process.

  103. It’s just an interesting observation by Ken Ham, not a call to “political” arms.

    I like this little story, particularly with a little Scottish heritage on my husband’s side (and he does love his porridge!).

    “Oatmeal has a long history in Scottish society because oats are better suited to the short, wet growing season of Scotland than is wheat. Hence oats became the staple grain of that country.

    Samuel Johnson referred to this in his 1755 dictionary definition for oats:

    “A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.”

    To which his biographer, James Boswell, added:

    “which is why England is known for its horses and Scotland for its men.”

  104. teddy, that’s a really good call about Darwinian evolution which I also believe to be a blatant lie.

    The Anglican church in Australia in its intellectual pride has embraced evolution as an explanation for our origins and tried to fit it with the biblical account in Genesis. It also routinely mocks ‘creationists’ who believe in the Biblical account. Then it throws up its hands and says, “Well, none of this really matters anyway. What matters is Jesus Christ and the gospel.” Yeah, that and the sin for which Jesus came to die that finds its origins in that exquisitely beautiful Garden of Eden.

    The Anglican church in Australia has been in decline over the last twenty years and it wonders why. Hello?

  105. Not all of them believe that Chirpy. I’m part of the Anglican community, there are break-away groups that may be as you say but not the ones/few I know. Emphasis on few.:)

  106. teddy, the biblical account of creation in Genesis is not being taught as historical truth in the Anglican seminaries in the same way that Moses’ exodus from Egypt is being taught as historical truth.

  107. “So I’m not saying Jesus conforms to some Greek or man-made ideal. Nor an impressive physically visible ideal”

    He was actually extremely muscular. At least if you go by the old Chick comics …

  108. Well Chirpy, we have 2 student ministers at our church so I will ask them what they are being taught and get back to you.

  109. Excellent article by Ken Ham, teddy. He says that the UK Church has lost its influence. Perhaps it has lost its way. It’s interesting that the people e spoke to when we were there last year seemed to have lost hope and were searching for leadership. It wasn’t hard to discuss he gospel with people, but, noticeably, the main thing which stumbled them was evolution teaching. It was like a road block to their soul. Yet they were crying out for something to fill the vacuum.

    There is always hope as long as Jesus tarries, though.

  110. I am wondering if the UK church is becoming more underground or more community integrated.

    Since Heretic put me onto James Thwaites, I’ve observed he’s often going over to England. He just came back not long ago.

    If he is de-structuralising the church from this Greek ideal thinking, I am wondering if the churches in England is actually not being reported properly in how effective they are being in the community.

    He is big on this ‘telios’ concept which means in Hebrew, not perfection (from the Greek view), but wholeness, fullness or completeness.

    So I would say that our perception of Jesus should be viewed as not ‘perfect’, but completely sinless and living in fullness. Just as His father in heaven is completely sinless and who is fullness and wholeness.

  111. The Church of England under Rowan Williams needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

    To quote one commentator they have “adopted a bizarre interpretation of tolerance which involves positively falling over ourselves to celebrate every religion under the sun – except, God forbid, “ours”. Meanwhile, obligingly, the Church has been doing a pretty good job of retiring itself. As friendly as its non-dogmatic approach is, the “please don’t feel you should listen to us” stance doesn’t exactly whip up a frenzy of faith. In fact, probably the greatest engagement Rowan Williams’s comments have ever elicited are his – swiftly retracted – thoughts about other religions. The only surprise is that it wasn’t the Church of England that banned crucifixes.”

    Yet God is at work – I have a FB friend coming up for ordination in an evangelical church in England. His sermons are spot on, pull no punches and beginning to be broadcast via internet and reputation. Nothing about him to appeal, sounds like he’s got a speech impediment, but isn’t that just like the Lord to use such a man.

  112. I personally think it must be hard to be an Anglican these days.
    Unfortunately, now when I think of Anglican churches, I picture Mr Bean trying not to go to sleep and getting the timing for a hymn wrong.

  113. It’s not hard, we brought our “charisma” or enthusiasm to the church we attend. It is local to where we live, 5 mins and a pleasant surprise.

    Quite a few ex C3’s so the atmosphere is very relaxed and friendly at the 10am service, though the early service could be a bit “Mr. Bean” – even the minister, in his 30’s, is keen to rid himself of the robes worn at that service.

    His attitude is one of care, not willing to push too hard, though with the pending introduction of a 5pm service with focus on youth, he’s keen to integrate the morning services. I agree with that, I love the older folks (hey I’m only 62!)and what they can bring to the congregation with wisdom and their Christian experience. Spot-on teaching, stick to the Word in context and historically before application to us etc etc.

    Being part of a bible study/prayer group has been an eye-opener too. I’ve mentioned before, the answered prayers from simple requests of the Lord is refreshingly different – no yelling, pacing, “babbling” (though tongues with interpretation is allowed, just doesn’t happen). Hope that made sense, the prayer meetings I’ve attended in the past would send strangers screaming off into the night, thinking they had arrived at a Callan Park physcho ward! I’m not kidding, by the way, especially after Rodney Howard-Browne!

    Missionaries – we have four, two in Madagascar, tough going but they love it. Two in the southern suburbs of Paris, tough for them too, both secular and Muslim majority populations. Not bad going for a small church to instigate and support financially and spiritually.

    Now I know some of you come out of the Anglican system but there’s a huge difference, perhaps, when an enthusiastic “ex-pentecostal” goes back into that system. A blending of the two, and it has been fantastic. The faithfulness of God, knowing our hearts, brought us somewhere we could …….grow, serve, or get back to our first love?

  114. I know a number of Pentecostals now attending Anglican churches. They do bring a whole hearted commitment to their congregations.

    For myself, if I was looking to attend one, a lot would depend on the actual minister. Churches vary so much, depending on who is leading them, even within a denomination. My mother is historically Anglican, but found Anglican churches in 3 different locations (we moved) very different from one another.

    My ex-church was like a blend of Anglican evangelical, and Pentecostal, until the leadership changed. We actually had people there who attended both their local Anglican church and our Pente congregation at times.

  115. These days, I’d be looking for a good congregation and local church culture more than any other quality – assuming that genuine commitment to Christ and open discussion of scripture were also a given.

  116. Actually, if I did feel it was time for such a thing, I would probably look for a local bible study with people from a number of denominations, rather than a church. It would be interesting to have the diversity.

  117. Teddy, I don’t really have a problem with robes. esp for special occasions. And Mr Bean would probably make a good skit about a visit to a contemporary church too.

    “the prayer meetings I’ve attended in the past would send strangers screaming off into the night, thinking they had arrived at a Callan Park physcho ward! I’m not kidding, by the way, especially after Rodney Howard-Browne!”

    And yet I know many people who thought those kinds of meetings were the greatest things out – and people who think church should be like that every week.

    It’s amazing what people can get used to as being the “normal” christian life.

  118. Pingback: persian rugs

Comments are closed.