Anointing and the Health and Wealth "Gospel"

Until I actually get around to writing a new post, I will reuse something I wrote previously in a response to a question one of my friend asked me concerning anointing. The question concerned the claim by a follower of a follower of a certain health-and-wealth preacher and his immunity from criticism because he was "anointed." The attempted support of this was found in David's refusal to speak against King Saul because he was the Lord's anointed. I attempted to briefly, but thoroughly, respond to this claim.

Now dealing with the question at hand concerning anointing.
First, examination needs to be offered of the citation of David's action in order to understand how it may apply to us. I agree with you that this citation is out of context, let's look closer at the context. First, Saul has something this preacher does not have, a unmistakable commission by God. Saul's anointing was unmistakable, this man's is not. Second, there is very good reason why David respected King Saul. Exodus 22:25 states, "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people." So, for David to do anything other would have been to violate God's law. But, this man is clearly not a ruler, a political functionary, so the law does not apply. Third, anointing did not free Saul from confrontation with his sin. Samuel was blunt in his rebuke of Saul's act of disobedience to God and deviation from proper worship. In our day, rebuke is just as necessary to be offered to those who pervert the pure worship of God and lead men, women and children in eternal danger. False doctrine, especially when so egregiously in contradiction to God's clear Word is as much a sin that needs to be condemned by the church's and individual's prophetic office. While leaders are to be given honor, respect and extra protection from unfounded attacks (I Timothy 5:19- the necessity of two or three witnesses for an accusation against an elder)- they are not given immunity. There is no special class in the church.

Second, we need to careful on what the Bible teaches about anointing. First, it is not a prominent doctrine in the Bible. We can easy leave out those that speak of the ritual/ceremonial act applied to priests and the civil act applied to kings. It is bad hermeneutics to apply these in a decontextualized manner to NT situations. Second, the term is consistently used substantivally to refer as a title to a specific individual. One prominent example is the reference of Cyrus as God's anointed in Isaiah 45:1. The majority of the remaining of the texts are Messianic, and have no personal relevance for individual believers or church leaders. Thirdly, the term is applied as an act of cleansing or special "make-up" of the rich (cf. Dan 10:3, Amos 6:6. Matt 6:17). Clearly, none of these examples are of any relevance. Fourth, James 5:14 refers to the anointing for the sick. This is a more difficult passage that has created issues with Catholic/Protestant discussions, but it is likewise not relevant to this situation. Finally, one passage remains which has relevance, and it the only one that has relevance to this discussion. It appears on the surface to support this man's contention. I John 2:20 and 27, "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth...As for you the anointing you have received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit- just as it has taught you, remain in him." First, the anointing seems clearly to be pointing to the Holy Spirit. Second, note the word "all" in 20. This anointing is not the special privilege of a few, but a blessing granted by God to all his children. Third, the purpose of the anointing is to know the truth, and guard against those who promoted error in the church. The exact functioning of the Spirit in this context is not clear. It is possible that the Spirit functioned more directly, but it is not clear. Further, it is not possible for God to contradict himself, and so no one can claim anointing from the Spirit while maintaining doctrine at variance with other passages inspired by the Spirit. Fourth, the context of John does not suggest this reading. John presents three test in the book to discern one's standing as a child of God, the doctrinal, the moral and the social. While the specific doctrinal concern in John's Epistles appears to be concerning Christ's true humanity (perhaps Docetism or some sort of proto-Gnosticism), it is not improper to understand other areas of vital, central doctrine as being secondarily applicable. The moral lapses of health and wealth leaders are infamous, and while it is not proper to impugn all because of the sins of a few, the trends are telling. The social effect of their understanding of anointing is deleterious to Christian fellowship, and Christian love. They have divided the church by their errors, not only in an ecumenical sense, but also within their fellowship of the have's and have not's.

How can one tell if one is ministering consistent with God's will, how can we tell the true from the false? The test of Deuteronomy 18 are clear. First, are their prophecies true? Second, is their message consistent with the rest of God's revelation. Third, and in this instance most striking to me, are they leading people to greater devotion to the Lord, or leading them astray. Too many teachers, in the health and wealth movement and all across the church today seem to want to build themselves and their ministries up, and not exalt the Lord and strengthen the body of Christ. I wonder how vigorously those who defend these teachers would defend a point of clear teaching in Scripture which is does not aide their idiosyncratic ideas, how boldly they would defend the honor of Christ and the purity of his bride the church?

Another Amusing Quiz

Which theologian are you?

Justin seems to have a penchant for finding interesting sites on the internet (or knowing others who can find interesting sites in the internet). This quiz tells you what theologian you are based on your answers to questions. Here are the results I got:

You scored as Anselm.

Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm 93%
John Calvin 67%
Karl Barth 67%
Jonathan Edwards 67%
Martin Luther 60%
Friedrich Schleiermacher 47%
Paul Tillich 27%
Jürgen Moltmann 27%
Charles Finney 20%
Augustine 7%

Perosnally, more than the other quiz, I think this is not very accurate. While I admit I am very Anselmic, I was surprised that Calvin was not higher, or at least closer to Anselm. Personally, I see Calvin as the model theologian, and maybe I am just being vain, but I think many of my positions and practices are patterned after him. I was surprised (sort of) to see Barth as high as Calvin, but the existentialist comes out at last. The biggest thing I disagree with was how low Augustine is represented. I can guess that this was based solely on my response to two questions which are idiomatic to his position and not central. At the very least, Augustine should have scored much higher than Tillich, Moltmann, and Finney. But, at the end of the day, it is just a silly quiz, why get bugged by it.

Missing Camden Children

I will be posting something on the trip to Camden in about a week, but a recent development calls for prayer. About three hours ago, 3 children who had been missing in Camden since Wendsday night were found dead in the trunk of a car near their house by one of the boy's father. The authorities have not released a lot of information, but this is a horrible tragedy for this family and community. The children went missing only a few blocks from where Pastor Alvira's church in Camden where we will run a Vaction Bible School in about a week and a half. One of the children who was found attended the VBS we ran two years ago. Pastor Alvira was involved in the search for the children. Please pray that he would have wisdom to comfort this family in their loss, and an opportunity to present the gospel. Also, pray that this tragedy would not hinder out ability to minister to the children in the neighborhood.

One another related note, also keep Pastor Alvira's health in prayer, as he was recently in a car accident and injured his back. While bad enough for a person in normal health, with his RSDS, this could pose a more signficant risk. Pray for his doctors, one of whom is an elder in the OPC church in nearby Bellmawr, to have wisdom in how to treat Ben; and for healing an strength for Pastor Alvira so he can effectivly perservere in his ministry.

Exegeting Stop Signs

Someone sent this out on a list, and it was too funny to pass up posting. Some good, intelligent humor is a good thing; plus, it might keep a satisfy a certain New Yorker who want me to post something :-)

Hermeneutics in everyday life

Suppose you're travelling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyrrany of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.

3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
1) Take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law.
2) Stop at the stop sign, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop," wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed. Incidently, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: "Be still, and know that I am God." R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: "Stop, father!" In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written:
"Out of the mouth of babes." R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: "Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens." R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: "let them serve as signs." R. Yeshuah says: ... [continues for three more pages]

8. A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.

9. A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

10. A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunately omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.

11. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".

12. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there. More Inside!!!

13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occured because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.

New "Denomination"

This Tuesday, May 17, witnessed the birth of a new denomination, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church. While the growth of Christ’s kingdom should be an occasion of joy, in this instance it is one of sorrow. According to its statement, “The new denomination is being established in response to conservative Presbyterians’ increasing concern over the acceptance of the teaching of justification by faith plus works, and water baptism as an instrument of salvation, in denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).” What is implicit in this statement is made unmistakably clear in the following statement from founding member Jeffery A. Sheely:

"Because these elements hold sway in the OPC, our congregation voted unanimously to separate from that denomination last year. The present situation is very similar to what happened in the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) three generations ago. In 1936, conservatives left the PCUSA to form the OPC. One of the founders of the OPC, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, said that when the liberalizing elements hold sway in a denomination, and the Gospel is at stake, conservatives have no choice but to separate and begin again. That is what we are doing. History is being repeated."

While these individuals portray themselves as courageous reformers, they are in reality cowardly schismatics. Comparing the formation of their denomination with the formation of the OPC is ludicrous. Machen and the other men of conviction who founded the OPC did so only after they had exhausted every possible measure to restore the purity of the church and to maintain the unity of the church; these men have barely made an effort. Those churches that initially formed the OPC did so at the great cost, forfeiting their property and their pastor’s pension; the formation of this assembly is costing these men nothing. The very basis upon which they claim to found their denomination is patently false. Neither the OPC not the PCA accept justification by faith plus works, of baptism as an instrument of salvation. The doctrinal standards of both denominations are clear in denying these teachings, the very same standards that are ostensibly the foundation of this group. Further, to accuse the OPC of aberration on the doctrine of justification before the Committee erected to study this issue reports is massively premature. No one doubts that the conclusion reached by the Committee will be a strong reaffirmation of a traditional Reformed understanding of justification. Perhaps these men have an issue with this traditional understanding. John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation writes in his email announcing the formation of this denomination the following statement:

"The ERPC is spearheaded by former members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who believe that the testimony of that denomination has been compromised for the past 30 years by its toleration of the teaching of two different gospels, the Biblical Gospel of justification by faith alone, and the false gospel of justification by faith and works/faithfulness/obedience."

One of Robbins’ consistent targets is Norman Shepherd, and any theology which attempts to bind justification and sanctification he labels as “Shepherdism.” To equate those equate the necessity of both faith and repentance as evidence of regeneration with Catholicism is slanderous. At the end of the day, this fatal misunderstanding of theology condemns John Calvin, the Westminster Confession, and most importantly, Scripture itself. Endless examples could be offered from both testaments on this point, but one example from Jesus will suffice, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” What fruit is this group displaying?