Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Lakeland Revival

  • Todd Bentley’s Marriage

    I had thought about writing something on this, but I think this post says most of what I would say, only better.

    Especially considering that there has been no marital infidelity reported, and folks have been upfront in with this, it doesn’t seem to me to provide any new basis to judge Bentley’s ministry. I still object to the same set of things, hold judgment on the same set, and tentatively approve of the same things.

    Marital unfaithfulness, as I have said about politicians and ministers before, is a valid consideration in determining someone’s integrity. But a person’s sin, before or after, does not, in my view, invalidate ministry. I’ve known of pastors who have fallen into serious transgressions. It often damages the fruit of the ministry they have done, but it doesn’t invalidate it.

    In this case, it should be noted, we’re looking at a couple working through difficulties in their marriage. We have not yet seen–and should not predict–divorce or other negative outcomes. It is unfortunate that, because of the level of publicity involved in his ministry, Todd Bentley and his wife have to deal with this with extraordinary publicity. That makes things harder.

    Whatever the outcome, however, we judge the ministry, teachings, and fruit by, well, the ministry, teachings, and fruit, and not by whether the minister is a greater sinner than the rest of us. That latter one is a judgment we have no right to make.

  • Lakeland as Viewed by a Pentecostal Skeptic

    . . . at Lingamish. [Note: Linked post withdrawn by author Lingamish.] Well worth reading.

  • Todd Bentley Obedient to the Lord?

    Dave Warnock links to this disturbing video of Todd Bentley. He discusses it further in his post Reflecting on cancer healing – Todd Bentley style. Peter Kirk writes on a related topic at Gentle Wisdom.

    Before I comment further, let me simply say that both of these are men whom I have to respect. I appreciate their ministries as best as I can follow them on the internet. Nothing here is intended to get personal.

    Frankly, the video is gut-wrenching in more ways than one. My 17 year old son died after a five year battle with cancer. At a revival meeting a pastor told him that God had told him (the pastor) that anyone on whom he laid hands and prayed for healing would be healed of cancer. James was 12 years old at the time. He wasn’t healed. That pastor said something false in the name of the Lord.

    Now I didn’t decide that everything that happened at those revival meetings was not of God based on that one incident. Yet at the same time, it illustrates a problem of extremely active revival meetings. What exactly guides or limits what one says or does? People who label themselves “Spirit led” often look down on the people who are totally focused on the written Word as dry and powerless. Yet one would hope that there would be some limit, some control on what was said and done.

    My question here is just what standard would limit what Todd Bentley could say God had told him to do? My personal standard would be this: “Kicking someone in the stomach is bad. God isn’t telling me to do that.” I apply an ethical standard to my behavior. If I think God is telling me to do something that is wrong, I’m going to let my behavior be guided ethically.

    Update (7/4/08): Peter Kirk has objected to the term kicking, and Dave Warnock adjusted the wording. I noticed the knee thing, but didn’t regard it as significant. Perhaps that makes me worse than others who didn’t notice it. I would say precisely the same thing about kneeing him in in the gut as about kicking him. Further, I have viewed this video, in which Todd Bentley talks about kicking people. Unfortunately I don’t have the clip without someone else’s commentary.

    Now I admit that I don’t know the full context of this action. I’m not going to proclaim myself an expert based on a YouTube video. Nonetheless I am having a hard time imagining the context that would make me think this was ethically right. If someone could suggest something that went before and after that would make it look good, I’d be interested in hearing about it.

    The only thing I can imagine would be a complete healing of the man in question, but even then I’m likely to apply something I say very frequently: God knows how to answer prayers better than we know how to pray them. In other words, even if the man was healed, I would be inclined to believe that God was showing him grace and mercy (perhaps because he was kicked in God’s name?), rather than that he was confirming a kick as the proper action.

    At the same time, the question I run into is one that Dave Warnock has to deal with, as do some of my friends over in the Lakeland area of Florida. How do you respond?

    Here is where I remain convinced that the wheat and the tares is the better option. If you become a blanket critic of anything, you will be very limited in your ability to respond to those who are involved or considering involvement.

    The problem at the center of this is hurting people, people who are looking for something. In fact, I believe what sends many people off the rails is that overwhelming determination that something has got to happen, that somehow there must be a physical demonstration of God’s power. If it isn’t happening in the normal course of events, let’s force it.

    Now it’s not bad to try to get life into our Christian lives. At the same time, once you get desperate, the controls are off, and it becomes very hard to discern good from bad. You think, “Maybe a kick in the stomach wouldn’t be so bad if it would just bring healing.” If you’re at that point, beware.

    As I’ve said before, while I try not to do blanket approvals or condemnations–I often don’t do a blanket approval of myself; never, in fact!–particular things can be labeled properly. Prosperity teaching-bad. Kicking in the stomach-bad. I’m pretty certain of those two!

  • Studying the Bible for Yourself

    One of the key foundations of my participatory Bible study method is my firm belief that individual Christians can and should study the Bible for themselves. I believe this study will depend on the work of experts in many cases, and that it should be accountable within a church community, but the individual, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is capable of studying and discerning.

    The fact that people differ in their opinions does not change my mind. Experts also disagree. There is no level of theological training that will make everyone come to the same conclusion. In your study, you should not fear errors. Do your best to correct errors with the best information you have. Be correctable when others point errors out, but don’t let the possibility, not the probably, in fact the certainty of errors hold you back.

    I really shouldn’t link to one post from two different blogs, but considering that my first one was for the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter blog, a group blog, I’ll do it here. Peter Kirk wrote an excellent piece on this, and as a bonus he is relating this to the discussion of the Lakeland Revival. Check it out.

  • Ordination and Impartation Questions

    I called to congratulate a friend and former student who was just ordained a full elder in the United Methodist Church at annual conference, and he said, tongue-in-cheek, “Yes, I feel much more powerful now!”

    So since some of the comments here (from PamBG [her comment], Diane R. [her comment] and Peter Kirk [his comment]) have brought up the issue of ordination and impartation, and because it’s a topic on which I don’t have extremely set views, I decided to pick my newly ordained friend’s brain. (Note that each comment I linked is part of a thread, and it would be well to read the whole thread before concluding you have the commenter’s viewpoint.)

    I went to it directly. “I know you were joking, but do you believe that there is some kind of impartation involved in ordination?” He said he did, and pointed out how the ordination certificate, on the back, shows the number of generations of laying on of hands back to John Wesley, and then back through church history. That’s the Methodist version of apostolic succession, which, according to the Catholic church, we do not actually have.

    I thought I’d open this up to questions. I’m going to ask this young man who is very well versed in theology and especially interested in the early church, its practices, and traditions, just what he meant by that. What is imparted, and how? I’d like to see some comments. I’ll be meeting him the middle of next week.

    In the meantime, I had a conversation with my wife, and we’re more comfortable with the notion that God imparts, and the particular person or place is a matter of obedience. Take Gehazi, for example. He goes to dip in the Jordan River. Was the river water particularly efficacious? I’d tend to think not. What was efficacious was obedience. God could heal at any place and in any way he chose, but he chose that way and that place. Similarly, I think God could make someone a fully called and empowered minister without external events. He just chooses to work through the church.

    I’m not sure that’s actually different in substance. It’s just a bit different of a way of talking about it. I still have a great deal of question about just how important the way we talk about this is. I’ve been around someone who thinks that if you haven’t received prayer from someone with a particular anointing, say an anointed revival speaker, you will not have anointing. Another friend and pastor effectively denies that the laying on of hands is of any efficacy whatsoever. It’s just a symbol.

    Included in this question would be the relationship between ordination and the type of impartation involved in some modern revival meetings. I haven’t seen it myself, but I think there’s a similarity in Lakeland and what we had here ate Brownsville in that hundreds of people are touched physically during the prayer time, and that is frequently regarded as a time of impartation. I’m not trying to challenge that idea, even though you can probably tell I’m not entirely comfortable with it. Yet there is scripture that seems to back that up to some extent.

  • Dave Faulkner on Lakeland

    Dave Faulkner has commented here on posts about the Lakeland Revival, and he has a new article looking at some of the healing and even resurrection claims. He hasn’t come to sweeping conclusions, but is certainly asking the right questions. It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the topic.

  • Bentley and Lakeland on MSNBC

    There’s an article here. Looks pretty neutral.

  • Revival, Faith Healing, and Healing Prayer

    Update (5/27/08): Before you conclude that I’m a deist and that I don’t believe in any miracles at all, please read the discussion in the comments, where, to put it briefly I affirm both healing miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are things I accept by faith, however, whilst doubting one’s ability to prove them. Now on to the post as originally written . . .

    The whole discussion about Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival has led me to think back a great deal about the Brownsville Revival. There were and are a number of concerns while at the same time I don’t want to be a blanket critic. But I have personally seen people seriously hurt by the excesses that tend to accompany a mass revival movement.

    Activity involves risk, so when I give cautions about risks one should not assume that I am saying to avoid the whole movement and everyone in it because there are risks. But there are more and less risky ways of going about spiritual business.

    Let me outline my starting point first. I will likely say more about these things later. I have been called a liberal charismatic, initially by an enemy. Though I personally prefer “passionate moderate” the label does have some truth. In fact, when I presented it to my wife and a number of our friends as part of the subtitle to my book (Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic), they thought it fit me perfectly. So if your friends (and your wife) think the label bestowed by an enemy fits, perhaps there’s something to it. I am charismatic in the sense that I believe any gift of the Holy Spirit can be present at any time. I do not hold that God spoke more in the time of the Hebrew prophets or the apostles than he does today. I don’t believe God was more willing to heal back in those times than he is now.

    I have personally experienced some of the “manifestations” that accompany revivals–speaking in tongues (or more accurately some form of prayer language), being slain in the spirit, and so forth. I have found occasions of each experience to be very spiritually helpful. Nonetheless I started using the term “side effects” rather than “manifestations” for these things, because I think the manifestation of the Spirit is focused on ministry that is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Those who teach that the side effects demonstrate that the Spirit is present can lead to a great deal of hurt. I encountered people who attended Brownsville and were not slain in the Spirit who felt that they must be spiritually inferior for that reason. Many charismatic and Pentecostal churches hold that a prayer language or speaking in tongues is a necessary demonstration of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and some that it is necessary evidence for salvation.

    I may blog about some of those experiences in a later post. Right now I want to say some words on faith healing. I blogged recently about a healing service, and then yesterday healing prayer was included in a regular service of worship. Both of these services were a blessing to me just being present. That experience is detached from any physical healing that may have taken place.

    You see, I have no experience that will say that prayer, apart from the application of medical science will heal. I have seen people prayed for who went on to get better. I have observed this happen outside the predicted parameters. My own father’s recovery in 1971 was contrary to the predictions of the doctor, but in any scientific sense one must take into account the possibility that the doctor’s predictions were simply wrong.

    Further, I don’t expect to get such evidence, unless it’s accidental and comes from someone else. Why? I will never test healing prayer, laying on of hands, or any similar activity in that way. I have strong theological reason to suggest that prayer is not a substitute for medical science. One could always have a test group prayed over by faith healers, and another group offered the best medical science has to offer. My suspicion is that the first group will do much worse than the second. But I would regard it as unethical to try.

    My concern with faith healing is that the expressed expectation of the healer is going to lead the person who receives prayer to believe they are healed, or to believe that their healing will come apart from medical care. I have every reason to believe that they will probably be wrong about that. I previously related the case in which a pastor, who should have known better, told my 12 year old son who was in chemotherapy that God had told him that everyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed from cancer. For a 12 year old that logically meant he no longer needed to continue chemotherapy–but he did need to continue.

    I can testify that there are many things about having a child sick, for example, that go well beyond the obvious. In our case, my wife was forced to go to half-time on family medical leave. Despite having good health insurance, we piled up medical bills with the copays and deductibles. Our time was strained. Our mental energy was strained. Then someone would come along and say, “If you will just go to _____, they will pray for your son and I believe he will be healed.” If we made the decision not to go the obvious question was why we would neglect to do something that might possibly save our son’s life.

    The problem was that we had dozens of such suggestions, some from regular medicine though different from the course of treatment we had chosen with our oncologist’s advice, some from alternative medicine, and many from a spiritual perspective. We had suggestions on how to decorate his room, how to handle the water in our house, and how to organize his diet. At some point, you simply wear out from suggestions. You simply cannot do all of it, even if you want to.

    A major problem is desperation, which leads you to do anything that might help, without any concern about whether it is very likely to do so. Friends are desperate as well, and they want to help. Under these circumstances the faith healer looks pretty good. Just go get anointed with oil and hands laid on you and it’s taken care of. Well, the bottom line for many people is that it isn’t, and after that the recriminations start. I know of a family, for example, who were told by a Methodist minister that if they had had enough faith, their loved one would have been healed. If your business is spiritual, can you admit simply that God doesn’t always heal, or even do so all that frequently, or do you have to find a reason why the activity failed?

    Revival, American style, shares characteristics with American fast food. We want it to be exciting and fast. We would prefer to go to the faith healer, be declared healed, and go on our way. It certainly beats months of chemotherapy.

    But I don’t think healing prayer is primarily about that, which is why I would not test it in that way. Healing prayer is primarily about spiritual, and by extension emotional, health. The healing services I attended fed into that spiritual health by combining the prayer with worship, explicitly discussing the expectations, and doing this all in the context of a supportive praying community, the church congregation. This can be done in a mass revival service, but it is easy to miss it. Further, in the revival service there is most commonly no follow-up to help a person with their expectations. If the revival preacher or faith healer lays hands on you and you remain ill, who is going to help you deal with your expectations? I recall one young man in trouble with the Brownsville revival who talked to me about his situation. He was happy that I would listen, he said, but what he really wanted was a half hour with his own pastor, something he was unlikely to get.

    I believe that any time we put our primary focus on the physical–material wealth, physical healing, visible effects of the Spirit’s presence–we will produce many negative results. Pastors in the area of a revival need to be aware of this and be prepared to support their members. One key issue here which might need more comment: Being a blanket critic of the revival is likely to turn away the very people you could help. If you affirm a person’s desire for a touch from God, and then help them work through their expectations, you will have opportunities to provide balance for them that they are unlikely to get at a revival service. Implying that they were stupid for seeking prayer is unlikely to be helpful.

    I would describe this as the primary failing of churches in the Pensacola area during the Brownsville revival. People showed up in churches after they had accepted Christ at the revival, or church members returned to their home church after the revival service, only to hear condemnation. Discerning comment on weaknesses is necessary. Affirmation of people’s needs and of the blessings that many receive helps establish the ground. Then you can fill in the blanks and balance the imbalances where they occur.

    I have been rambling a bit, but I hope these thoughts will be of help to people in relating to revival. I’m in no way telling people not to go and experience whatever they believe God has called them to do. But the more people there are and the more excitement, the more discernment is necessary.

  • Hunting Down the Holy Spirit

    One interesting privilege I had during the Brownsville Revival here in Pensacola was meeting groups going to and from the revival. At the time I was a member of Pine Forest United Methodist Church, and groups would stay in the Family Life Center there in order to be in range to get to the revival which was around 10 miles.

    They would come by bus, or less frequently in a caravan of cars, sleep on the floor, and then get up early in the morning to stand all day in line, hoping to get into the main sanctuary for the service. Sometimes they would try to talk to some of the Pine Forest UMC staff or members who had experience of the revival to try to find out what they were about to experience.

    At the time I lived in a trailer on the campus of the church. I had volunteered to check all the doors late at night. It is very rare at a church when you can’t find some door unlocked when it ought to be locked! In doing my late night check I would occasionally find groups that had returned from the revival and were trying to digest their experiences. Thus I could hear from them both before and after.

    I’m going to use these experiences to make a composite picture of two different pastors with whom I spent some time talking and praying during this time frame. There were many who could be represented by each of them, but I’ve chosen the extreme set of circumstances.

    The first was on a second or third visit. He reported new growth and new activity in his home church after he had visited Brownsville. “It isn’t really anything like Brownsville. It’s unique,” he told me. “But I was really blessed here, and I’m bringing others in my group this time so they can be blessed.”

    The second told me that he was close to retirement and expressed desperation that he wanted his ministry to count. To him, the revival at Brownsville represented the one chance of getting something real done in his ministry. Over time, his church shrunk to nearly nothing, and he had to move on.

    I am left asking just what was the fruit of the Brownsville revival. Is it best represented by the first pastor or the second? Is it represented by those who rededicated their lives to God and to service and carried it out in the way God called them to do, or those who became desperate and tried to duplicate what they saw?

    Those are, unfortunately, the type of binary questions that I tend to dislike. We tend to use the “know them by their fruit” model (Matthew 7:15-20). The problem is that quite frequently both sides have good “fruit” arguments. There are people who are greatly aided or even restarted in their spiritual lives. There are also people who go off the rails in one way or another, damaging themselves or others. The more adventurous tend to blame those who take some negative path on some force other than the revival. They claim the revival is good, but if you bring something bad there, the devil will get to work and ruin the result. The more theologically and spiritually cautious note the failures and are most concerned about those who are harmed.

    In my experience, however, you can say that about almost any movement and certainly most churches. I have seen the same church congregation be a tremendous blessing in one person’s life, while it becomes the very last church that some other person will attend because he has been injured in some way.

    Any time you have a group of people who are active, there is going to be a mixture both of people and of results. Even though Jesus doesn’t address this all that directly, I think a better model than the fruit is the weeds among the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). This doesn’t mean that one should not check the fruit, but rather that one must realize that when people are involved results will generally be mixed. I would want to have a very comprehensive knowledge of a ministry before I said that its fruit was totally bad and it should be rejected as a whole. At the same time, I think it is very important to observe danger signs and give warnings.

    Amongst those things to watch are:

    1. A tendency to focus on visible but extraneous things such as being slain in the spirit
    2. Getting stuck, i.e. simply hanging around all the time “being revived” instead of finding a constructive calling and doing it
    3. A focus on a single person or place. Note that this doesn’t mean nobody should go anywhere to experience God’s presence. Elijah had an important experience after running to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19), surely a more daunting journey in his day than a bit of a flight to a church in Florida is now.
    4. Unbalanced emphasis either on personal experience and spirituality over study and community, or the reverse
    5. Desperation. Desperate people try to force things, and are very susceptible to pretending. If you must have a miracle, you just may invent one or see one where none exists.
    6. Duplication. What happened at _____ (wherever) must happen here. That’s how I’ll know God is working.

    The question has been put to me by friends of whether I’ll find my way to Lakeland or at least follow it on GodTV. The answer is that this is not very likely. Is that because I have made a studied and negative decision? Well, simply the fact that I haven’t even watched it where conveniently available on TV should answer that. No, I haven’t made any studied decision. The things I have said are not, and cannot be directed specifically at Lakeland, because I have too little knowledge.

    The reason, however, that I’m not involved is that I’m already involved with what God is doing in my life and in the life of the church congregation I have just joined. The Holy Spirit is moving at First United Methodist Church in Pensacola. It bears no resemblance to rumors of Lakeland. I can say emphatically that it bears no resemblance to Brownsville, with which I had some acquaintance. There are no large altar calls and nobody has fallen on the floor.

    What is happening is that the church is experiencing steady growth. It is unable to accommodate all the activities of the members and the ministries to the community within existing space, and that space is not small. The ministers are preaching a strong gospel message, and people are responding. The leadership has determined that they are going to serve the community, help those less fortunate, and generally be a witness for Jesus in their downtown community. The senior pastor declared that the one and only reason for the existence of a church was to fulfill the gospel commission, or you could restate that to be a witness for Jesus Christ. I’m excited to be joining in with that in whatever way God calls me to do so.

    Do I want to set one way up against another? No. Never. But it’s the latter to which I am personally called.

    Peter Kirk wrote about a visit to the Dudley outpouring. I was interested in his experience. While he was unhappy with some elements he still received a blessing which he was able to bring back to his church. That is a positive testimony. He also provides a list of links to other comments on either Dudley or Lakeland.

    Again, I’m struck by the “weeds and wheat” metaphor for these events. The ideal is often the enemy of the good, and I think this can be true in the case of outpourings. Unfortunately, many on either side expect one to either be wholly for or wholly against, using another set of sayings of Jesus as their model. Well, I’m wholly for Jesus and wholly against that other guy, but when a number of people are involved, I suspect the division is a little harder to make.

    (PS: Peter Kirk has also written a great deal on the Holy Spirit, and I’ve been bookmarking some, intending to write, but I have simply not had time to do the subject justice.)

  • Lakeland Revival Notes

    A number of my friends have commented to me on the revival in Lakeland, Florida at Ignited Church, some positively, some with questions, and some critically. Some have seen opposition that is already represented on the web, such as you find here.

    I have not attended or watched the revival in Lakeland, and I don’t expect I will be visiting soon, though watching is more of an option. I have a pretty strong schedule of local involvement right now, and I believe that’s what I’m called to do. But for those who would like a first hand report, I asked a friend who attended meetings at Lakeland to comment.

    Rev. Perry Dalton was the pastor of Pine Forest United Methodist Church at the time I returned to faith and church back in 1994. He was pastor of Pine Forest during the time of the Brownsville Revival, and has endured a great deal of criticism at the time. (You can see my own experience relating to the Brownsville Revival in this article on my personal testimony.) He is a friend and co-author with me of the book I Want to Pray!. He has attended services at Lakeland. I asked him to provide me with some comments which he did and graciously gave me permission to quote. I will quote his comments in full.

    Please note that while comments on this post will be open, I’m neither going to defend the revival there nor will I join in any attack simply because I am not equipped to do so. The exception would be something that is based on an inappropriate theological starting point. I’m providing this comment for the benefit of my friends and other readers.

    From Perry Dalton:

    Thanks for your note. I’ll try to give you some things about my experience at Lakeland. I am getting ready to leave for NYC/UN to celebrate Israel’s 60th birthday. So it will be brief.

    My experience at Lakeland was awesome. It is nothing like Brownsville. Everything about this move of God will drive everyone’s religious spirits crazy. Nothing fits the normal church theology. God just shows up and melts people. I was sitting there enjoying the worship and heard the Holy Spirit say “You are no longer retired”. The presence of God was so powerful I could hardly stand it.

    Brownsville had more than its share of critics, but this is way beyond that. So far beyond it that the critics will not have to look for things to criticize. Todd Bentley does not preach. It just calls out healings. He will give an invitation. But the invitation is so simple and so short that it will seem inadequate and yet people make decisions every night. The invitation is simple, sweet and easy to understand.

    If you have not seen Todd, he is tattooed all over. He dresses in jeans and motorcycle shirts. His interns as he calls them are people that appear to be right off the street with no training (maybe like the disciples). But, they demonstrate that they love the Lord. Since, I have been home I have continued to tune into God TV that is broadcasting this all over the world and moved their regular programing so that they can broadcast it. I have not heard any thing come from Todd’s mouth that is not biblical. It is different but still true to the Word.
    Todd gives God all the glory.

    It is almost as powerful on TV as being there in person, at least for me.

    I recommend that everyone who wants to make a commitment of more of themselves to the Lord, to go! If you go as a spectator you will come away only with disappointment and criticisms, which only hurts the critic. The healings are awesome. Are some fake? Probably. Are some real? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was impressed with the number of really small children being healed and really old people 90 year olds being healed.

    As long as God gets the glory, I believe this will continue to grow around the world. It is already broadcast into 214 nations with close to a 1/2 billion viewers.

    You are welcome to use any or all of this. Just keep it in context. I am in no way a critic of this move. God is free to do whatever he chooses.

    Many people are quite shocked to find out that I have anything positive to say about Brownsville because my theology is somewhat different from theirs. I’m not called either a “liberal charismatic” or “passionate moderate” for nothing! But part of my view of Christian moderation is the acceptance of God’s working in a great variety of ways. In my view all activities of the Holy Spirit will show both human and divine elements. I will not go through a list of doctrines, check off the ones with which I disagree, and then condemn the ministry or movement. I prefer discussing particular teachings or actions rather than people or whole ministries, and the fact that I disagree with a particular teaching doesn’t mean I condemn the person holding it or the ministry in which he or she is engaged.

    Despite theological disagreements, my experience with Brownsville was positive, and my recommendation to anyone questioning at the time was to go check it out. I’d say the same thing about this one, sight unseen.

    Let me provide a couple of links here.

    • Revival: Benefits and Dangers
      This is a cautionary article I wrote during the Brownsville Revival. Oddly enough I got favorable comments about it from both supporters and critics of the revival.
    • Ten Things I Believe about the Holy Spirit
      While I don’t like criticizing whole movements and ministries, it is rare that I find something I can endorse without qualification. This list from Dave Warnock, a Methodist minister in England, is on the mark. I agree with it 100%.
    • A Foundation for Thinking
      First of a two part series I wrote for my wife’s devotional list dealing with Genesis 1:1-2. You may miss what I’m saying about the Holy Spirit until you read the second part.
    • Wind of God – Chaos to Order