Was Paul A Pragmatist?

But the young evangelicals I wrote about share your surprise and dismay with the message you heard from Leadership Network: "Theology just causes people to argue. We don't do theology."

- Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists, in a discussion with Tony Jones, Christianity Today [bold added]

Our goal as we share at seminars and offer counsel, is to minister to the hearts of people. We try to explain life, hurts and relationships in a simple way. Doctrine is not the focus....
Bypassing doctrine to meet people where they lived is exactly what Jesus did in His ministry.... A quote by John Regier that speaks to me is, "You cannot lay truth over pain."

- Freedom Hills Ministries newsletter, Vol. 11, Issue 2, April 2008 [bold in original, italics added]

From the very beginning the Leadership Network forged a brilliant dialectic process in order to facilitate the postmodern church era. On the one hand they created the mystical syncretistic Emergent movement. On the other hand they wrought the pragmatic, Drucker-driven, utilitarian, Megachurch model. These two creations would appear to be opposite extremes. One pole could then work off the other. The utilitarian megachurch could be accused of too much dry, dead pragmatism -- spirit-stifling numbers-driven, business results & methods-driven, impersonal franchises, etc. In a planned reaction against this, the hip, young Emergent would arise, claiming that the worse excesses of stale programmed structure inhibits spiritual growth and vitality, therefore we need something new. And the tenets and practices of the New (Apostolic) Reformation would arise as the perfect synthesis solution.

Neither extreme is theologically sound, nor is the proposed third-way compromise of a new reformation. The New Apostolic Reformation/Transformation (in its many guises) would serve as a perfect vehicle in juxtaposition to the old orthodoxies, fundamentalism, theology and doctrine.

In the dialectic dance, answers from the Word of God are routinely discarded. The Bible is not the answer. The new-fangled proposals suggest a better way. They tickle the ear, stimulate the senses, organize the church into networking cellular structures (controlling hierarchies), and utilize psycho-social methods. Superficially this all seems more compassionate and caring. It is always presented as more "effective." But to achieve this the offense of the cross is removed.

Some key elements of this transformative dialectical process are documented in the most recent Discernment Ministries newsletter on the topic of The Emerging Church - The Rising Generation: A Maturing Church? by Jewel Grewe.

In the previous 4-part series on Herescope Pastor Larry DeBruyn dealt with the question "Was Paul A Mystic?" Given the ongoing dialectic, and considering the rising popularity of reinventing the apostle Paul, it is also necessary to look at the opposite claim: that Paul was a pragmatist. Today's post addresses that issue.

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

WAS PAUL A PRAGMATIST?

Would the apostle have employed "any" means to save some?

These days, pastors and churches will seemingly stoop to anything to build a crowd. Rock-'n'-roll, the culture's dominant music, is fast becoming "the" staple of so-called praise and worship. In their attempt to "connect" with their audience, I've heard pastors use lewd language in their preaching. One church featured an Elvis impersonator, while another, in a Halloween-themed "sanctuary" with a haunted house, featured a Michael Jackson Thriller dance. Pastors even advertise sex-sermons on billboards in ways that offend non-Christians who are tired of the permissiveness of our sex-crazed culture. American "churchianity" is addicted to the unprincipled principle of, "just do it to just get it."

All of the aforementioned, and more, seek justification from a statement in the Bible where Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22b). Contortedly, contemporaries interpret this verse to provide apostolic endorsement to do anything to reach anyone. Such a ministry motif is pragmatism, a belief that legitimates any practice so long as it achieves the presumed result of saving some. To the pragmatist, the end justifies the means.

Yet no matter how it is slanted, pragmatism is liberalism. While liberals depart from orthodox belief, pragmatists depart from orthodox behavior. According to pragmatism, even if it's wrong, it's right, so long as it works. Pragmatists will do anything to attract everyone, and churches are full of this philosophy of doing business now-a-days. Noble ends supposedly justify ignoble means. A pragmatist possesses no "set-in-stone" convictions. They will do whatever it takes to win--even cheat. If it does it, do it.

If idols will attract a crowd, then carve the wood, mold the gold, and hew the rocks. The Israelite king Jeroboam was a pragmatist. In defiance of Yahweh's choice of Jerusalem to be the place where the nation was to worship Him, and because it was inconvenient for Israelites to make their mandated pilgrimages to the Holy City, the pragmatic king defied the will of God and created handy "high places" (praise and worship centers) all over the land, especially in Bethel and Dan (See 1 Kings 12:28-30.). By his example, Jeroboam was known in history as the king who "who did sin, and who made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:15).

Bored with the "traditional" worship of Yahweh at Jerusalem (i.e., ho-hum . . . same-o' same-o'), and for the experience of innovatively worshipping Baal (i.e., thrills and chills), one might even envision apostate Israelites from the southern-most town of Beersheba by-passing Jerusalem (approximately 50 miles to the north) and journeying all the way to Dan (approximately 150 miles to the north) to observe the idolatrous spectacle. Besides, Baal promised them prosperity that was not dependent upon their behavior (See Deuteronomy 28:1 ff.). Against this backdrop, we turn now to address the issue of what Paul meant when he confessed, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some." Was he a situational pragmatist who, like Jeroboam, would have built "high places" in order to get people "saved"?

To understand this issue from Paul's perspective, the context is the key (Read 1 Corinthians 8:1-9:27.). In these chapters, Paul is not addressing the subject of methods. One missiologist wisely observes: "These classic words [i.e., "I have become all things to all men"] are often used by missionaries to justify diverse methods of reaching people for Christ. But that is certainly a misinterpretation."[1] In the flow of these chapters, Paul is discussing mores (the folkways and customs of a culture), not methods. For example, in Lithuania, it was considered rude for a speaker to stand before an audience with his hand in his pocket, or a man to whistle in public places (Personally, I too find this annoying.). So when I preached, I kept my hands out of my pockets! It was no "issue" to me, but it was to the Lithuanians. So I accommodated myself to the custom.

Accordingly, the apostle grouped people as to whether, or not, they were "Jews," "under the Law," "without the law" and "weak" (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). Paradoxically, though Paul considered himself "free from all" these groups, he also considered himself a "slave to all" all these groups (1 Corinthians 9:19). While he did not allow diverse mores to intimidate him, the apostle did, in his ministry, accommodate his outward behavior to the cultural consensus. Presumably, that is why he allowed Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:3). As one scholar summarized: "Contextually, then, what Paul meant by becoming 'all things to all men' was doing all things possible to avoid prohibitions, strictures, and offenses peculiar to a culture."[2]

To save some, Paul politely submitted to and served the customs of others. He became "all things to all men." But, to evangelize the unevangelized, the apostle uncompromisingly employed one method--preaching. He employed this method in synagogues, churches, and at Mars Hill. And with this one method the apostle preached one message. As he stated to the Corinthians: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2, KJV). While the places and the people to whom he ministered varied, his method and his message remained consistent. Yet in doing so, Paul served people, for as he wrote, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (Emphasis mine, 2 Corinthians 4:5, KJV). It is at this juncture that contemporary Christendom had better beware: Different methods may evoke different messages (See Galatians 1:6-10.).

As to the question, "Was Paul a Pragmatist?" John Makujina summarizes: "Becoming 'all things to all men' does not refer to an offensive strategy of inventiveness, creativity, persuasiveness, or accommodation to new modes of evangelism that key in on the latest public novelty. Paul's references here are purely preventative. He simply wished to eliminate any nonessential barriers that would hinder his proclamation of the gospel."[3]

No, Paul was not a pragmatist. He did not employ fleshly or worldly means to attain a "so-called" spiritual good. In fact, he recognized the "flesh" to be in mortal combat against the "Spirit" (Galatians 5:19-21). Unlike many of today's churches, he most certainly would abhor any fleshly method employed to make a crowd. To win the world, the church cannot afford to become like the world. "Fleshly tactics" will not win spiritual battles. If those tactics are used, the church then fights on the devil's "turf" and will surely be defeated..


Endnotes:
[1] David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, An Introduction to Missionary Communication, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1991) 177.
[2] John Makujina, Measuring the Music, Another Look at the Contemporary Music Debate (Willow Street, Pennsylvania: Old Paths Publications, 2002) 22.
[3] Ibid. 23-24.


The Truth:

"He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise." (Job 5:12)


Pastor Larry DeBruyn is the author of Church on the Rise: Why I am not a Purpose-Driven Pastor. This article used with permission.

The New Age Morphing. . .

. . . Into the Church


How has the New Age morphed itself over the past 35 years since the public launching of "The Aquarian Conspiracy"?

Herescope readers can listen to a Steel on Steel broadcast hosted by John Loeffler on this topic. The following description is posted at www.steelonsteel.com/broadcasts.php:


05/10/2008
The New Age Morphing

Time to clear the decks for a conference call today. We haven't done one in a long time so it's overdue.

Almost thirty years ago Detroit attorney, Constance Cumbey, published a book entitled, /Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow/, warning of a major paradigm shift transforming politics and religion, moving us to a global blend of politics and pantheism, socialism with Christianity.

Many shrugged it off as a passing fad. Today the New Age has not only persisted and flourished, but is embraced by churches from Catholic to Pentecostal. How did so many people -- especially pastors -- miss the warning?

Our participants today are attorney Constance Cumbey (www.cumbey.blogspot.com), Warren Smith, author of The Light the was Dark,[*] Sarah Leslie (www.herescope.blogspot.com), plus Mitch and Machelle Wright.

John's boralogue frames the entire hour and a half conversation.


Herescope readers can log in to the full recording for free by using the word "herescope" (all lower case) for both login and password when it requests member information.

To read about the history of the several evangelical "Consultations on the Future" referred to in this broadcast click on the archive months of September 2005 and October 2005. This post series begins with the amazing statement that: "Evangelical leaders were meeting together with New Age leaders openly by the late 1970s."

The Truth:

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Romans 13:11)

*link added

Was Paul A Mystic?

Part 4

Do you love Paul? Do you struggle with Paul? Do you suffer from Paulophilia or Paulophobia? Some have accused emergents of re-emphasizing Jesus and forgetting about Paul. Well, no more!

The 2008 Emergent Theological Conversation, ReClaiming Paul: The Apostle in the Emerging World is now taking registrations. Co-Sponsored by Nazarene Theological Seminary and hosted at Jacob's Well Church in Kansas City, the conversation will take place October 22-24, 2008. The cost is $189, and the event is limited to 300 participants.

This promises to be an extraordinary event, mixing Pauline scholars and emergent pastors to wrestle with Paul's theology, and the application of his writings in the 21st centtury.[sic] Find out more and register HERE.
(-Emergent/C newsletter, 5/8/08)*

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

In Christ
The phrases “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” in Him,” “in the Spirit,” and a few similar ones, occur hundreds of times in the writings of Paul. The phrase does not occur in the Gospels. Though the disciples were “with” Christ, they were not “in” Christ until after Pentecost. What does it mean for Christian believers to be “in Christ”? How does someone become “in Christ”? And what are the implications of being “in Christ’ for our Christian experience?

The phrase describes what some call the Christian’s mystical union with Christ. To the Galatians, Paul explained this bonding when he wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me” (Galatians 2:20). Professor David Rightmire states that “in Christ” describes “a spiritual reality that interpenetrates all of life and finds corporate expression in the body of Christ.”[32] With the vine and branches metaphor, Jesus illustrated His union with the disciples. He said,

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing (John 15:4-5).

But given the tenets of mystical practices and beliefs, referring to this union between Christ and the Christian as mystical, is a misnomer, and confusing.

Almost four-hundred years ago, Henry Scougal (1650-1678) wrote,

[T]rue religion is a union of the soul with God, a real participation in the divine nature, the very image of God drawn upon the soul. In the apostle’s words, it is “Christ formed in you.”[33]

No phrase bespeaks the infusion of divine life into a human soul more than the little phrase “in Christ.” “If any man be in Christ he is a new creation . . .” (2 Corinthians 5:17). We note the words “if any.” Spiritual union “in Christ” is the universal experience of ordinary Christians who by faith belong to God. Divine union is the fait accompli of all those who come to God through faith in Jesus Christ, and not awareness obtained by a mystical few. According to His divine power and promises, Peter stated that God has made us to “become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” (2 Peter 1:4). To every believer, Paul says, “in Him you have been made complete” (Colossians 2:10). The believer’s state of being “in Christ” is not a mystical end in itself, but issues forth in real moral and ethical life changes.

We should note that not only did Paul’s extraordinary vision occur “in Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:2), but he also lived every day “in Christ.” Like Paul, and for reason of being “in Christ,” it can be further observed that, unlike mystical experiences, God’s presence is abiding, not spasmodic. Given the fact that all believers possess this bonding in Christ by faith, why should they seek exceptional experiences with, even absorption into God, by the works of intentional mystical and spiritual practices? After all, by grace Christians are already bonded to Him. Of Paul’s exceptional experiences, Stewart writes that,

[H]e would never dream of using them to disparage the more normal experiences of souls ‘hid with Christ in God.’ On the contrary, it was in the daily, ever-renewed communion, rather than in the transient rapture, that the inmost nature of Christianity lay.[34]

Spiritual union is not the special province of those who, through the works of mysticism, cultivate the higher life, and their sense of a divine presence. There is a tendency to elevate some mystical Christians to a special status, and to revere them. But as Charles Spurgeon wrote,

Do not, then, look upon the ancient saints as being exempt either from infirmities or sins; and do not regard them with that mystic reverence which will almost make us idolaters. Their holiness is attainable even by us. We are “called to be saints” by that same voice which constrained them to their high vocation.[35]

All of this raises the question, how does it come upon a person to be found “in Christ”?

The Baptism of the Spirit
The event which places a believer into spiritual union with Christ is the baptism in, with, or by the Holy Spirit. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). About the Spirit baptism mentioned here by Paul, we need to answer the question, who does the baptizing? Is it the Holy Spirit, or Jesus? Most Bible versions translate the preposition with the English preposition “by” (KJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV), in which case, the Holy Spirit is suggested to be the one who does the baptizing. In other words, we are spiritually united to the church and other Christians “by” the Spirit. However, given the theological context of Spirit baptism, this is not the preposition’s best meaning. The Spirit does not perform the baptizing. Here’s why.

After his self-deprecating remarks, John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; See also Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5.). In other words, just as John had physically baptized believers into the Jordan waters, so one day Jesus would spiritually baptize believers into union with the Spirit and Himself, thereby bonding true believers together in Christ’s body, the church. If this understanding is correct, then Jesus can be understood to be the unnamed agent who does the spiritual baptizing in 1 Corinthians 12:13. For reason of their being baptized “in” the Spirit by Christ, believers enter the state of being “in Christ.”

It must be understood that in every instance where Holy Spirit baptism is mentioned, the recipients of it are passive. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).[36] In other words, as a sovereign work of God, the event comes upon all believers, not just a mystical few. For this reason, there is no mystical meaning to being “in the Spirit” and “in Christ,” for the recipients of Spirit baptism are reacting, not acting. The passivity of Spirit baptism fits the paradigm of New Testament spirituality set forth by the apostle.

By virtue of his being united to the Lord, of being “in Christ,” Paul acknowledged the spiritual presence of Christ in his life. However, Paul did not derive understanding of his spiritual state via intuition and contemplation, but by revelation from God.

Was Paul a Mystic?
In order to make the determination whether Paul was a mystic, we evaluated Paul’s Paradise experience and his state of being “in Christ” according to the mystical characteristics of ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, passivity, and absorption. We found that Paul’s theology of spirituality is adverse to these qualities. Though he was intensely and passionately spiritual, Paul was not a religious mystic. He viewed that his spirituality originated from outside, not from inside, himself (Romans 10:6-10). He understood that Jesus Christ was the revelatory source of this knowledge (Galatians 1:12).[37] And he asserted that the Holy Spirit teaches believers about spiritual things so “that we might know the things freely given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12b; See 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.). In the Word and through the Spirit, New Covenant believers have access to all the knowledge they need to know about the spiritual life. In Christ we “have been made complete” (Colossians 2:10; See Ephesians 3:14-10.).

Something More
Yet Professor David F. Wells observes, “People who are attracted to mysticism usually assume that what is hidden in God is other than what is revealed, or that it is deeper or more interesting or spiritually nourishing.”[38] But Paul did not view that there was something more to the spiritual life than what Jesus Christ had made known to him, and presumably through him to us. The mysteries of the faith were revealed to him, not concealed from him. As he wrote to the Colossians, “God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). The knowledge of a believer’s being “in Christ” was revealed to Paul. As with the rest of the saving and sanctifying Gospel, such knowledge was received “through a revelation [from] Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12; See Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:3.). Paul did not discover his state of being “in Christ” by contemplating the hidden things of God. He did not unravel the mystery of his being in Christ, and of Christ being in him, through mystical meditation. Rather, it was revealed to him by Christ. Paul was not a mystic, and to refer to the apostle’s teaching as “Christian mysticism” is confusing and misleading.



Endnotes:
32. Ibid. 790.
33. Henry Scougal, “The Life of God in the Soul of Man,” The Works of the Rev. Henry Scougal, Dr. Don Kistler, Editor (Morgan, Pennsylvania: Soil Deo Gloria Publications, 2002) 3.
34. Stewart, A Man in Christ, 162.
35. Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, Morning July 5 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991) 374.
36. If Jesus is the unnamed agent who does the Spirit baptizing, then this further indicates there to be one spiritual baptism, and not as Pentecostalism asserts, two. There is one baptizer who performs one baptism (See Ephesians 4:5.). In the Acts passages, chapters 2, 8, 10 and 19, what Luke narrates in every instance is an initial baptism by Jesus in the Spirit, not a second. Additionally, in the baptism, the recipients are passive, not active. They do not “get” the baptism in the Spirit. They receive it from Jesus Christ.
37. The question regarding the prepositional phrase, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Italics mine, Galatians 1:12, NASB), is whether Jesus Christ was the object, or the agent, of what was revealed to Paul. If the genitive (i.e., “of”) is objective, then the revelation was about Jesus Christ. If we understand the genitive (i.e., “of”) to be subjective, then the revelation was from Jesus Christ. The latter interpretation makes the best sense. The revelation came to Paul through Jesus Christ, perhaps at the time he encountered Him on the road to Damascus. See Longenecker, Galatians, 23-24.
38. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland, The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994) 132.

*This quote was added by the Discernment Research Group due to its timely relevance to this topic.

Pastor Larry DeBruyn is the author of Church on the Rise: Why I am not a Purpose-Driven Pastor. This series "Was Paul A Mystic?" is a revised version of Appendix Two appearing in his book. Used with permission.


THE TRUTH:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8)

Was Paul A Mystic?

Part 3

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

Transiency—“Once Upon a Time”
By nature, all religious experiences are transient. Circumstances and people vary from day to day. Because they’re rooted in life, and because from day to day situations do not remain the same, our feelings change. Feelings are fleeting, and do not last. Life is filled with various experiences! About emotions, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wisely wrote,

For feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God.
Naught else is worth believing.

Mysticism seeks the mountain peaks of experience where the air is rare (See Matthew 17:1-8.), but it cannot survive in that altitude for long. Real life, even our spiritual life, must be lived below. Therefore, any mystical taste of timelessness does not last.

Did the spirituality of Paul possess qualities of transience? It should not surprise us that some aspects of his spirituality were transient, while others were not. For example, Paul stated that the filling of the Holy Spirit is transient in the lives of believers (Ephesians 5:18). So too were some spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 13:8-11). Paul’s trip to Paradise did not last. It happened fourteen years before he related it to the Corinthians. While the ramifications of it were ongoing in his Christian life, the apostle’s Damascus Road experience did not last. But because this was true of some of Paul’s experiences, does not mean that it was true of all his experiences.

As opposed to the temporality of some spiritual gifts, love is unfailing (1 Corinthians 13:8). Too, the spiritual presence of Christ in the life of the believer, the state of being “in Christ,” is not temporary. He is always with and will never forsake believers (Matthew 28:19; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture does not portray Paul’s, or a believer’s, experience of being sealed with the Spirit as temporary. Far from being transient, the sealing of the Spirit is permanent in the life of the believer until the day of redemption; that is, until we arrive in the Lord’s presence for eternity (Ephesians 4:30; 1:13; 2 Corinthians 1:22). Furthermore, all believers have been baptized by the Spirit, and the baptism cannot be broken (1 Corinthians 12:13). Although aspects of Paul’s spirituality were transient, others were constant and continuing in the apostle’s life, and so also they are for all true believers.

Passivity—“I Can’t Control What Happens”
We should note that according to James, passivity is another characteristic of mystical experiences. Yet these experiences, as he points out, “may be facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe.”[25] Typically, Christian mystics engage in meditative techniques, or disciplines, in order to generate mystical ecstasy, experiences, and encounters. In other words, they are proactive.

Paul’s experience however, was passive-reactive. Two parallel phrases bear this out. First, Paul states that he was “caught up” (Greek, harpazo), that is, raptured to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2; Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:17.). Presumably speaking of himself, Paul again mentions “a man . . . was caught up” (Greek, harpazo), that is raptured into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4). The verbs in both references to the same event are passive indicating that Paul was acted upon. The apostle did nothing to initiate what for him was an exceptional experience. As one commentator affirms, “What has happened has been done to Paul; he did nothing to obtain the vision.”[26] Paul’s experience was not the result of following the procedures and preparations of the mystic way. But like the coming translation of the church (1 Thessalonians 4:17), Paul was “caught up.” His transport to Paradise was sudden, unexpected, and abrupt, an event for which he made no preparations. By God’s sovereign grace it happened to him one time. In short, he did not experience Paradise by the proactive works of mystical methods, but as a gift of sovereign grace. Therefore, his experience cannot be categorized as mystical.

If the coming translation of those “in Christ” provides a parallel (The same Greek word for “caught up” is used in both 2 Corinthians 12:2, 4, and 1 Thessalonians 4:17.), Paul’s trip to the third heaven may well have come to him as “a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2). Because of the interruptive nature of Paul’s experience, it departs from the mystical pattern of preparing for experiences.

Fusion—“I and the Absolute are One”
Though not noted by James to be among the four basic characteristics of mysticism, absorption into, or fusion with, the Absolute, or Love, is the climax and goal of mystical practices. Of such assimilation into God James stated,

[T]his overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness.[27]

Evangelical E. Glenn Hinson stated that a fundamental conviction of contemplatives is that they “may see God or be united with God, though fleetingly, while [they] are still living in this present state of existence.”[28] This state of absorption into God is also known as theosis.

For reason of Paul’s statement that “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me,” William James viewed that Paul’s and Jesus’ personalities had become fused into mystical oneness. The two had become one.[29] By engaging spiritual exercises, Paul was absorbed into union with the Christ-God. Some might even suggest that mystically he had become a god-man. However, there are reasons why such fusion could not have taken place.

First, God is holy. That God is holy marks Him out to be separate from His creation and from His creatures, including men and angels. God is “wholly other” from His creatures. To Israel Jehovah said, “For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hosea 11:9). The chasm between the being of God and the being of humans will never be completely bridged.

Yet Lucifer once vowed, “I will be like the most High.” (Isaiah 14:14). Satan tempted Eve by telling her, “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5). The Babylonians deludingly boasted, “I am, and there is no one besides me,” and in doing so, insulted the holiness of the One who declared, “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Compare the Lord—Isaiah 44:6; 45:5,6, 18, 22; 46:9; to the Babylonians—Isaiah 47:8, 10.). The aspiration of Lucifer to “be like” God, the temptation of Eve to “be like God,” and the “I am” claim of the Babylonians to be God, directly assaulted God’s holiness. Disregarding the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which makes God immanent in the life of the believer (Romans 8:9b), the idea that any person could view that they were absorbed into God, and vice versa, challenges God’s apartness from humanity.

Second, Jesus is God (Philippians 2:6). Paul was not. The apostle’s personality did not become deity. By his own admission, Paul did not view himself to be divine. To Paul there was “one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:6). Paul understood that a coming “man of lawlessness” would claim to be God, that he would exalt “himself above every so-called god or object of worship,” and that he would take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The spirit of anti-Christ in the world ever claims divinity for itself. Paul never claimed to be deity, or thought he had achieved theosis, a state of fusion with God.

Third, for reason of Jesus’ sinlessness and Paul’s sinfulness, the distinct persons of the Lord and the apostle could not have become mystically one. Regarding Jesus’ sinlessness, something He claimed and the apostles claimed for Him (John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5), Paul would never have embraced the idea that Jesus’ perfection was fused into him so that he was without sin (See Romans 7:24.). Though after his conversion Paul sinned less, he never claimed to be sinless (1 Timothy 1:15). For reason of the Lord’s perfection and Paul’s imperfection, his personality was not, and could not have been, absorbed into Jesus’.

Fourth, in this verse Paul states, “The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” For reason of being in Christ, Paul did not lose his ego. He retained his unique personhood. Even though possessing a new nature, Paul’s personality was not mystically absorbed into Jesus.

Regarding this whole idea of Paul’s mystical absorption into Christ, Richard Longenecker commented,

[T]he mysticism of biblical religion is not some esoteric searching for a path to be followed that will result in union with the divine, but is always the nature of a response to God’s grace wherein people who have been mercifully touched by God enter into communion with him without ever losing their own identities.[30]

Though Paul’s theology of spirituality was one of communion with the divine, it was not one of fusion, or union, with the divine. As Peter put it, according to God’s power and promise, Paul was a “partaker” of the divine nature, but he was not wholly possessed by it (2 Peter 1:2-5). As Rightmire stated, “The relation of Christians to Christ is one of faith, not mystical absorption.”[31] If Christianity is to remain Christian, the biblical “I and Thou” relationship between man and God must be respected and advocated.

Someone has said that the Christian faith is not so much about pronouns as it is prepositions, and no prepositional phrase has more meaning than the little phrase “in Christ.” . . .

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW. . . . . .

Endnotes:
1. James, Religious Experience, 381.
2. Ralph P. Martin, Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word Books, Publishers, 1986) 398.
3. James, Religious Experience, 419.
4. E. Glenn Hinson, “The Contemplative View,” Christian Spirituality, Five Views of Sanctification, Donald L. Alexander, Editor (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988) 176.
5. James, Religious Experience, 418.
6. Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians (Dallas: Word Books, Publishers, 1990) 93.
7. Rightmire, “Union,” 791.


Pastor Larry DeBruyn is the author of Church on the Rise: Why I am not a Purpose-Driven Pastor. This series "Was Paul A Mystic?" is a revised version of Appendix Two appearing in his book. Used with permission.

Was Paul A Mystic?

Part 2

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

Ineffable adj. 1. too overwhelming to be expressed or described in words; inexpressible 2. too awesome or sacred to be spoken*

Ineffability—“I Can’t Explain It”
Paul experienced unexplainable ecstasy in Paradise. In their seeking after similar divine encounters, Christian mystics identify with Paul and find precedent for their experience—or so they think—from the apostle. In addition to his experience in Paradise being passive and transient, Paul’s Paradise experience was primarily ineffable. First, Paul was unable to tell whether his experience was “in the body,” or “out of the body.” He also was unable to define his experience of going to, and being in, Paradise. His experience was inexpressible. That Paul’s experience was inexpressible marks it out to have been ineffable; and because it was ineffable, it is therefore categorized to have been mystical. Based upon his writings, and within the context of ancient Judaism, some persons claim that Paul was a merkabah mystic.[14]

Winfried Corduan agrees that ineffability (i.e., the incapability of being expressed or described), is perhaps the most common characteristic of mystical religious experiences.[15] Though noting that all human communication is deficient in one way or another, Corduan asks in one chapter, “Can Language Describe Mystical Experience?” After discussing the issues, he answers, “Upon analysis, mysticism and a meaningful use of language seem to be mutually exclusive.”[16] As Gordon Clark described ineffability,

Then there were the outright mystics who fell into trances. The droplets of their personality were poured out into the ocean of God’s being. Like air when it is so impregnated with light that it is more light than air, and like iron, which in the fire looks more like fire than iron, so the mystic soul becomes ineffably divine. No conceptual information is thus received, but it is a deeply satisfying experience.[17]

Mystics often use paradoxical language to express the inexpressible, sayings like “mute language . . . shouting silence . . . shoreless lake,” and so forth. In contrast to a mystic whose experience defies explanation, Paul’s experience was inexpressible because God forbade him to describe the details of what he saw. Paul “heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (1 Corinthians 12:4). It’s not that Paul could not describe his experience, but rather that for reason of God’s prohibition, he would not describe it. For good reasons, he was under a gag order from God not to talk about the details of being in Paradise. By forbidding Paul to speak of his experience, “God ensured,” writes Scott Hafemann, “that the basis of apostolic authority did not become ecstatic, mystical experience.”[18] Unlike the imposter apostles, there was and is nothing to be gained by self-promotion based upon claims of hearing mystical voices or seeing mystical visions.

As they boasted in the details of their spiritual experiences to one-up Paul’s authority amongst the Corinthians, the imposter apostles had apparently taken their stand on visions they had seen (Colossians 2:18). But Paul was under strict orders not to create a competition of experiences, a “can-you-top-this-one” contest. Unlike his opponents, Paul made no claim that his experience enhanced his spiritual résumé, or added to his apostolic authority. Paul waited fourteen years to relate this incident to anyone, indicating that he considered his private experiences unessential for asserting his apostolic credibility, maintaining his spirituality, and pursuing his ministry. Though his letters are full of directions for practicing the faith, Paul provides no directions to the Corinthians for pursuing experiences like the one he had in Paradise. By Paul’s example we can assume that, contrary to the advice of many contemplative spiritualists, neither are extra-biblical visionary and auditory experiences essential for our spirituality either. On the point of ineffability, Paul’s experience departs from mysticism. It’s not that he couldn’t describe being in Paradise, but rather that he wouldn’t describe it, because God forbade him to do so.

Noetic Quality—“The Mind Game of Timelessness”
Noetic means “of or pertaining to the mind.” James wrote that though similar “to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge.”[19] To mystics, the mystical states of timelessness in inner space (i.e., in their minds), may be compared to an astronaut’s experience of weightlessness in outer space. The goal of mysticism is to shed the gravity of history to experience the weightlessness of eternity, and it’s all intuited in the mind. Among other descriptions, this mystic state is called a “dateless ecstasy,” or the “beginningless beginning.” Through contemplation and other spiritual exercises, mystics desire to attain a state of suspended animation in which they can taste eternity in their souls. For them, heaven can’t wait.

When mystics have transcendently tasted of eternity, time becomes illusory. Two characteristics of mystical experiences are non-spatiality, and non-temporality.[20] Mystics who have experienced “dateless ecstasy” live in what they believe is the eternal present. One result of this view of time is that many mystics believe in reincarnation. For mystics, the experience of timelessness carries with it “a curious sense of authority for after-time.”[21]

But such a view of spirituality directly contradicts the Christian faith which presents history as “His story.” First, to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, and then through John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, God revealed Himself to man in and through sequential historical events. “The Hebrew-Christian faith” as George E. Ladd once put it, “did not grow out of lofty philosophical speculation or profound mystical experiences.”[22] The Christian faith is spatial, material, temporal, and therefore historical, logical, and rational. Jesus was born into history. God sent forth his Son in “the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4). Jesus died in history. Jesus rose from the dead in history. And Jesus is coming again in history. Christianity was not intuited by man from below, but revealed to man by God from above, and as such, possesses a propositional content and objectivity that distinguishes it from other religions. About a century ago, Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) stated the difference between Christianity and mysticism to be as follows:

Christ is history, and Christ’s cross is history, and mysticism which lives solely on what is within can have nothing to do with history; mysticism which seeks solely eternal verities can have nothing to do with time and that which has occurred in time.[23]

About such a supra-historical view, when time is viewed as illusory, Arthur Johnson notes that,

[O]ne result is that the way is opened to say that truth is whatever one happens to believe. It has no real relation to the objective world of actual events and things. Truth may then be said to be totally subjective and relative. [24]

Mystical religion, and contemplative spirituality, will go down easy with and amongst post moderns who reject the notion that there is such a strange critter as objective truth, or true truth, as Francis Schaeffer put it.

For reason of his view of history, the apostle Paul cannot be considered a mystic. As his writings attest, he often refers to and quotes from the revelatory events and words of the Old Testament. Paul firmly believed in history, history that had a beginning, and will end. Paul also did not allow his view of eternity to consume his understanding of time, and the importance of events that happen in time. Paul’s faith was more than a state of mind.

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW. . . . . .

Endnotes:
14. The Hebrew word “merkabah,” meaning chariot, was associated with Ezekiel’s chariot vision contained in chapter one, verses 15-20 of his prophecy.
15. James, Religious Experience. James states that the number one characteristic of mystical experiences is ineffability, “that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words.”(380).
16. Winfried Corduan, Mysticism, An Evangelical Option? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991) 92.
17. Clark, “Revealed Religion,” 16.
18. Scott J. Hafemann, The NIV Application Commentary: 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000) 460.
19. James, Religious Experience, 380.
20. R.A. Gilbert, The Elements of Mysticism (Boston: Element Books, Inc., 1991) 84.
21. James, Religious Experience, 381.
22. George E. Ladd, “The Knowledge of God: The Saving Acts of God,” Basic Christian Doctrines, Carl F.H Henry, Editor (Grand Rapids, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1962) 7.
23. Benjamin B. Warfield, “Mysticism and Christianity,” The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 9 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003) 424.
24. Johnson, Faith Misguided, 37.

*This definition was added. From Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, 1976.

Pastor Larry DeBruyn is the author of Church on the Rise: Why I am not a Purpose-Driven Pastor. This series "Was Paul A Mystic?" is a revised version of Appendix Two appearing in his book. Used with permission.


The Truth:

"And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the LORD hath not spoken." (Ezekiel 21: 28)

Was Paul A Mystic?

Part 1

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception,
according to the tradition of men,
according to the elementary principles of the world,
rather than according to Christ.”

- The Apostle Paul, Colossians 2:8

“Then there were the outright mystics who fell into trances. The droplets of their personality were poured out into the ocean of God’s being. Like air when it is so impregnated with light that it is more light than air, and like iron, which in the fire looks more like fire than iron, so the mystic soul becomes ineffably divine. No conceptual information is thus received, but it is a deeply satisfying experience.”

- Gordon H. Clark [1]

Although defying exact definition because the practices and experiences of mystics are so various and mysterious, one dictionary defines mysticism as, “the doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation and love.”[2] Note that in contrast to God revealing Himself in Scripture, mystical truth is individually, intimately, and immediately intuited through spiritual experiences.

In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James identified four main characteristics of mystical experience: first, ineffability; second, noetic quality; third, transiency; and fourth, passivity.[3] James also notes that absorption, fusion, or union of the individual into the Absolute, or deity, is “the great mystic achievement.” He adds, “In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness.”[4] On this point, James apparently suggested a fifth characteristic of mysticism—absorption.

There are those who speak of “Christian mysticism” and assert that the apostle Paul was a mystic.[5] From his epistles, they cite his experience, that of going to Paradise, and his condition, that of being “in Christ,” as evidences of his mysticism. For this reason, it is incumbent upon Bible believers to understand what Paul was saying about his experiences.

To determine if Paul was a mystic, analysis shall be offered regarding the incident of his being carried to “the third heaven,” and his state of being “in Christ.” The apostle’s experience and spiritual state shall be evaluated according to William James’ five characteristics of mystical experiences to determine whether or not Paul was a mystic. We note first the two primary New Testament references causing some to deduce that the apostle was a mystic.

Paul’s Journey to “Paradise”
In the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians Paul provided this autobiographical account of what some consider to have been a mystical experience. He wrote,

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows—was caught up into Paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).[6]

Paul’s Life “In Christ”
William James and others consider Paul’s statement of being “in Christ” to be descriptive of the mystical state of absorption. This state is indicated by these well-known words written to the Galatians.

For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me (Emphasis mine, Galatians 2:19-20).

Because of his teaching on the believer’s union with Christ, some label Paul’s teaching, “Christian ‘mysticism’.”[7]

But before looking at Paul’s transport to “the third heaven,” and his state of being “in Christ,” Paul’s spirituality needs to be distinguished from mysticism.

Reactive Spirituality versus Proactive Mysticism
In a chapter “Mysticism and Morality,” contained in his book A Man in Christ, Scottish preacher and Professor James S. Stewart (1896-1990) pointed out that Adolf Deissmann categorized mysticism to be of two types: acting, and reacting. For our purposes, the two different models might be called proactive mysticism, and reactive spirituality. Reactive spirituality is of grace, an “experience in which the action of God . . . produces a reaction towards God.”[8] In other words, God initiates and man responds. On the other hand, proactive mysticism is of works, a mystic communion resulting from the mystic’s “own action, from which a reaction follows on the part of Deity.” In other words, by engaging intentional mystical practices, man initiates, then God responds. Though disagreeing with labeling the apostle’s theology of the spiritual life “Christian mysticism,” Stewart’s distinction helps differentiate between Paul’s reactive spirituality, and proactive mysticism. Of this distinction Professor Stewart wrote:

Much religion has been made of the latter kind [i.e., proactive mysticism]. Man’s action has been regarded as the primary thing. The soul has endeavoured to ascend towards God. Spiritual exercises [e.g., spiritual disciplines] have been made the ladder for the ascent. But all this savors of the religion of works as contrasted with the religion of grace. Paul’s attitude was different. His mysticism was essentially of the reacting kind. Christ, not Paul, held the initiative. Union with the eternal was not a human achievement: it was the gift of God. It came, not by any spiritual exercises [e.g., spiritual disciplines], but by God’s self-revelation, God’s self-impartation. The words “It pleased God to reveal His Son in me,” which remind us that the Damascus experience itself was the foundation of the apostle’s mysticism, are Paul’s emphatic way of saying that God’s action always holds priority: His servant simply reacts to the action of God. [9]

Stewart then concludes by stating that Paul’s spirituality was “all of grace; and it is well to be reminded by the apostle that union with Christ is not something we have to achieve by effort, but something we have to accept by faith.”[10]

In separating Christianity from the mystery religions, David Rightmire also observes that the apostle, “viewed communion with God as an act of divine grace, coming not by any spiritual exercises, but by God’s self-revelation (Gal. 1:16).”[11] In other words, spirituality based upon reaction to revelation is of a different sort than spirituality conjured up through the practices and disciplines of the mystical way. The former is initiated by God, and based upon “faith,” while the latter is initiated by man, and based upon “works.”

The contemplative spirituality promoted by and amongst evangelicals today belongs to the acting, or proactive, category of mysticism. Spiritual directors advise using various spiritual disciplines or techniques—solitude and silence, fasting, walking prayer labyrinths, Taizé worship, spiritual retreats, lectio divina (reading sacred things), journaling, religious pilgrimages, and so on—to initiate intimacy and revelatory encounters with God. But as Professors Stewart and Rightmire pointed out, Paul did not embrace such a works model of spirituality. If practices (i.e., means of grace) are engaged in to promote spiritual growth, then they ought to find precedent in the revealed Word of God (i.e., prayer, Scripture reading and study, singing spiritual songs, witnessing, fellowshipping with the saints, and observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Table). If methods of spiritual growth are not sourced in the Bible, but are of human invention, then Paul’s question to the Galatians seems appropriate. He asked them, “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Paul’s paradigm of spirituality focused upon grace. He gave no advice for experiencing spirituality via works of the mystic way.[12]

Before determining whether Paul was a mystic by evaluating his spirituality according to William James’ five characteristics of mystical experiences, Paul’s Paradise experience and his state of being “in Christ” need to be understood.

Imposter Apostles
As to Paul’s reference to his being transported to “the third heaven,” we must know that the Christians at Corinth were beguiled by imposter apostles who projected themselves as strong, self-assured, and successful, and who made claims to have had extraordinary religious experiences. As compared to Paul, whose personal presence was “unimpressive” and whose speech “contemptible,” the false teachers appeared to be slick, self-confident, and smooth (See 2 Corinthians 10:10.). To counteract the super apostles who boasted of their strength, Paul boasted in his weaknesses (2 Corinthians 11:12-15, 30).

Revelations in Paradise
In the face of the false apostles’ claim to have had superior spiritual experiences, Paul reluctantly countered them by referring to his “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1). Because Paul’s trip to Paradise came fourteen years before he wrote 2 Corinthians around A.D. 55-56, the experience can be placed as having happened sometime before his first missionary journey around A.D. 42-44. Efforts by scholars to reconstruct the historical context of this event in Paul’s life are futile. All that can be known about his experience is contained in the apostle’s second letter to the Corinthians. In comparison to his overall ministry, Paul’s transport to Paradise was an obscure, if not minor, event. Paul did not set up his experience as an example for others to try to emulate. Unlike many contemplative spiritualists, he offered no advice to others on how they could achieve a similar experience.

Paul states that his “visions and revelations” were “of the Lord.” Jesus was either the subject or the origin of the “visions and revelations” he received. Possibly both ideas play out in Paul’s statement. The visions originated from the Lord, and were about Him. They were revelatory. From a general statement regarding “visions and revelation” he had received, Paul proceeded to relate one particular experience.

Beginning with ineffability, we now turn to analyze Paul’s spirituality in accord with the five characteristics of mysticism as stated by William James.

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW......

ENDNOTES
1. Gordon H. Clark, “Revealed Religion,” Fundamentals of the Faith, Carl F.H. Henry, Editor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969) 16.
2. The Random House Collegiate Dictionary, Jess Stein, Editor in Chief (New York: Random House, Inc., 1988) 882.
3. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1919) 380-382.
4. Ibid. 419.
5. Seemingly, in 1931, Albert Schweitzer wrote a seminal work defining the mysticism of Paul. See The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, Translated by William Montgomery (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998).
6. In a footnote Arthur L. Johnson wrote he could find few, if any, events or experiences in the Bible that were unqualifiedly mystical. In his opinion, one that might qualify was Paul’s being caught up into the third heaven, into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). See Faith Misguided, Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988) 22.
7. R. David Rightmire, “Union with Christ,” Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Walter A. Elwell, Editor (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996) 792.
8. James S. Stewart, A Man In Christ (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, n.d.) 163.
9. Ibid. 164.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Rightmire, “Union.”

Mike Bickle's Gigolo Jesus

By K. Jentoft

IHOP’s Bridal Paradigm

Recently I was given a CD of Mike Bickle speaking to a group of youth at IHOP’s Passion for Jesus Conference. Mike is full of zeal and passion as he speaks of the “Bridegroom Jesus” that he has found in the Song of Solomon using “spiritual interpretation.” This message is central to his ministry as IHOP [International House of Prayer] sees this new revelation of the “Bridal Paradigm” being extremely important for individual Christians to grow in God and to fulfill God’s plan for them in the end times. Through his discoveries in the Song of Solomon, Bickle believes he has found new ways to enhance his spiritual passion and IHOP is eager to share his discoveries with today’s youth seeking greater meaning in Christianity. The trouble is that the bridegroom “discovered” in IHOP’s Bridal Paradigm is not the Jesus of the Apostles and their Scriptures. Mike Bickle is asking us to fall in love with an imposter – the spiritual gigolo Jesus he imagines hidden in the Bible.

“Jesus the bridegroom” hidden in the Song of Solomon is only found there by “spiritual interpretation” which Mike Bickle describes as, “a symbolic interpretation to see the spiritual truths in our relationship with Jesus behind the natural love story.”[i] Through spiritual interpretation Bickle believes Song of Solomon explains Jesus’ relationship to the individual, Israel and the church. First and foremost for Bickle it “is the relationship between Jesus and the individual believer. This approach gives spiritual principles that aid us in our progression of holy passion.”[ii] IHOP claims that the theme of the Song of Solomon is to receive the kisses of God’s Word as spiritual experiences and misquotes verse 1:2 to prove it, “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth (Word).” While Hebrew words have a range of meanings it doesn’t follow that they can mean anything at any time because someone wants them to. It is a stretch to make one flimsy verse confusing mouth/word as the cornerstone of an entire revelation of Christ. Neither the immediate context nor the entire book describes how a woman was ravished about the words of Scriptures. In contrast, passion for the Word of God is central to Psalm 119 but is not described in sexual terms. First and foremost Song of Solomon is about tangible physical love between a man and woman.

Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone

Bickle’s “spiritual interpretation” is a repudiation of the basic concept of the Reformation, namely Sola Scriptura – the authority of Scripture alone. This error enables Popes, or anyone else including Bickle, to make Scriptures mean whatever they think they should mean. In addition, while Bickle embraces his own “spiritual interpretation,” he is also tolerant of competing interpretations and states, “We bless different interpretations as long as they exhort others to grow in wholehearted love for Jesus.”[iii] That IHOP blesses different interpretations as long as they exhort others to grow in wholehearted love for Jesus is self-condemning – all interpretations are not true nor should they be blessed. Why? The true meaning of the Scriptures that is valid and binding is only what God intended the passage to mean. The correct interpretations of Scripture actually define the Jesus that we are commanded to obey and to love. A good Mormon feels a wholehearted love for Jesus but it is the wrong Jesus because they embrace a wrong interpretation.

The concept of the “inspiration of Scriptures” is not mystical people using automatic writing to convey God’s words but authors who chose words in their language to convey specific meanings and thoughts to their intended audience. Song of Solomon was a Jewish love poem and a repudiation of the doctrine of demons that forbids marriage.[iv] Using it as the basis for a training guide for the individual “bride of God” is misguided and utterly lacking in support. God in the Old Testament spoke of corporate Israel as a bride. In the New Testament we find concept of the bride is also corporate. Ultimately, in Revelation 12:9 the “bride” clearly identified as the New Jerusalem.

Then one of the seven angels… spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

The bride of Revelation is not an individual but a city populated by those whose names are written in the book of life – it is a corporate bride clothed in the righteous acts of the saints. The bridegroom of this city is the Jesus that scriptures reveal to us. He is a man with a glorified human body that is actually sitting on the throne of a tangible city. The citizens of His bride have real glorified bodies and physically enter and exit the walls of His city. The Scriptures do not reveal the bridegroom of the individual and that is the primary spiritual interpretation taught by Mike Bickle.

Sensual spiritual intimacy

By seeking spiritual guidance to increase individual spiritual passion in a book that is about sexual love, Mike Bickle is confessing a different Jesus than the one revealed in Scripture, God who came in the flesh as man. The Jesus that John describes in 1 John 1:1 is not the passionate spiritual bridegroom of the individual. IHOP has been seduced by a substitute Jesus imagined in their “spiritual interpretations” and they have wandered from the Word of God. They have even created their own language to describe their “Jesus experiences” and have published an on-line dictionary to explain their terms to outsiders. They have over 63 terms listed.[v] Here are a couple of them.

Spirit of burning — [IHOP–KC phrase] This is a cycle of maintaining a passionate desire for Jesus so that you are in a place of emotional pain whenever He is absent; hope and excited expectancy because of the knowledge that He loves to come to the hungry and thirsty heart; real experiential encounters with His beauty and presence causing you to have an even greater intense desire to be close to Jesus.

Captivated/fascinated/ravished heart — [literal phrase] In the context of the Bridal Paradigm, this refers to someone who is wholeheartedly in love with God. In the natural, this refers to a heart moved with deep emotion and love due to the actions of their lover

This IHOP “spirit of burning” concept is missing in scripture because Jesus IS absent and will be absent until He returns again. This “spirit of burning” is simply a description of a deep lust for spiritual experiences and a spiritualizing of 1 Co 7:9. You can also see that IHOP uses terms from physical romance as the goal for their training to deepen their spiritual passion.

When we look up the Scriptures Mike Bickle posts on his website as proof of his revelations, these Scriptures also need to be interpreted according to IHOP’s “spiritual interpretation” to be relevant. It is through this “bait with the Word and switch the meaning” that Mike Bickle discovers a different Jesus, a spiritual sensual Jesus for the individual. Bickle claims his “spiritual interpretations” give us additional power to resist sin and states, “If we do not feel loved and in love, we can still be born again. However, when we feel His love then we resist compromise with greater consistency.”[vi] This is the message of the Galatians where they started with the Gospel and then switched to something else for sanctification, a false gospel. Passion for spiritual experiences of the highest level is what Bickle is after through his spiritual interpretation of Scripture, “We want the deepest things that God will give the human spirit in this age. We receive the kisses of God’s Word by pray-reading God’s Word or in meditation.”[vii] Mike Bickle is using Scriptures describing physical sexual love as the paradigm to teach individual spiritual intimacy with the hidden Jesus he imagines in the Song of Solomon.

Bickle’s gigolo Jesus

I am not claiming that IHOP intends to promote a sexual Jesus, their motives may be pure. It is inescapable, however, that Mike Bickle paints such a sensual picture of Jesus through his allegorizing of the Song of Solomon that he feels obligated to warn us saying, “We are not to think of kissing Jesus on the mouth.”[viii] This warning is like the legal statements following television drug commercials – this may cause death or injury and the cure may be worse than the disease. The warning itself paints the picture. The Bible doesn’t need to warn Christians “not to think about kissing Jesus on the mouth” because the true teaching of Jesus doesn’t provoke these lusts. True biblical intimacy with God doesn’t provoke these lusts either. The fact that IHOP feels it necessary to give this warning is proof that their teaching is doing exactly that – creating lustful appetites for a sensual Jesus. Their Jesus is an imposter and the spiritual experiences they enjoy are not “intimacy with God” but spiritual fornication. Let us be clear; passions, desires, emotions, and feelings are sensual and creating an appetite for sensual spiritual experiences is the goal of IHOP’s Passion for Jesus Conference. This passion is directed at some spirit Mike Bickle believes hidden in the sexuality of the Song of Solomon; not the man Jesus that John knew and described in 1 John 1:1. The bridegroom of Mike Bickle is not the Jesus of the Apostles. It is not the Jesus that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2, nor it the Jesus that Paul preached to the Gentiles later in Acts and throughout His epistles. Mike Bickle is confessing a different Jesus than found in the Bible, his own sensual Jesus, a gigolo Jesus.

Prom with a gigolo?

Mike Bickle’s campaign to teach Christian youth spiritual intimacy with his “Bridal Paradigm” carrying a muted warning “not to think about kissing Him on the mouth” is like a father sending his daughter to the prom with a seductive gigolo and hoping they don’t kiss. Tragically, this is exactly what is happening as parents send their youth to Bickle’s conferences to learn how to become intimate with God. The method of growing in intimacy with the true Jesus is to read about what those who knew him on earth have to tell us and believe what they wrote. We come to know the “Jesus come in the flesh” through the words of those who walked and talked with Him. As we come to understand and believe, we love this true Jesus seeing His death on our behalf and the love that He demonstrated in coming to save us. Through the words of His apostles we have true fellowship, we change and we become conformed to His image. The apostle John was not kidding when he wrote of the true Jesus in 1 John to warn us of defective teaching.

1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

John also explained how we are to know and avoid any gigolo Jesus impersonating the true one in 1 John 4:1.

1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist

IHOP fails this test. The Jesus confessed in Mike Bickle’s “spiritual interpretations” at IHOP is not the “Jesus Christ come in the flesh.” Mike Bickle’s “Bridal Paradigm” Jesus is not the Jesus of the Apostles but a substitute Jesus of his own imagination and found only in imaginary interpretations and not the Bible. Those who embrace and love the Jesus of Mike Bickle’s imagination are cultivating intimacy with an imposter. Their feelings of love may grow and be sincere but they are misplaced because God’s word does not give us the Jesus that Mike Bickle is asking us to worship.

Article used with permission.Reprinted in its entirety. For more information on this topic see http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ArchivedNewsletters.htm and http://www.discernment-ministries.org/JoelsArmyBookletCustom.pdf

Endnotesi IHOP’s View of the Song of Solomon http://www.ihop.org/Mobile/default.aspx?article_id=1000010560
iiIbid.
iii Ibid.
iv 1 Tim 4:1-3
vLearning IHOP-ese http://www.ihop.org/Mobile/default.aspx?group_id=1000008264&article_id=1000002954
viInternational House of Prayer- The Bridal Paradigm http://www.ihop.org/Mobile/default.aspx?group_id=1000008264&article_id=1000010559
vii IHOP’s View of the Song of Solomon http://www.ihop.org/Mobile/default.aspx?article_id=1000010560
viii Ibid.

The Truth:

"Antichristianism is that which shall oppose Christ as a Head, and set up another headship; this is the peculiarity of antichrist and antichristianism.

"...Whoever shall obtrude any doctrine upon the church, to be believed by his own authority, he is guilty of antichristianism.... [W]hen any shall presume to obtrude upon the church any doctrine that holds upon human authority, to be urged by the authority of those that impose it, this, I say, is properly antichristianism, for it opposes Christ in his headship.... The imposing of any ordinance, any new institutions, upon the church, belongs to antichristianism.... The imposing of laws so to bind conscience as the laws of Christ do, here is antichristianism.

"Not only because these things are directly against the headship of Christ, but because these things set up another head...."

- Jeremiah Burroughs (circa 1600s), An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea (Reformation Heritage Books, 2006 [republished]), p. 44

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 4)

Tinker with Theology, Tinker with Man

"...should we suppose God to have created the nearly universal, vicious, animal-versus-animal world of nature? Indeed, were carnivorous animals originally herbivorous (as is implied in Genesis 1:28,29)? Does the Evil One and his assistants have sufficient knowledge to tinker with the DNA of God’s created order and distort nature to become 'red in tooth and claw?

"Obviously, the great theologians of the past, such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Calvin, could not have imagined how lions, originally content to lie down with a lamb, could or should one day be restored to that state through the combined efforts of good angels and human endeavors. But, remember, if Satan has covered his tracks well, we would not expect find many thinking these thoughts. How then are we going to attempt to destroy his works? Is that a mission to be pursued? Does that represent a frontier to be crossed?"

- Ralph Winter, "Twelve Frontiers of Perspective"

When neoevangelical leaders began concocting new doctrines and new understandings of old doctrines, they began tinkering with theology. Ralph Winter of the Fuller School of World Mission, and highly influential in training a generation of evangelical missionaries, devoted a good deal of thought to reinventing and revising the Garden of Eden scenario in Genesis to fit a more Gnostic mold. And like his Dominionist cohorts at Fuller, especially C. Peter Wagner, Winter believed that man needed to reclaim the earth and restore it himself. A summary of Winter's aberrant theology of the evolution of man can be found at http://www.ralphwinter.org/F/view.htm?id=204&section=11∂=6 .

Of particular concern is the nature of Winter's Dominionism, which defines man's "earthly mission" as an "ally" in "destroying the works of Satan," particularly by manipulating DNA. Winter would have man "fix" the problems with DNA as part of his Dominion Mandate to restore pre-Fall paradise conditions on Earth. For example, Winter stated:

"...we do not even understand disease germs as the work of Satan (of course, Calvin did not know germs existed). As a result we are not fighting against the whole range of deadly pathogens in the Name of Christ even though the New Testament clearly states that 'the Son of God appeared for this purpose to destroy the works of Satan (I Jn 3:8).'

"Our earthly mission begins to appear more clearly as we recognize as best we can the full extent of the 'works of Satan' (shifting the blame to Satan and thus glorifying God), and as we ally ourselves with the good angels in destroying the works of Satan. 'Without God we can’t and without us He won’t.' Our mission is clarified as we learn more and more about the DNA-level mechanisms of distortion which account for most of the suffering in this world."

Dr. Francis Schaeffer devoted an entire chapter of his landmark book How Should We Then Live? (Fleming H. Revell, 1976) to the question of "Manipulation and the New Elite" (Chapter 12). His basic premise in the book was, of course, that if man tinkers with the absolutes of biblical Christianity, then moral relativity will reign, resulting in unrestrained genetic engineering. He wrote:

"Any of us would be glad for methods of genetic changes which would cure genetic disease and help individuals. However, removing these things from the uniqueness which Christianity gives to people, and from the Christian absolutes, tends to lead to an increasing loss of humanness, even in the milder forms. In the call for full genetic engineering the door is wide open for the most far-reaching manipulation...

"On every side people are taught that people are only machines, and as they are so taught their resistance to manipulation in all these ways is weakened, step by step. Modern man has no real boundary condition for what he should do; he is left only with what he can do. ...

"All morals and law are seen as relative. Thus people gradually accept the idea of manipulation, and a bit more gradually open themselves to accept the practice of the varying forms of manipulation." (pp. 236-7)

In other words, tinkering with theology results in tinkering with man. And Dominionist theologies contain the idea of a "New Breed." After reading Ralph Winter's papers, one begins to imagine worst-case scenarios in the Dominionist ideal of reversing the effects of man's Fall. Do these people actually believe that man can perfect himself via tinkering with his own DNA?

In the days to come, the Emergent/New Apostolic Reformation Church could very well become a predator in this arena. The issues are complex. What follows is a scholarly paper by Dr. Martin Erdmann for a European Conference for Clinical Nanomedicine scheduled for May 2008.

Applying Converging Technologies in Nanomedicine.
Taking stock of Challenges and Benefits.

Martin Erdmann

Today, diverse integrative initiatives are being played out before us on many societal levels. The concentration of forces to form larger socio-economic constellations is especially noticeable in politics and commerce. We observe similar developments even in the heterogeneous arena of technologies. The convergence of NBIC technologies and sciences (nano-, bio-, information technologies and cognitive science), which has taken on a markedly different form from previous models, opens up entirely new avenues for the “technization” of medicine.

The effective applications of new technologies awake utopian hopes of accomplishing a high level of human-machine integration. By a coordinated use of “converging technologies”, new combinations of organic and inorganic materials are becoming possible. Nanotechnology offers the tools to manipulate matter by manufacturing and arranging molecules in such a way that specialized materials can be created “from the ground up”. Biotechnology affords a unique perspective on how nature uses information and matter to assemble molecules. Information technology allows us to develop complex and adaptive systems by taking note specifically of interactions on the atomic level, providing new insights into how abstract information can be transferred from one physical medium to another. For example, it is possible that revolutionary levels of efficiency can be reached by using bacteria to transmit information.

Materials science, therefore, will introduce methods of producing synthetic materials by entirely new ways of manipulating organic molecules. The scientific community worldwide is anticipating spectacular results from these technological breakthroughs. Of special significance have already been the tentative attempts to cross formerly impassable demarcation lines, by combining biological and inorganic materials, carbon and silicon compounds and even human and artificial intelligence.
An example of the successful implementation of converging technologies is the synthesis of a new class of “intelligent” materials which emulate the versatile functionality of living organisms, in order to control teleologically the creative interplay of information and matter and to transport and use energy in different forms.

Greatly enlarged functionality in medicine, for example, can be achieved by the development of innovative clinical diagnostics and synthetic implantations, the use of chip technology in neurosurgery, and the use of nano particles in treating cancerous cells. Clinicians in neuromedicine are highly optimistic in regard to the implementation of new diagnostic equipment and therapeutic methods. It would be tragic, however, to overlook the potential of these new technological means to affect adversely the patient’s personality by interfering with the neurological processes of the brain. To cause an irreparable identity change of a human being would be a most troubling moral issue.

Indisputably, the healthcare system is undergoing a transformation (having both desirable and alarming aspects) into an “industry of endless opportunities”. In this euphoric atmosphere of apparently unlimited human ‘doability’, it will be necessary to devote special effort to the areas of technological assessment and concomitant research. The patient’s right of self-determination competes increasingly with the social objectives of a society. The new longing to enhance the natural abilities of humans is gradually replacing the original desire to lead a normal healthy life. Is the implantation of electronic “eyes”, to increase the visible spectrum beyond that detectable by natural eyes, as ethically acceptable as the surgical correction of myopia?

These sweeping technological and scientific developments confront humankind with enormous ethical challenges. The manipulation of functional processes in different living beings, especially humans, has risen so dramatically that problematical issues are arising which need to be addressed more seriously by scientists and politicians than hitherto. They need to find solutions which further, rather than damage, the public welfare. The discussions should not only focus on the beginning or end of life, but should ideally encompass all phases and situations of a life span.

In this context, the meaning of human rights must become a major topic of debate. How substantially can we guarantee the preservation of privacy and a person’s rights to physical and emotional well-being, health and life? A clear differentiation is needed between technological procedures which, on the one hand, counteract pathological developments in the human body and, on the other, enable the radical transformation of human nature. Such technologies raise the question of where sickness and health begin and end.

An indisputable consensus among experts no longer exists concerning this issue. The once-sharp contours of a codex of medical ethics such as the “Hippocratic Oath” have already become blurred by the preferences of the “patient” and the ambitions of the medical profession. We lack fundamental ethical guidelines that sensibly distinguish the healing of disease from the manipulation of healthy organs. The moral principles of the medical profession, once generally understood and adhered to, have gradually been altered. One of the most important questions that needs to be answered anew is this: Who is laying down these guidelines when an already pliable codex of medical ethics has evaded the issue of differentiating between the categories of therapeutic procedures and manipulative enhancements? In the current situation, where nearly everything which is not harmful to others seems to be allowed, it will not be easy to identify a restrictive yet generally acceptable solution to the regulation of enhancement procedures.

Another objective that will not be achieved in the short term is the relief of financial strains on social systems — in particular the health care system.[1] The correlation between cost and utility which arises when new technologies are being introduced is not readily ascertainable in our present state of knowledge. One consequence will be the formation of a two-tier medical system, which has been going on for some time already. The social gulf between rich and poor can only increase if the desire for physical optimization and enhancement takes precedence over the healing mandate. Physicians involved in the former will be placed on a pedestal. What the well-to-do can afford will be unavailable to the underprivileged. Worse yet, the finite resources of the medical services sector could well be offered to the highest bidder — becoming available to those willing to afford the high cost of enhancing his/her achievement potential. Conceivably, nearly every means will be sought to gain a competitive edge in the struggle for survival, as some see it. This could open the door for the exponentiation of elitist tendencies in society. The socially disadvantaged, be they in the majority or not, will feel dehumanized if they perceive themselves to be at the mercy of a superior race of human mutants!

In view of the enormous challenges accompanying the technological development of nanomedicine, it is essential to assess the course of events with a good measure of realism. Principally, however, it is important to ensure that medical ethics keep pace with the anticipated exponential improvement of the diagnostic and therapeutic means of nanomedicine — so that these developments become a step, not to the nightmare of a “brave new world”, but to a truly brighter future.

Endnote:
1. See vgl. Walter Baumgartner, Barbara Jäckli, Bernhard Schmithüsen, Felix Weber, Nanotechnologie in der Medizin (TA 47/2003), Bern 2003.

[Note: See also "Creatures in Pursuit of Autonomous Perfection" by Dr. Martin Erdmann. Dr. Erdmann is the author of Building the Kingdom of God on Earth: The Church's Contribution to Marshal Public Support for World Order and Peace, 1919-1945 (Wipf & Stock, 2005)]

The Truth:

"Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?" (Job 40:9)

Emergent MIND Change

"A new world, as the mystics have always said, is a new mind."

-Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy:Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s
(J.P. Tarcher, 1980), p. 36 [emphasis added]

"The mystery of the creative/intuitive mind is underscored in the 'perennial wisdom', which finds the deep intuition connected to the one Universal Mind. Thus there are indeed no limits to its capabilities save those the individual creates as part of the resistance to discovering one's godlike qualities. Furthermore, because of this connection to the All, problem solutio