- The implication that faithful, non-charismatic Reformed pastors (like me) are short-changing our congregations by not creating an environment conducive to and allowing for an emotional response to the preaching/teaching of word of God;
- The elevation of the *experiences* of non-Western neo-Pentecostals (and its inevitable cognate: the clearly unbiblical idea of continuing revelation) above *the word of God* to support the flawed thesis that emotional responses to the preached word are necessary evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work in a congregation; [the entire essay quotes only one verse from the Bible, and that from Francis Chan who is attempting to use Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 “Do not quench the Spirit”) to make a point against those who guard and warn against the “abuses or unwieldy emotionalism” characteristic of neo-Pentecostalism. My own view would be that, in the context of 1 Thessalonians 5, the evidence of the quenching of the Spirit is not the absence of an emotional response to the Word, but the hearer’s rejection of the Word preached as evidenced by an absence of sanctification in their lives (1 Thessalonians 5:23; see also Jesus in John 17:17)]The experiences of non-Western neo-Pentecostals cannot be accepted on their face without due consideration of the context of animism prevalent in the non-Western countries (where this so-called “moving” of the Holy Spirit is taking place), and how this context may influence the practice of the Christian faith in those places.
- The admitted bias of the author (he’s a member of a “Reformed Charismatic” church), which evidences itself in a lack of balance in the piece. The Reformed cessationist view is conspicuous in its absence.To support their view, Reformed Charismatics often appeal to Jonathan Edwards (“Religious Affections”) and Martyn Lloyd-Jones (the aggregate of his preaching on the person and work of the Holy Spirit), both of whom believed in the power of the Holy Spirit to work supernaturally and at will. However, both Edwards and Lloyd-Jones seem to reject the full-blown neo-Pentecostalism advocated in this CT piece.In the case of MLJ, his biographer, Iain Murray, makes it clear that MLJ rejected much of what is characteristic of what has come to be known as the “Charismatic Movement.” Both Edwards and MLJ do not deny that “heart” is a vital part of worship. But neither of them – I don’t believe – would have elevated “heart” above “head” as the insidious neo-Pentecostalism advocated in this article seems to do.
2011: Stephen Mansfield on The Religious Influence of Oprah Winfrey
On Thursday, October 13, 2011 Paul spoke with Stephen Mansfield, author of Oprah: The Religious Influence of the World’s Most Famous Woman
From the publisher’s description of Oprah: The Religious Influence of the World’s Most Famous Woman:
Born into poverty in Mississippi in 1954 and rising through talent, hard work and despite tragedy-she was raped at the age of nine and lost an infant son at 14-Oprah Winfrey has become one of the wealthiest, most powerful, and most popular women of her age. These facts alone would make Winfrey worthy of study, yet what makes her of even more profound impact on American society is her decision to champion the cause of “New Age Christianity.” She is, as Christianity Today has proclaimed, “a postmodern priestess-an icon of church-free spirituality.” Rejecting her Baptist roots, Winfrey has become a champion of the Course in Miracles, a seminar in which Christianity is reinterpreted in terms of self-actualization, personal divinity, and self-empowerment. She has also become a disciple of Eckhart Tolle, the increasingly popular teacher of a form of spirituality that blends Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Christianity.
Author Stephen Mansfield explores the Winfrey spiritual phenomenon-much as Mansfield has with figures like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Pope Benedict XVI, and Winston Churchill.
Stephen Mansfield is a New York Times bestselling author, an acclaimed lecturer, an advisor to leaders around the world and an activist in a variety of social causes.
Oprah is a religion. A false religion. She has created an industry worth billions of dollars by propagating a New Age Humanism that has dethroned God and put the Self in His place, a religion epitomizing Lucifer’s rebellion against the Most High God: “I will exalt MY throne above the throne of God.”
Her’s is the secular prosperity gospel, with a broader reach and more insidious appeal than that of her next closest competitor, Joel Osteen.
In accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award at last night’s Golden Globes, Oprah cited decades old racist acts – despicable acts that took place 74 years ago – as if those kinds of attitudes and actions are still mainstream in contemporary American life. They are not.
She propagated the idea that the male gender cannot be trusted. She told all the little girls watching that they live in “a culture broken by brutally powerful men.” We do not.
In the mainstream of American life and commerce, there are many powerful men who go to work every day, who move the economic engine of America forward, without brutalizing anyone.
The Hollywood culture is indeed broken by “brutally powerful men.” But it is also broken by sexually powerful women – the Delilah’s who have abused their own sexual power. Most of the actresses attending last night’s gala apparently cannot afford a blouse. Or a bra.
In her raucous rallying cry, Oprah preached that there is no such thing as THE truth – only YOUR truth. That is a lie. Oprah wants you to exchange the truth of God for a lie. The lie is whatever you – or she – or the media – wants the truth to be.
I was aghast. And I’m even more aghast at the almost immediate media deification she received – though I’m not surprised.
“Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.”
Deitrich Bonhoeffer in a Sermon on II Corinthians 12:9