Thursday, May 10, 2018

I understand Facebook’s censorship


I understand Facebook’s censorship

Julio Severo
Facebook’s systematic censorship of Christians makes it look like a communist platform owned by some Cuban or an Islamic platform owned by Saudi wealthy dictators. It does not appear even to be a U.S. service.
Although it is 100 percent American, Facebook follows the will of its owner, an American of Jewish extraction who likes the Left.
He does not like the use of his social media to promote conservative ideas.
If we conservatives had a large social media, would we give free space to leftist ideas and the promotion of disgusting figures like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro and Islamic dictators? Of course not. Our attempt to stop the spread of evil would be labeled “censorship” by left-wingers.
The owner of Facebook, with his leftist vision, is disgusted with conservative ideas. He condemns what he dislikes, and bars in his space the spread of “evil,” which to him are conservative views.
In his left-wing morality, he is right to censor “evil.” And in our conservative morality, we are right to censor the true evil — leftism.
What would be right for each group was that left-wingers had a leftist Facebook and conservatives had their own social media.
Disgraceful news: leftists already have their own Facebook, which is the largest social media, and we conservatives have nothing of the sort. So we occupy their spaces. This is the sad reality.
Unfortunately, all the major social networking services — Google, Facebook and Twitter — and all the big companies we conservatives need to access the internet — Microsoft, Apple, etc. — are of a leftist nature.
The largest capitalist country in the world, the United States, after divorcing capitalism from its old Protestant values, lends itself to serving any ideology that is profitable to it, be it leftism, Islam, or any other lucrative “ism.”
And we conservative Christians have to use all the leftist services and companies that are profitable for American capitalism.
If the marriage of communism to capitalism in China is disgusting, it is even more disgusting the American case where capitalism divorced itself from Protestantism and it has married any ideology making it profitable. American capitalism has become a great prostitute at the service of dangerous clients.
The most important struggle would be to return Protestant values to American capitalism.
But do we have time for this, given Jesus’s urgent call, which is to preach the Gospel, heal the sick and cast out demons among sinners, including socialists, Muslims, atheists, capitalists, Buddhists, witches and even nominal Christians who, realizing it or not, serve to Satan?
We are instructed in the Bible to preach in season and out of season, which can be translated into preaching Jesus Christ on Facebook, Twitter, Google and beyond, whether there is censorship or not, whether there is persecution or not.
The larger mission cannot be forgotten. If leftists do not forget their mission, how can we forget ours?
Portuguese version of this article: Entendo a censura do Facebook
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Dialogue of a Communist: Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire Suggests that Both Jesus and Karl Marx Deserve to Be Celebrated


Dialogue of a Communist: Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire Suggests that Both Jesus and Karl Marx Deserve to Be Celebrated

By Julio Severo
All began with the article “Don’t celebrate Karl Marx. His Communism has a death count in the millions,” which I translated from USA Today. On the 200-year anniversary of the birth of the founder of Marxism, USA Today, which is not usually conservative, urged readers not to celebrate it.
Roberto Freire
Somehow, Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire saw this article being shared by me and he said to me on Twitter saying,
“Sorry, but that statement does not fit your intelligence. It would be the same as asking not to celebrate Jesus because his religion promoted wars and deaths in history. Not to mention the holy inquisition. Or other prophets of other peoples still today, worldwide. Hugs.”
Freire, who has a history of involvement in the Brazilian Communist Party, founded the Popular Socialist Party (PSP). Today, he is a Representative in the Brazilian House of Representatives and the president of the PSP.
Between 2016 and 2017, he was Minister of Culture in Brazil. What kind of culture can a celebrant of Marx bring to Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world? In Brazilian politics, mostly Catholic, there are many celebrants of Marx and very few celebrants of Jesus.
My response to the communist Roberto Freire was:
“The difference is cosmic. Jesus Christ preached the Gospel, which freed millions of people. In contrast, Karl Marx preached Marxism, which deceived and enslaved millions of people. Compare the Gospel with Marxism for you to see. It is incomparable. Who promoted the Inquisition was not Christ. It was the Catholic Church. Did you know that many true Christians were tortured and killed by the Inquisition? As an evangelical, I represent a part of these victims. Thousands of evangelicals were tortured and killed by the Inquisition.”
To see the conversation between me and Roberto Freire on Twitter, go to this link: http://archive.is/hH0lv
Perhaps Freire thought that every Christian defends the Inquisition and that every Christian is a Catholic. The greatest advocate of the Inquisition in Brazil is pseudo-Catholic Olavo de Carvalho, whose spiritualist movie “The Garden of Afflictions” was boycotted by filmmakers in Pernambuco. Freire strongly criticized the boycott, calling the boycotters Stalinists. Although this film was released in New York in 2017, it did not make any success and did not draw the American public.
Perhaps Freire thought that Carvalho’s advocacy of the Inquisition represents Christianity. But if he thinks that the Inquisition committed crimes (and it actually did), why did he defend Carvalho?
Freire could not distinguish that what Jesus did and what the Catholic Church did are vastly different universes. Jesus never created an inquisition to torture and kill people who did not accept the Gospel. Therefore, when the Catholic Church, which claims to represent Christ on earth, created the Inquisition, it was in disobedience to the Gospel. Whether she wanted to or not, she represented Satan on earth by torturing and killing Jews and Protestants.
However, how could Freire criticize the Catholic Church? The overwhelming majority of Brazilians who became Marxists were Catholic and were influenced in this direction within the Catholic Church. Historically, the Catholic Church in Brazil, which is a champion of Liberation Theology, is a great facilitator of Marxism.
Had it not been for Catholicism, Freire and millions of Brazilians would never have become Marxists. And to make matters worse, many Catholics who are becoming right-winger have become stridently pro-Inquisition. They go from an extreme to another and, in both cases, they are very far from Jesus.
There is an immense difference not only between Jesus and Marx, but also between Jesus, who never created the Inquisition nor facilitated Marxism, and the Catholic Church, which created the Inquisition in the past and today facilitates Marxism in Brazil and throughout Latin America.
To celebrate Marx is to celebrate slavery and death. To celebrate Jesus is to celebrate deliverance and salvation.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, May 07, 2018

Everybody Celebrated Trump’s Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital But No One Read the Fine Print or Saw the Hidden Plan: Trump Wants to Give Part of Jerusalem to Palestinians


Everybody Celebrated Trump’s Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital But No One Read the Fine Print or Saw the Hidden Plan: Trump Wants to Give Part of Jerusalem to Palestinians

By Julio Severo
What it is, it is not quite so. Even though U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has hugely pleased evangelicals, who are his main political supporting base, the Israeli press has raised major worrying points that are emerging now.
In a May 6, 2018 report titled “Trump Wants Israel to Give Part of Jerusalem to Palestinians,” the Israeli newspaper Israel Today said,
“Just months after recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and days before moving the US Embassy there, Israeli media reports that US President Donald Trump now wants Israel to give part of the Holy City to the Palestinians.”
Israel Today added that “The Trump Administration has been working for months on” this plan and that in exchange for accepting this plan, “Israel would receive total and unquestioned American backing in handling the Iran nuclear threat however it sees fit.” Can it be labeled blackmail?
It means: If the Jews want the whole Jerusalem as its capital, Israel will not receive American support. The Jews will only receive total American support if they accept the delivery of parts of Jerusalem to Palestinians.
So has essentially Israel become just a puppet or slave of U.S. plans?
Months before Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem, Russian President Vladimir Putin had already recognized West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But everybody had thought that Trump’s recognition was better because they understood that Trump actually recognized West and East Jerusalem. Evangelicals thought that Trump had recognized the whole Jerusalem. But it was not quite so.
Both Putin and Trump are equally wrong to recognize only West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Because the United States is a mostly Protestant nation and its president is nominally Protestant, I think that Trump should respect the Bible and what God says about Jerusalem: It belongs wholly to the Jews by promise. What if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pleased with Trump’s plan to recognize only partially Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? In my evangelical view that respects God’s Word, both would be wrong.
In the end, Trump’s plan in a sense seems Putin’s plan, who also recognized only partially Jerusalem as Israel’s capital before Trump did. Of course, as an evangelical I oppose such partial recognition.
In a report titled “Trump’s peace plan includes giving away parts of Jerusalem,” the Israeli newspaper World Israel News said last week, “The US peace plan allegedly includes cutting away four Arab neighborhoods that would become the Palestinian capital.”
Jerusalem cannot be at the same time the capital of Israel and the capital of Palestinians, who are enemies of the Jews. Why? Because God gave Jerusalem only to the Jews, not to Palestinians.
As the largest Protestant nation in the world, the United States had the responsibility to have already recognized the whole Jerusalem as Israel’s capital decades ago. But it never did it. And now, after so much delay, does the United States want to make a partial recognition? Now many can understand why Saudi Arabia was not displeased at Trump’s plan. In fact, in his first international trip, the first nation Trump visited was not Israel. It was Saudi Arabia. Has Trump planned with Saudis Jerusalem as a hybrid Jewish and Palestinian capital?
In a report titled “Trump to ask Israel to withdraw from 4 east Jerusalem neighborhoods” last week, the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post said, “The Trump administration will ask Israel to withdraw from four Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, which will likely become the capital of a future Palestinian state, US officials told Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman during his visit to Washington last week.”
The big problem is that we evangelicals, who are Trump’s main base of support, did not pay attention to his official recognition of Jerusalem. Last December, Trump said in his official proclamation,
“Today’s actions — recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing the relocation of our embassy — do not reflect a departure from the strong commitment of the United States to facilitating a lasting peace agreement. The United States continues to take no position on any final status issues. The specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties. The United States is not taking a position on boundaries or borders.”
Some points on this statement:
* Trump did not recognize the whole Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. We evangelicals naively interpreted this way. Trump made very clear that “The United States is not taking a position on boundaries or borders.” That is, he recognized Jerusalem without taking a position on boundaries or borders of Jerusalem, but no one noticed the fine print.
* Trump made clear that his recognition was not a “departure from the strong commitment of the United States to facilitating a lasting peace agreement.” This “strong commitment” is the U.S. policy of many past president who took into consideration neocon geopolitical ambitions and the whims of the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Sadly, this does not take into consideration the best interest of Israel and God’s promises in the Bible.
* Trump made clear that “The United States continues to take no position on any final status issues.” In this statement, Trump clearly showed that he did not recognize the whole Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The wording of his official statement is very worrying. This wording, which was not accessible to evangelicals in the first days of the recognition, presents major loopholes that, instead declaring solidly Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, actually fly in all directions.
The lack of solidity in the wording is disappointing because my wife, my children and I have been praying on a daily basis, for many years, for Jerusalem to be recognized as exclusively belonging to Israel.
Can you imagine a young man going to a businessman and saying that he wants to marry his daughter? Can you imagine the businessman answering, “I give 80% of my daughter to you and 20% to your enemy”? Trump has done exactly so regarding Jerusalem. In fact, it’s worse: The daughter (Jerusalem) does not belong to Trump, but even so he wants to give 20% of her to the enemies of the Jews.
If the U.S. played the same game with the Saudis, offering 80% of their capital Riyadh to the Saudis and 20% to the Palestinians, would the Saudis accept it?
Does a true friend and ally play games with its friends and allies? So why does instead having recognized Jerusalem decades ago the U.S. keep playing games with Jerusalem? If the U.S. does not dare to play games with Riyadh, why play games with Jerusalem?
Why doesn’t the US treat Israel as a true friend and ally?
Putin recognized West Jerusalem last year, but this was not answered prayer. It is the whole Jerusalem or bust!
So when Trump recognized, everybody thought that he had surpassed Putin. Everybody thought it was answered prayer.
Everybody celebrated, but no one read the fine print or saw the hidden plans!
At least, Putin was sincerer, because his recognition of Jerusalem gave no occasion for interpreting that he recognized the whole Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, both recognitions are wrong. So both Trump and Putin should be pressed to recognize the whole Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
In Putin’s case, Orthodox Christians should make such pressure. If they are real Christians, they will do it.
In Trump’s case, we evangelicals should make such pressure.
Trump should forget neocon geopolitical ambitions, the whims from the Saudi Islamic dictatorship and remember what God’s Word says: the whole Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.
As an evangelical president, Trump should use his influence not to force Israel to withdraw from parts of Jerusalem, but to force Jordan and other neighboring Islamic nations to withdraw from Israeli lands that they are illegally occupying.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, May 03, 2018

Jewish Perspective: Hitler and Socialism


Jewish Perspective: Hitler and Socialism

By Julio Severo
There is a perspective, defended by right-wing groups, that Adolf Hitler was exclusively Marxist. In the past, I also adhered to such perspective. But after understanding that Hitler was a religious man (a nominal Catholic, with deep occult beliefs), I concluded that his socialist imageries were a sham and propaganda.
Hitler was an esoteric man who knew how to manipulate politics and Catholics and Protestants.
In his book “Hitler’s Cross: How the Cross of Christ was used to promote the Nazi agenda” (Moody Publishers, 1995), Rev. Erwin W. Lutzer said,
Secular historians have admitted that Hitler cannot be explained merely as a shrewd politician who appeared in Germany at a time when the nation was ripe for a dictatorship. Allan Bullock, who wrote an extensive biography of Hitler, dutifully listed what Hitler studied in his youth: yoga, hypnotism, astrology, and various other forms of Eastern occultism…
[Germany’s] national obsession with occultism prepared the way for Hitler’s meteoric rise to world prominence. Heinrich Himmler’s masseur said that the nation was caught up in “the mysticism of a political movement” and in “no country were so many miracles performed, so many ghosts conjured, so many illnesses cured by magnetism, so many horoscopes read.” There were telepathy, séances, and spiritual experiences of every sort, which camouflaged Hitler’s deceptions. Just as the New Age movement today might well be preparing the world to accept the miracles of Antichrist, so the occultism of Germany made mass deception much more difficult to detect.
Another book that addresses Hitler’s occultism is “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,” by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.
Marxism eventually extinguishes religion. While Marxists are deeply atheist, Hitler was a deeply religious man. His occult religion helps us understand why he was not sincere about his alleged socialism. Insincerity is a trademark of esoteric groups and individuals.
Yet, there is a people who can say if Hitler was a right-winger or left-winger. Hitler’s main victims were the Jews, and they were hated not only because they were Jews, but also because most of them were socialist — as was Karl Marx, the father of Marxism, whose grandfather was a rabbi.
So it is no wonder that even today Jews are suspicious of right-wing politicians. Osias Wurman, who is Israel’s honorary consul in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, expressed concern about Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. in 2016. He said,
“Today, more than ever, it is necessary to warn the world public opinion about the dangerous change of course rightward that has been ravaging Europe and some nations in the American continent. A global poll, held in 2014, found that 46% respondents had never heard about the Holocaust!”
For Wurman, an increase in right-wing sentiments goes hand in hand with pro-Holocaust feelings.
What have the Jews to say about Hitler and socialism? To answer this question, I consulted a reliable Jewish source. So I bring here official information from the Jewish Virtual Library.
Four important points in the text on the Nazi Party of the Jewish Virtual Library are:
* Hitler had anti-Marxist speeches and actions. Even when he used socialist imageries, he violently persecuted socialists and communists.
* The fortunes of the NSDAP (the German acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or the Nazi Party) changed with the Wall Street Crash in October 1929, resulting in the Great Depression. Such powerful economic crisis was helpful for Hitler’s anti-Marxist propaganda.
* Hitler, who was considered a fool in 1928 when he predicted economic disaster, was seen as a brilliant political seer after the Wall Street Crash. People began to say that if he was clever enough to predict the Great Depression maybe he also knew how to solve it.
* “What Hitler said depended very much on the audience. In rural areas he promised tax cuts for farmers and government action to protect food prices. In working class areas he spoke of redistribution of wealth and attacked the high profits made by the large chain stores. When he spoke to industrialists, Hitler concentrated on his plans to destroy communism and to reduce the power of the trade union movement,” said the Jewish Virtual Library.
The Jewish perspective helps us understand how anti-Marxist propaganda and actions can disguise dark intents. And my perspective, as a conservative evangelical, can help us understand how esotericists can use anti-Marxist propaganda and actions to deceive Catholics and evangelicals.
Here are the best excerpts of the text of the Jewish Virtual Library on the Nazi Party:
Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler’s stormtroopers were often former members of the Freikorps (right-wing private armies who flourished during the period that followed the First World War) and had considerable experience in using violence against their rivals.
At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents. As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party.
While Hitler had been appointing government ministers, Ernst Röhm, leading a group of stormtroopers, had seized the War Ministry and Rudolf Hess was arranging the arrest of Jews and left-wing political leaders in Bavaria.
Hitler believed that the Jews were involved with Communists in a joint conspiracy to take over the world. Like Henry Ford, Hitler claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews. Hitler argued that the combination of Jews and Marxists had already been successful in Russia and now threatened the rest of Europe. He argued that the communist revolution was an act of revenge that attempted to disguise the inferiority of the Jews.
In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that: “The external security of a people is largely determined by the size of its territory.” If he won power Hitler promised to occupy Russian land that would provide protection and lebensraum (living space) for the German people. This action would help to destroy the Jewish/Marxist attempt to control the world: “The Russian Empire in the East is ripe for collapse; and the end of the Jewish domination of Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.”
Hitler attempted to play down his extremist image, and claimed that he was no longer in favour of revolution but was willing to compete with other parties in democratic elections. This policy was unsuccessful and in the elections of December 1924 the NSDAP could only win 14 seats compared with the 131 obtained by the Socialists (German Social Democrat Party) and the 45 of the German Communist Party (KPD).
The German economy continued to improve and as unemployment fell, so did the support for extremist political parties such as the NSDAP. In the General Election held in May, 1928, the Nazi Party won only 14 seats, while the left-wing parties, the German Social Democrat Party (153) and the German Communist Party (54) still continued to grow in popularity.
The fortunes of the NSDAP changed with the Wall Street Crash in October 1929.
Before the crash, 1.25 million people were unemployed in Germany. By the end of 1930 the figure had reached nearly 4 million. Even those in work suffered as many were only working part-time. With the drop in demand for labour, wages also fell and those with full-time work had to survive on lower incomes. Hitler, who was considered a fool in 1928 when he predicted economic disaster, was now seen in a different light. People began to say that if he was clever enough to predict the depression maybe he also knew how to solve it.
In the General Election that took place in September 1930, the Nazi Party increased its number of representatives in parliament from 14 to 107.
What Hitler said depended very much on the audience. In rural areas he promised tax cuts for farmers and government action to protect food prices. In working class areas he spoke of redistribution of wealth and attacked the high profits made by the large chain stores. When he spoke to industrialists, Hitler concentrated on his plans to destroy communism and to reduce the power of the trade union movement.
In the past, those who feared communism were willing to put up with the SA [also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts] as they provided a useful barrier against the possibility of [communist] revolution.
[May 1932] saw open warfare on the streets between the Nazis and the Communists during which 86 people were killed.
The behaviour of the NSDAP became more violent. On one occasion, 167 Nazis beat up 57 members of the German Communist Party in the Reichstag. They were then physically thrown out of the building.
The stormtroopers also carried out terrible acts of violence against socialists and communists. In one incident in Silesia, a young member of the KPD [German Communist Party] had his eyes poked out with a billiard cue and was then stabbed to death in front of his mother. Four members of the SA were convicted of the crime. Many people were shocked when Hitler sent a letter of support for the four men and promised to do what he could to get them released.
Incidents such as these worried many Germans, and in the elections that took place in November 1932 the support for the Nazi Party fell. The German Communist Party made substantial gains in the election winning 100 seats. Hitler used this to create a sense of panic by claiming that Germany was on the verge of a Bolshevik Revolution and only the NSDAP could prevent this happening.
A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a [communist] revolution sent a petition to Paul von Hindenburg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany.
Portuguese version of this article: Perspectiva judaica: Hitler e o socialismo
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 01, 2018

Rev. Larry Christenson, a Charismatic Lutheran Pioneer


Rev. Larry Christenson, a Charismatic Lutheran Pioneer

By Julio Severo
Are the Holy Spirit and his supernatural gifts and visitations realities present only in the Bible stories? Not at all. Even today their manifestations happen even in the driest theological settings.
One Lutheran minister in the United States became a charismatic powerhouse after a power encounter with the Holy Spirit. He became one of the most prominent Lutheran theologians in America.
Rev. Larry Christenson (1928-2017) was a pioneer of the charismatic renewal not only in the Lutheran Church in America, but in other mainline denominations 50 years ago.
In his early 30s, Christenson was a Lutheran pastor in San Pedro, California, who came to believe at the start of the 1960s that Jesus Christ still heals the sick today as He did 2,000 years ago.
That belief led Christenson to accept that the other gifts of the Holy Spirit were also still available.
He himself was baptized in the Spirit and began to speak in tongues at a local Assemblies of God church he visited in 1961.
Christenson decided to stay in his Lutheran denomination, where he became a major advocate for and leader of the charismatic renewal sweeping through mainline churches.
His own San Pedro church became so popular that it could well have become a mega-church as Lutherans curious about the baptism in the Holy Spirit flocked there. But he always encouraged them to return to their own congregations to be a strength and light.
Christenson’s books, “Speaking in Tongues” (1968) and “The Christian Family” (1970), became bestsellers. “The Christian Family” has sold more than two million copies and been translated into over a dozen languages. Others included “The Renewed Mind” (1974); “Charismatic Renewal Among Lutherans” (1976) and “Welcome, Holy Spirit” (1987).
Christenson also wrote an introduction of my e-book “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity,” published in 2013. This booklet was pioneer against the Theology of Integral Mission, the Protestant version of the Liberation Theology. In the e-book he said,
“Julio Severo points up a reality of the Christian community in Brazil that finds expression in other countries as well. Liberal churches and theologians try to wed the Christian faith to socialism, a secular political philosophy. The net result: they talk mostly to each other while their churches decline in members and influence. Meanwhile Pentecostal churches have reached out to the poor and powerless, and more recently, with the spread of the charismatic movement in many churches, to people from all walks of life. Their message is a biblical and uncomplicated message of salvation through Christ, and new life in the power of the Holy Spirit. Their churches grow, people’s lives are changed. I hope the truth in this little booklet will impact the lives and understanding of many people in Brazil. And, who knows, even beyond Brazil!”
After the publication of my e-book, Theology of Integral Mission, which had gone unopposed for decades in the Brazilian mainline churches, especially the Presbyterian Church, began to receive the first signs of solid resistance and opposition. The Brazilian Lutheran churches, which are far away from the baptism in the Holy Spirit and his spiritual gifts, are also very close to Theology of Integral Mission. Read my article to understand: “Theological Faggoting: Liberation Theology and Theology of Integral Mission Environment Producing Gay Theology in Brazil.”
If a church is not filled with the Holy Spirit, the vacuum will be filled with Marxism and other kinds of theological liberalism.
So it is no wonder that the best opposition to Theology of Integral Mission and its theological liberalism was born among charismatic evangelicals.
The Holy Spirit can do much more against such liberalism.
According to Christenson, in his book “Answering Your Questions About Speaking in Tongues” (published by Bethany House Publishers, with foreword by Corrie ten Boom):
“No Scripture suggests that some of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit were meant only for the Apostolic Church. This is a purely human doctrine and rationalization to explain away the embarrassing lack of the supernatural in the Church, while still clinging to the doctrine of an inspired Scripture. Martin Luther, commenting on Mark 16:17,18, says, ‘These signs [including speaking in new tongues] should he interpreted as applying to every individual Christian. When a person is a Christian, he has faith, and he shall also have the power to do these signs.’”
In his systematic theology “Welcome Holy Spirit” (Augsburg Publishing House, 1987), he said,
“Even though imperfectly understood and used, spiritual gifts are a practical part of the gospel ministry” (p. 252).
“In German pietism there was some experience of charismatic gifts. This had little direct influence on the present-day charismatic renewal, though the parallels are instructive. In the 19th century, Christoph Blumhardt’s congregation experienced revival accompanied by healings and exorcism. In his preaching Blumhardt kindled hope for a new Pentecost. By the turn of the century, regular Pentecost conferences were being held, with an emphasis on revival on the power of the Holy Spirit” (p. 355).
With Lutheran minister Blumhardt, Lutheran Germany had a chance to move to a better spiritual course. Yet, according to Christenson (“Welcome Holy Spirit,” p. 356), in the Berlin Declaration of 1909 German Lutherans declared spiritual gifts today, including tongues, as “demonic.”
After this formal rejection of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, Germany faced World War 1, which eventually led to World War 2. If the Lutheran churches had not rejected the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, could they have had more spiritual discernment against the dark forces that came over Germany, including esoteric Adolf Hitler, who deceived both Catholics and Lutherans through his anti-Marxist speech?
Fierce opposition to the charismatic movement in Germany 100 years ago extinguished hope for revival in the Lutheran churches and opened the door for demons, including Nazism.
Today, detractors criticize the charismatic movement as being too based in shallow emotionalism. Yet, Christenson’s own sharp and quiet intellect contradicted the stereotype.
In his book “The Charismatic Movement, An Historical and Theological Perspective” (2010), Christenson said:
Religious movements are often dated from a particular event that pinpoints its outbreak into the public arena. We date the Reformation from the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg in 1517, or Methodism from the meeting in Aldersgate Street in 1738 when John Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed.” The charismatic movement is usually dated from the Sunday morning in 1959 when Dennis Bennett announced to his Episcopalian congregation in Van Nuys, California, that he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. In little more than a year similar events occurred in a variety of Protestant congregations in the United States, including Lutheran churches in California, Montana, and Minnesota. (p. 1, 2)
In 1959 classical Pentecostals numbered about 25 million, worldwide. With the advent of the charismatic movement, Pentecostals and charismatics burgeoned to 553 million by 2005, trending toward 811 million by 2025. They constitute 28% of Christians worldwide, growing at the rate of nine million annually. “There is nothing quite like it in the history of the church,” said Presbyterian pastor and historian Robert Whitaker. “Earlier movements have been limited geographically and denominationally. This one has penetrated every denomination and is present on every continent of the globe.” (p. 3)
The Greek word for “spiritual gifts” — charismata — gave the name to the charismatic movement. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, particularly those listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8-11, became a popular hallmark of the renewal. The emphasis on spiritual gifts was prominent to begin with simply because things like spiritual healing, visions, miracles, and speaking in tongues were new for most believers in mainline denominations. Charismatics enthusiastically told their first-hand experience with spiritual gifts and asked, “Why haven’t we heard about this before?” while skeptics scoured the landscape for signs of fanaticism. Over time spiritual gifts became in a sense more ordinary among charismatics. Sharing a vision, or a prophecy, or a prayer for healing became as normal as getting up and going to work. The manifestation of spiritual gifts became a settled reality in their understanding of life, and of Scripture. (p. 4)
Renewal movements often focus on a particular aspect of the Christian faith. The Lutheran Reformation highlighted justification by grace through faith. The Wesleyan revivals stressed sanctification. Charismatics underscore the belief that followers of Jesus should “receive” or “be baptized with” the Holy Spirit. (p. 7)
The prophecy of John the Baptist that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit is recorded in all of the gospels (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33). Jesus repeated the prophecy before His ascension (Acts 1:5). The book of Acts records several instances of people receiving the Holy Spirit; taken together, they help us understand how this prophecy happened in the life of the early church —
* Receiving the Holy Spirit was a discrete aspect of Christian initiation. It was closely associated with repentance, faith, and baptism but it did not happen automatically when someone believed in Jesus or was baptized.
* It required no particular ritual. Sometimes people received the Holy Spirit in connection with prayer and the laying on of hands, but it could also happen spontaneously.
* Receiving the Holy Spirit was not a secret or unconscious event in the life of a believer; it was a noticeable, remembered happening. “The effectual presence of the Holy Spirit cannot be assumed simply because a person agrees to correct doctrine. It is possible to hold the doctrine on the Holy Spirit, yet not experience His presence and power. The doctrine must find expression in personal experience.”
* When new believers came to faith and were baptized, but did not receive the Holy Spirit, their initiation into the Christian faith was considered incomplete; prayer was invoked for them to receive the Holy Spirit.
Charismatics do not understand “receiving the Holy Spirit” as a comprehensive term for the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a distinctive happening in the life of a believer whereby the Holy Spirit becomes more manifest. Today, behind this understanding of Scripture, stand millions of believers around the world and throughout the body of Christ who testify to “receiving” or “being baptized with” the Holy Spirit. Many would describe their life beforehand not much differently than the disciples the apostle Paul met in Ephesus, some twenty years after Pentecost —
“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
“We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
Asked to explain how or why it happened in their lives, charismatics most likely say, “Somebody told me about it.” Faith comes by hearing. The charismatic movement has spread because a neglected truth of Scripture has been proclaimed. (p. 7, 8)
Now, God does not do foolish or unnecessary things. If God appointed certain gifts and ministries in the church, it is not for us to weigh whether they are good or necessary, but rather to ask, “Why did God do this? What does He have in mind?” (p. 11)
That is why the Christian life involves more than living by principles. Jesus was much more than “a man of principle.” He said, “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing” (John 5:19). How many sick people did Jesus step around at the pool of Bethesda to speak God’s word to one invalid? (John 5:2) Jesus did not have a “preferential option” for the poor, or the sick, or the disadvantaged; nor for the rich and influential. He had a preferential option for the FATHER! Jesus did not intend His disciples to be guided simply by commonsense application of spiritual principles. Not even the truths that He had taught them stood alone. He said, “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Helper . . . he will teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:16,26) Christ calls us into a totally new dimension of living. Our life as Christians is not meant to be guided simply by principles, commonsensically applied. Our life is under the direction of a living Person, the Holy Spirit. By His power we partake of the divine nature. The Lord is in us, we are in Him. (p. 23)
The central message of the Holy Spirit Renewal — “receiving the Holy Spirit,” or “being baptized with the Holy Spirit” — calls the church back to its scriptural roots, to a faith defined not simply by its knowledge — doctrinal agreement, however biblical — but by a heightened awareness and experience of life-union-with-the-Lord. Pentecostals and charismatics need steadfastly to live in and declare this central reality that God quickened to the church in the 20th century: your life and ministry depends upon divine presence. Receive the Holy Spirit! (p. 26)
With information from CBN.
Recommended Reading: