Judge vs. Judge Not – Which Is It? - Frank Viola

Original Source article here    Extract courtesy of Frank Viola. All copying rights see his site.
The Living by the Indwelling Life of Christ course is now open. But registration closes February 29th. The course only opens three times a year. Click here to learn about the course and register.

Here in the USA we are in the midst of another run for the presidency where a small number of people have lost their minds. Scratch that. I mean, where a small number of people have decided to run for the highest office in the land.

Not a few of us are experiencing regular bouts of deja moo whenever we turn on the news and hear the politicians pontificate. (Deja moo = the acute feeling that you’ve heard this bull before.)

Anyways, amid the sharp elbowing, personal deriding, eye-popping broadsides, and gratuitous insults, this year’s bare-knuckled, cut-and-thrust campaign is marked by virtually all of the candidates judging one another.

In that regard, it’s not terribly dissimilar to the “Christian” community on social media where the knives come out on a daily basis causing no small blood-letting.

This year’s political knife-fight got me thinking about the issue of judging others.

Herein lies a thorny biblical paradox. On the one hand, the New Testament sternly warns us to “judge not.” At the same time, it happily exhorts us to “judge.”

So what’s the deal?

As I’ve argued elsewhere, whenever you see an apparent contradiction in the Bible, draw a distinction.

In this case, there are two types of judging.

Let’s begin with the first type. The one that Scripture condemns.

Type 1: Judging an individual’s heart-motives which is directly tied to condemning them.

This is the kind of judging that Jesus, Paul, and James sharply denounce. It’s the judgment of the heart. It’s where a mere mortal usurps God’s position, critically looks down on the failures of others (real or alleged) and imputes dark motives to their hearts. It also applies to the act of judging a person when you yourself are guilty of the same (or similar) practices.

(At the end of this article, I’ve listed the key texts that condemn this type of judging.)

I’ve met many judgmental Christians in my lifetime. Perhaps you have too. The self-righteous, highly-critical spirit that exudes from them is nauseating. Such people anoint themselves to be inquisitors, especially toward people they barely know. Their compass is set to think the worst of others, and they seem to relish condemning.

Tragically, these individuals aren’t in touch with the fact that Jesus Christ doesn’t stand with them. And in every case where I’ve seen this kind of judging take place, the person dishing out the judgments ends up being chastised by the Lord. Sometimes in pretty sober ways.

Jesus made clear that this kind of judging has a way of bouncing back on those who exercise it (Matthew 7:2).

Fact: highly judgmental “Christians” are almost always exposed to have corrupt characters. Usually the things such people condemn the most loudly in others end up being the very things they themselves practice — or struggle with — in secret.

As I’ve pointed out before, the piece of saw dust that the judgmental person detects in her brother’s eye has come from the telephone pole in her own. Consequently, the judgmental person is projecting what’s in her own heart onto others and condemning herself in the process (see Matthew 7:3-4).

Regrettably, this type of judging goes on constantly in Christian circles as professing followers of Jesus unsheathe their swords, impute bad motives to others, climb on God’s throne, and act like holy inquisitors.

With respect to this kind of......... (Read the rest of the article here and all the Bible passages )

Frank Viola says though we are partakers of God's life we never become Divine

From a note To Facebook thread members
In reality God is not smashing our quiet time He is smashing the "container" of our quiet time....and telling us to take this special skill of finding Him at our centre 'and to "take it for walkies"

Frank Viola

I got a bit of a "negative kick" when I was listening to Frank Viola the other day. I put it up on a note, then thought ...this ought to go on my blog...somehow I lost the whole thing in a bad signal or something.
I'll see if i can do it again.
Frank's last book sounds great BTW...it's on God's favorite place...Bethany. While Jesus was here on earth in his first body form...there was no place He was more received even though it was just 2 miles from His supposed HOUSE in Jerusalem.
Frank said this brain twister on one of his podcasts about the book : "Although I am a partaker of the life of Christ I never become Divine." Nancy put it better I think we do NOT become Christ. We are forever the one He created in Himself.
But this is the clarification I was writing.
We ARE DIVINE. Sorry Frank.
Before even going into this matter we have to detach ourselves and see the double knot the devil tied in the Fall. This "And then were the eyes of Adam and Eve opened." D'oh...if that's having your eyes opened, let's shut them again quickly!
This matter is SO important some of us might be killed over it. "And brother will deliver brother up unto death!"...etc
The matter as Daniel Yordy points out is always over God come in the flesh. It's always over perceived blasphemy, when the real blasphemy happened in Genesis 3.
We judge people....not by judging...by quietly living from His Life like Abel. Getting on with the job of living out of Union. God recognises Union and says so...in Abel's case And in Jesus's case..."This is My Beloved Son" twice uttered, once in Jordan, once in the Mount of Transfiguration.
The effect as we see upon Cain...is to feel his own orphan spirit, his rejection...which is purely internal....because God says if you do well will you not be accepted? This is NOT a works statement...this is...if you live OUT OF ME will I not also accept your sacrifice? If you live unto yourself and toss the odd little "supposed sacrifice" out from that alienation, that separation, in My direction, no....I'm not going to accept it...because I want relationship....
What is so offensive about God's Life? What is the nature of the double-knot the devil ties in our carnal minds that makes us so angry when an "Abel " comes across our path? Angry enough to scream blasphemy and want to kill them?
This is how it works I believe.
In the Fall the devil tricked us into living "front of house". Living from our front door or vestibule. The butler of our mind became Lord of the Manor all of a sudden. The butler really believes he is self existant as if he's the Lord of the house. We believe we are soul. We believe we are self-powered soul. WE are in a total total mashup. A Lie. A delusion.
We are spirit. We are definitely not front of house. We have a front of house staff. But Jesus says we have to go into our secret place, our innermost room, and there meet with the Father in secret. To start with this is a meeting or a crisis prayer Later it becomes a quiet time
THEN...when our quiet time is fully grown...when we start to have a confidence in this inner room... The LORD appears to smash it!
Frances and Susan this is where you are. I lost all my opportunites to prophesy, to lead in worship, even the "special quiet time"...
In reality God is not smashing our quiet time He is smashing the "container" of our quiet time....and telling us to take this special skill of finding Him at our centre Nancy:'maturing in Christ IS in being still,'
and to "take it for walkies"
As you received Christ as Lord so now you ought to walk in Him.
It's a whole different walk. It's a Psalm 123...not meeting....not quiet time...NOPE it's a life of watching keenly as a servant for every sign or nod or activity of the Master....watching what He's up to as the single LIFE in the Universe.
So back to the double knot
Because the devil has fooled us into thinking "front of house" and seeing others only "front of house" selfpowered souls....and receiving them as such... ie the very opposite of what we are told to do...(Henceforth we see no man after the flesh)
So ONTO THAT he places the second knot. If anyone says they are Christ in their form or Divine or whatever And remember this is not new teaching...the Eastern Orthodox Church have been teaching "deification" for centuries...though possibly doing a shambles of explaining it to people.
So to continue...the devil places this notion UPON the foundation of a selfpowered soul.
So a NEW AGER is now a SELF GOD...a selfempowered god in his or her own right. Blasphemy on acid.
But conversely the devil does the opposite in the church and gets brothers who are still seeing squiffily and thinking they are lone selves in the universe "trying their hardest" to
get more of God,
or get back into relationship with God
 to praise more
 to pray more
 to attend more meetings
 to have more quiet times
and then they see Union folk and they superimpose their seeing of everyone after the flesh ONTO the idea of Christ living through someone. So they absolutely detest that somebody say they are selfpowered DIVINE....not without reason!!
BUT WE ARE NOT FRONT OF HOUSE. Our true life, our original life always was in God...God's own life in incarnate form. There's nothing unusual about it. It just is so. It's not special in some awkward fake hyper spiritual way. We just are spirit and we express through soul and body.

God calls what He is doing with us circumcision of the heart. The heart is still the same. It's the hardness of heart. The shell. The shame. The spirit of wrath. Rejection. Separation. The orphan spirit.....this surface thing that God is ripping off to reveal the original spirit intent as conceived before the ages...
Namely HIM in a whole generation of sons.
So yes we are divine but made a little lower than the angels now like Jesus crowned with glory and honour
WE ARE NOT GOD the TRINITY selfexistant we are a race of sons begotten in the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Adam was not begotten. He was scooped up. We in Christ are the only begotten.
We are NOT our parents, yet we totally have our parent's DNA...yet we are separate beings in our own right from our parents.
This is something of the MYSTERY of Christ in us the hope of glory.

I hope that helps.

Delving Deeper with Frank Viola

Pagan Christianity is totally enlightening because as Frank states,most Christians have the subconscious idea that many of the acts of contemporary Christians have a very questionable history, but as he found, no one had really studied it all in depth and compiled one easily readable book from the material.
You will find the history of
THE BUILDING.
The history of liturgy.
The history of professional ministry.
Seminaries.
Many of the questionable practices.
And it will all confirm that uneasy feeling, when having met the risen Christ, you go back into BOTH denominational churches and even independent churches.
That subtle interior question : "Where is the Christ I actually know, in all this?" is answered full on. He ISN'T. It was so often Pagan Man's Creation, or at best the one off instruction of the Holy Spirit, which then got enshrined as a repeatedly rehearsed mindless act.
Now, I am hoping that I will not offend Frank, but also entice you to go out and buy the book by  copying here two inoffensive small print sections of his book, that serve as kind of appendices to the rest of the material. These  sections appear after chapters to aid with discussion groups. So churches, who like these things, and are brave enough to question their own existence, may love to invest in these books.
Frank has just reminded me to tell you that Pagan Christianity is a deconstructive work, but is part of a series which includes more constructive works find them all here  

Delving Deeper

Some Definitions

As you read this book, we feel it is important that you understand how we are using the terms below.

PAGAN

We are using this word to indicate those practices and principles that are not Christian or biblical in origin. In some cases, we use it to refer to those ancients who followed the gods of the Roman Empire. We are not using the word as a synonym for bad, evil, sinful, or wrong. A "pagan practice or mind-set ' refers to a practice or mode of thinking that has been adopted from the church's surrounding culture. We believe that some pagan practices are neutral and can be redeemed for God's glory. We feel that others stand in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and thus cannot be redeemed.

ORGANIC CHURCH

The term organic church does not refer to a particular model of church. (We believe that no perfect model exists.) Instead, we believe that the New Testament vision of church is organic. An organic church is a living, breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member-functioning, Christ-centered, communal expression of the body of Christ. Note that our goal in this book is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only to touch on it when necessary.

INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH

This term refers to a religious system (not a particular group of people). An institutional church is one that oper­ates primarily as an organization that exists above, beyond, and independent of the members who populate it. It is constructed more on programs and rituals than on relationships. It is led by set-apart professionals ("ministers" or "clergy") who are aided by volunteers ("laity"). We also use the terms contemporary church, traditional church, present-day church, and modern church to refer to the institutional church of our day.

NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH, OR FIRST-CENTURY CHURCH

These terms do not refer to a particular form of church. We are instead speaking of the church of century one that we read about in our New Testament. (In this book, first-century church is used as a synonym for New Testament church.) We do not advocate a primitivistic return to a particular model of the early church. Instead, we believe that a return to the spiritual principles, the organic practices, and the spirit and ethos of the first-century church, along with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, should guide our practice of the church in our day and time.

BIBLICAL, OR SCRIPTURAL

These words are used first and foremost as source statements and secondarily as value judgments. Biblical or scriptural refers to whether a practice has its origins in the New Testament Scriptures. References to unbiblical or unscriptural practices do not automatically imply error. These words can refer to the fact that a certain practice does not appear in the New Testament (in which case it should not be treated as sacred). But they can also refer to a practice that violates the principles or teachings of the New Testament. The context will determine how these words are used. We certainly do not agree with the doctrines of "the silence of Scripture" and "the regulative principle," which teach that if a practice is not mentioned in the New Testament then we should not follow it.

Delving Deeper
Questions and Answers about Church format

1. Isn't it true that the Bible's description of church gatherings seems to allow fora lot of latitude in how our worship is structured? My church's order of worship contains almost all the practices mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. What, then, is so wrong with a standard order of worship?

Most gatherings in institutional churches do include singing and teaching; however, they're done in an atmosphere far different front the one prescribed in I Corinthians 14. This passage describes a gathering with open participation by every member to bring a teaching, a revelation, a song, an exhortation, etc. (verse 26); interjections by the members while others are speaking (verse 30); and spontaneous prophesying by everyone (verses 24, 31).

If your church gathering possesses all of these elements, that is wonderful. We just would not describe it as a "standard order of worship" since it is not the standard practice today.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul admonishes the believers to do things in an orderly way. How does an organic church keep their worship time from becoming a free-for-all—or dominated by one or two individuals? Doesn't an organic church's style lend itself to disorder?

This is an excellent question. The fact that Paul admonishes the believers to meet i_n an orderly fashion clearly demonstrates that an open meeting does not have to be a tumultuous free-for-all. To Paul's mind, there is a wonderful synergy between an open meeting and an orderly one. If God's people are properly equipped on how to function under Christ's headship, an open-participatory meeting can be a glorious event with harmony and order.

Let's ask ourselves: What happened when Paul faced the frenzied morass in Corinth? The apostle did not shut down the meetings and hand out a liturgy. Nor did he introduce human officiation. Instead, he supplied the church with a number of broad guidelines to facilitate order and edification in the gatherings (see I Cor­inthians 14).

What is more, Paul was confident the church would adhere to those guidelines.

This sets forth an important principle. Every church ⁱⁿ the first century had at its dis­posal an itinerant apostolic worker who helped it navigate through common problems. Sometimes the worker's help came in the form of letters. At other times, it came during personal visits from the worker himself. Such outside help can be highly beneficial in keeping an organic church centered on Christ and focused in its meetings.

3.    You question the church's focus on bringing lost souls to Christ. Yet until people come to Christ, they cannot partake in ^god's great, eternal purpose, which Paul discusses in Ephesians 1. There­fore, isn't it critical that churches make the gospel's proclamation a priority?

Yes, it is. In fact, we believe that embodying the gospel in life and proclaiming it in word is a natural outgrowth of the life of a healthy organic church. If God's people are learning to love their Lord and one another with greater intensity, they will naturally want to share Him with others in both word and deed.

4.  You imply that Finney and other Revivalists began using such things as the altar call strictly because they were pragmatists who invented certain practices to win converts. But how can we say for sure that these men weren't led by the Holy Spirit to employ new methods that would help people recognize their need for Christ?

Our point about Finney was simply that the Revivalists made salvation God's gov­erning purpose. Salvation was turned into something that took on a life of its own, often isolated from a holistic Christian experience, and thus many innovations were created to facilitate ^a conversion experience but not a full Christian experience. God's eternal purpose was not in view at all.

As far as modern pragmatism goes, Christians should decide for themselves whether a particular practice is of the Holy Spirit or if it is mere human ingenuity at work. We leave such judgments to the individual reader.

5.  You seem very critical that Moody was so concerned about bringing lost souls to Christ. Yet as an evangelist, wasn't it natural that that was his focus?

We certainly commend Moody for bringing souls to Christ. However, we believe that by viewing redemption as God's ultimate purpose, he failed to communicate the scope of God's complete plan.

No evangelist or apostle in the New Testament brought souls to Christ simply to save them from hell. Such a thought was unknown to the early Christians. The early Christians won people to the Lord to bring them into God's community, the church.

In the first century, people were saved with the idea of adding them to the ekklesia. Conversion and community were not separate; they were inextricably intertwined. In the words of Gilbert Bilezikian: "Christ did not die just to save us from sins, but to bring us together into community. After coming to Christ, our next step is to be involved in community. A church that does not experience community is a parody, a sham.""'

B2 In this regard, mainstream evangelicalism has made the profound error of di­vorcing soteriology (salvation) from ecclesiology (church practice). The message conveyed is that soteriology is a required course, while ecclesiology is an elective. So church practice does not really matter. But this thinking does not reflect God's curriculum. The church is not a footnote in the gospel. It stands at the center of God's beating heart.

In fact, when the church functions as she should, she is the greatest evangelism known to humankind. When God's people are living in authentic community, their lives together are a sign to the world of God's coming reign. 172

6. You say that "neither Catholics nor Protestants were successful in allowing Jesus Christ to be the center and head of their gatherings. " / must disagree. In my church, the songs we sing, the Scripture we read, the message that is proclaimed all center on Jesus. Furthermore, we are given practical instruction on how to make Christ our Lord every day of the week.

The central issue we were addressing is not, "Is Jesus talked about and given honor in the service?" We agree that in many institutional churches, He is. The issue we were addressing is, "Is Jesus Christ the functional head of the gathering?" There is a significant difference between making Jesus the invisible guest of honor and allowing Him to be the practical leader of the gathering.

Let's suppose the authors of this book attend your church service. And let's sup­pose that the Lord Jesus Christ puts something on our hearts to share with the rest of His body. Would we have the freedom to do so spontaneously? Would everyone else have the freedom to do it? If not, then we would question whether your church service is under Christ's headship.

You see, a meeting that is under the headship of Christ means that He may speak through every member of the body in the gathering. This is the very argument of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul begins this section by saying that Jesus Christ is not speechless like the idols the Corinthians once worshipped. And through whom does Christ speak? He speaks through His body using the various gifts and ministries granted by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). In the next chapter, Paul says that believers' gifts and ministries are to be used in love, as love seeks to edify everyone else (rather than to take for itself). Paul then moves on to the specifics of the church meeting where "every one of you hash" something to bring and "ye may all prophesy one by one" (1 Corinthians 14).

In this connection, if you were to attend an organic church gathering that met

in New Testament fashion, you would have both the right and the privilege to share whatever the Lord laid on your heart in the manner in which the Spirit led you. Not only that, but you would be expected to. In other words, Jesus Christ would be the functional head of that gathering.

7. You often use the phrase headship of Christ to refer to Christ's leadership and authority in the church. I read somewhere that head in the New Testament means "source" rather than "author­ity. " What do you think?

It actually means both. We are using headship of Christ to refer to the idea that Jesus Christ is both the authority over the church as well as the source of the church. There is good scholarly support for this usage.' 73

8. Didn't the early church hold their services in the synagogues? I remember reading that the apos­tles went to the synagogues to preach. And didn't Paul and Peter preach to a passive audience?

The apostles, as well as gifted people like Stephen, visited the synagogues for evan­gelistic purposes. But these meetings were not church meetings. They were not for believers. Rather, they were opportunities for the apostles to preach the gospel to the Jews. (In that day, a visitor could visit a synagogue and preach to the audience.) Yes, Paul and Peter preached in certain settings, but again, these were not at church meetings. They preached at apostolic meetings designed to evangelize the lost or to equip and encourage an existing church. Apostolic and evangelistic meetings were temporary and sporadic, while church meetings were normative and ongoing.

9. Are you saying that just because the first-century church had open-participatory meetings, we should too—even though we live in the twenty-first century?

No. We are suggesting that open-participatory meetings are rooted in New Testa­ment theology, namely the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the every-member functioning of Christ's body. We are also suggesting that Christians have a spiritual instinct to share what God has shown them with others for their edification. And we are raising three key questions: (1) After exploring where the modern Prot­estant order of worship came from, is it really successful at transforming people and expressing Jesus Christ? (2) Is it possible that open-participatory church meetings are more in line with what God had in mind for His church than the Protestant order of worship? (3) Would it be worth our time to begin exploring new ways to gather and express Christ in our church life together?

Why You Should read "Revise Us Again" by Frank Viola

If you are not quite at the point of accepting the material on this blog, or perhaps you don't quite understand it, or for all those who DO get a lot from this blog, but would appreciate another angle on things,this could be quite the BOOK for you.

You see the actual running script, to use a computer or production phraseology, behind a lot of how we do church, or do our Christian lives....is plain wrong. But only a handful of voices are forensically examining why.
Other authors may be Darin Hufford "The Misunderstood God"
Or Steve Mc Vey's writings and seminars.
Or Paul Anderson Walsh in his "Bonsai Conspiracy"
Or Andrew Farley  "God without Religion"

....and quite a handful of others.

In Frank  Viola's 10 chapter book, Revise Us Again,

• Learn the Three major ways God addresses His people
• What's REALLY often behind the phrase "God told me to do it"
• What " Let me pray about it" REALLY means
• A whole breakdown of the different Spiritual Conversational Styles and what huge barriers these relatively obvious, yet hardly discussed formats erect right across the Body of Christ
• Our message itself needs completely revisiting. These elements are almost universally forgotten or hardly mentioned :  The Indwelling Christ, The Breadth and Greatness of this Christ in other words, He will NOT be bound by a narrow stream or view,God's Purpose Far transcends the question of sin,Christ is the GLORY of our humanity, Everything "other" than Christ quickly wears thin.
• The Felt-Presence of God is a real humdinger. This chapter explores EVERYTHING the Bible means by the Presence of God. This one chapter could bring most of the World Church together to at least being able to talk to each other
• Have you noticed that spiritual history demonstrates quite clearly that we can be "CAPTURED by the SAME SPIRIT WE OPPOSE." How many churches and moves could this one chapter have saved.....
• The major Principle at work in the phrase : He takes away the First to Establish the Second. Perhaps you are still "stuck with the first", when God has long moved on to the second. Understanding,also the phrase, "And there was evening and there was morning - the FIRST DAY"
• Learn how church is being stripped back to CHRIST ALONE. A lot of the add-ons are just crumbling into dust.
• Finally learn how our actual "image of Christ" is FAR too small. We settle for a tiny bit of Him, and He moves on. Learn God's failsafe METHOD for moving us on into FULNESS : Living Community

 AS AN AFTERWORD,learn about the THREE GOSPELS, two of which are wrong and one is right, and see examples laid out clearly from the New Testament letters of how the gospel is TAUGHT in the light of the very challenges that faced the Early Church. Behaviour comes out of "inner working knowledge" of WHO WE NOW ARE.

Frank Viola has recently made available his message podcast Epic Jesus which moved some to tears.You can download it here

His main website can be found here with links to his blog and bookstore

Frank Viola on Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Picture: Dietrich Bonhoeffer - weekend away with students

Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Born 4 Feb 1906
Died 9 Apr 1945
Country Germany
Category Government

Contributor: C. Peter Chen
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born, with a twin sister Sabine, into an upper-class family in Breslau, Germany. His father, Karl Bonhoeffer, was a professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Berlin and also the director of the psychiatric clinic at Charité Hospital, which was also in Berlin. His mother was Paula von Hase, daughter of Countess Klara von Hase. As a child, he was a gifted pianist, and it was thought that he would either become a musician or follow his father's footsteps and become a doctor. Surprising everyone in the family, at the age of 14, he chose to pursue a career in religion instead. He attended Tübingen University for a year, toured Rome, and then returned to Berlin in 1924 to enroll in the University of Berlin. He graduated from the University of Berlin in 1927 with a doctorate in theology. Between 1928 and 1931, he worked and studied in Spain, United States, Mexico, Libya, Cuba, and his home country of Germany. He was ordained on 15 Nov 1931 at the St. Matthew's Church in Berlin.

When the Nazi Party rose to power in 1933, Bonhoeffer became one of the first religious leaders to oppose Nazism. Two days after Adolf Hitler was made Chancellor, he delivered a radio address against him, and the radio address was cut short by a Nazi sympathizer, and he was unable to finish. He was also a prominent leader against the Nazi prejudice against Jews. Between 1934 and 1935, he was the pastor of two German-speaking churches, St. Paul's and Sydenham, in London, England, United Kingdom. In 1934, he was among those who organized the Confessing Church in Germany. As the Nazi regime continued to suppress the Confessing Church, his authorization to teach at the University of Berlin was reovked in Aug 1936. In Aug 1937, Heinrich Himmler declared it was illegal to teach the theology of the Confessing Church, and the church's underground seminary was shut down by the Gestapo in the following month, arresting 27 pastors of the church. One of his sisters, Christine, married Hans von Dohnanyi, a German politician who was also dissatisfied with the Nazi Regime. It was Dohnanyi who introduced Bonhoeffer to members of the Abwehr (German military intelligence) who plotted to overthrow Hitler. In Jun 1939, he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the Union Theological Seminary in New York, but returned to Germany shortly before the start of the European War.

In war-time Germany, Bonhoeffer was forbidden to speak in public by the Nazi German government, and by 1940 was required to regularly report his activities. In 1941, he was forbidden to publish. He joined the Abwehr, where he had already made contacts with like-minded anti-Nazi colleagues. He was active in the planning of assassination attempts against Hitler, and believed that he had sinned for such action, but he believed that he was sacrificing for the greater good for Germany. As an Abwehr personnel, he was able to work as a courier and diplomat for the resistance movement, visiting various contacts within Germany and aboard in Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. In May 1942, he made contact with Anglican Bishop George Bell, a member of the British House of Lords; a report was submitted to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden, but no further action was taken (Britain had similarly turned down many offers to help from various groups within Germany at this time).

On 6 Apr 1943, Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi were arrested as the result of political struggles between the German SS and Abwehr organizations. Bonhoeffer was accussed of corruption, evading military service, and using his position to circumvent orders to cease church activities. He was imprisoned at the Tegel military prison in Berlin. During his 18-month imprisonment at Tegel, a sympathetic guard named Knobloch offered to help him escape, but Bonhoeffer rejected him in fear of retribution against his family. After the failed July Plot in 1944, which nearly succeeded in killing Hitler, a large effort to hunt down conspirators commenced, and connections were finally made between Bonhoeffer and other conspirators. He was transferred to the detention cellar of the Reich Security Head Office, then in Feb 1945 he was sent to the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Some time later, he was moved to the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp. On 4 Apr 1945, the diaries of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of Abwehr, was discovered; as Hitler read them, he condemned all Abwehr conspirators to death. On 8 Apr, SS judge Otto Thorbeck sentenced him to death per Hitler's orders, and he was executed by hanging on the next day.

Source: Wikipedia.

Frank Viola series of Four Blogposts

Take time over this one and follow the links into Frank Viola's blog and his books and other posts, for example : Kingdom Confusion

Blogging Through Bonhoeffer Part One
I’m a student of history. And the more I look at it, the more I recognize a certain pattern. God sends spiritual giants who change the course of church history in waves.
One wave was made evident around 1926 and continued through the 1940s. In three different countries.
Three choice vessels of God began publishing then. They had lots of similarities in the testimony they bore regarding the supremacy of Jesus Christ and His church.
Those three vessels were:
Watchman Nee in China.
T. Austin-Sparks in England.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany.
In the coming days, I’m going to be blogging through Bonhoeffer’s complete works.
Bonhoeffer was first and foremost a theologian. And as a theologian, he’s one of my favorites.
I’ll begin by recommending a recent biography written about him, which may be the best ever written on his life.
It’s called Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy
If you like reading biographies, you’ll want to own this one. Click on the link above to see a movie trailer and read endorsements and reviews. I own the book and love it.
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post: It’s called Advice for Christian Authors. It will contain advice for established authors, first-time authors, and those toying with the idea of writing a book

Blogging Through Bonhoeffer: Part II
Posted on 03/01/2011 by frankaviola 11

Last week I promised I’d begin blogging through Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s major works. I won’t do it every day, as we’ll need a break for lighter subjects. But I’ll resume until finished.
I will refer to Bonhoeffer henceforth as DB.
Some of DB’s works are highly academic. Others are prophetic, written in the context of Nazi Germany.
His academic works are dense and presuppose a fair knowledge of theology, philosophy, and history.
I began this series by starting with DB’s biography, which was the subject of my first post.
The rest of the series is based on the brand new, unabridged translations of his written legacy published in Dietrick Bonhoeffer Works (16 volumes when completed) by Fortress Press.
Let’s explore the first volume today: Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 1)
This was DB’s doctoral dissertation. It is an academic work. It’s considered brilliant and ground-breaking. Years after it was published, Karl Barth called it “a theological miracle.” This work informed all of DB’s work to come. So it was foundational to his life and message.
The explicit goal is to relate sociology with ecclesiology in the description of the Church. DB differentiated his theology both from the Liberalism of his German professors and the new and growing current of Barthian theology (a la, Karl Barth’s view of the Church).
While DB sided with Barth on some of the issues, he differed with him on others.
Ernst Troeltsch exemplified the Liberal approach when he described the Church entirely in terms of secular sociology. Troeltsch was contradicted by Karl Barth, who saw the Church entirely in terms of the response of individuals to God’s act of self-revelation in Christ.
Liberalism fails to maintain the truth of the extraordinary reality that makes the Church what God created her to be in reality. Liberalism reduces the Church to the level of a human religious fellowship. The Church as a spiritual reality is lost.
Barthianism fails also because it reduces the Church to an event that blinks in and out of existence depending on the event of revelation. The Church as a stable, practical reality is also lost.
DB avoids both Liberalism and Barthianism by describing the Church as “Christ existing as community.” And this is the view upheld by Scripture. (See From Eternity to Here for an analysis traced throughout the Biblical narrative.)
It is in the matrix of Christ as community that we become true human beings. We are joined together in the forgiveness of sins. We are gathererd together by the love of God for us and through us in Christ. We are part of Christ together as community under His lordship.
The continuation of the reality of divine revelation is found not in doctrine as such or in pious sentiments. It is found in the reality of the Church. One could paraphrase Bonhoeffer by saying that the real exposition of divine revelation is the Church.
Since the heart of divine revelation is Christ, and Christ is not separate from His Church, this is scripturally true.
Therefore, the Church cannot be reduced to or explained as an empirical community (thus everything that calls itself “Church” isn’t necessarily so). Neither does it exist other than as an empirical community (so DB would reject the post-church paradigm).
On this basis Bonhoeffer constructs a theology centered on the convergence of Christology and ecclesiology.
What I find amazing is that at the same time that DB penned this insightful Christocentric work on the Church, Watchman Nee was writing along the same lines in China and T. Austin-Sparks was doing the same in England. While DB was a high-church Lutheran, his theology of the Church was fundamentally the same as theirs.
Here are some excerpts:
“Christ personifies the new humanity, and the Christian community is about the restoration and consummation of the created sociality of humanity.”
“Paul repeatedly identifies Christ and the church-community. Where the body of Christ is, there Christ truly is. Christ is in the church-community, as the church-community is in Christ. To be in Christ is synonymous with to be in the church-community.”
“The church is the presence of Christ the same way that Christ is the presence of God.”
“In and through Christ the church is established in reality. It is not as if Christ could be abstracted from the church; rather, it is none other than Christ who is the church.”
My favorite part by far is Chapter 5. For an academic book on the reality of Christ and the Church, this is a priceless work.

Blogging Through Bonhoeffer : Part Three
Act and Being, 1931. This is volume 2 of Deitrich Bonhoeffer Works.
It was a dissertation that qualified DB to become a faculty member of the School of theology at the University of Berlin. It’s a heavy theological work that draws on a good bit of philosophy. Not light reading at all. I’ll give a summary, then make some practical application.
DB begins by presenting a view of theologians as belonging to either one of two schools of thought. There are advocates of a theology of Act and advocates of a theology of Being. Theologies of Act stress discontinuity, dualism, the moment of revelation, and decision. Theologies of Being stress continuity, unity, tradition, and cognition.
Karl Barth is the quintessential theologian of Act. The influence of Immanuel Kant’s transcendental philosophy is evident in Barthian thought.
The theology of being stands for the continuity of God and Christianity. Some of these theologians see God’s availability to us in terms of true doctrine. Others in terms of inner experiences. Still others in terms of the institution of the structures of the Church or a verbally inerrant Bible. But all of these not only make God available, they make Him manipulatable. God loses His sovereign freedom in all three cases. He can be pinned down and domesticated by us.
We can avoid losing God in the unknowability of the transcendent or trying to capture Him in forms that make Him just another object to manipulate by returning to the reality of Christ existing as community.
As those who are recreated into Christian community, we participate in the continuity of revelation as the life of the Church. God’s self-presentation in the proclaimed Word make it necessary that we reflect on that Word so that we can faithfully proclaim it. This reflection is called theology. Because theology reflects on the Truth of God, it participates in that Truth. Yet because theology is not itself that Truth, it always has a fragmentary, fragile, and partial grasp of the Truth. And thus it is always open to criticism, correction, and improvement.
Revelation has its being in the Church. Both preaching and theology are for the Church and in the Church. Act and Being are united in the Church.
Like DB’s first work, Christ and the Church lay at the center of his theology and philosophical outlook: “Christ existing as community.”
In Jesus Manifesto, there’s a chapter on the kingdom of God that takes a fresh look at the justice vs. justification debate. Some of that chapter is taken from these two articles where I talk about how some Christians view the kingdom simply as Act. While others view it simply as Being. But it’s both.
Kingdom Confusion: I
Kingdom Confusion: II
Here I stand with DB. In the Church we find the unity of Act and Being. Christ is both Act and Being and so is His kingdom.
If you want a more detailed analysis of this work, click here
Note that DB’s prophetic books are much more accessible.

Blogging Through Bonhoeffer: Part IV
Posted on 03/11/2011 by frankaviola 1

Creation and Fall (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 3)
This is DB’s exposition of Genesis 1-3 delivered as lectures at the University of Berlin in 1932-1933. It’s a difficult read, yet many of the points are powerful.
This is from the Editor’s Introduction, which I found both fascinating as well as encouraging:
Despite the impact Bonhoeffer’s lectures had on his students, systematic theologians at the time ignored their publication, and most biblical scholars scorned Bonhoeffer’s Barthian method of “theological exegesis.” Nevertheless this indifferent and critical reception, Creation and Fall provided “a first small literary success for Bonhoeffer.” One of the book’s readers was Karl Barth; indeed it was the only work by Bonhoeffer on which Barth was to express an opinion during the author’s lifetime. Barth’s influence on Bonhoeffer is clear in Creation and Fall, and Barth found it congenial and helpful for his own work (pp. 5-6).
In Creation and Fall, DB tells us that Genesis lets us know that everything has been created by God and is preserved by Him. This means that there are no purely “secular” or “natural” realities out there. Everything constantly depends on God for its existence.
In the midst of our existence there are the two trees. We were created to live our lives on the basis of knowing everything only in God. There are not two possibilities offered to Adam to live by. There is only God and not the possibility of good versus the possibility of evil.
When Adam chooses to know good and evil, he chooses to understand his life in terms of the two possibilities that he bears in himself rather than in terms of God. This sort of goodness is as far from God as evil. It is only in Christ, through the forgiveness of sins, that we can be brought back to living our lives on the basis of the one Reality of God in Christ rather than in terms our human potential for good and evil.
I expand on this very issue in a more accessible way in the chapter I wrote on living by the Tree of Life in Jesus Manifesto. DB’s treatment is very dense and academic.
According to DB, Christians know the Truth in terms of knowing the end which has dawned in Christ. This means that the beginning cannot be understood apart from the end. And the end is Christ. We therefore must understand Genesis in terms of Jesus Christ. DB’s exegesis of this book is intensely Christological. Following Barth, he uses theological interpretation to grasp the Old Testament.
For DB, the Bible is the book of the Church, and the Old Testament is the book of Christ at all times. He is correct on both points. As the Editor’s Introduction states, “For Bonhoeffer, the Old Testament was certainly the Hebrew Bible, but it was also part of the Christian canon. Therefore it had to be read in light of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus Christ” (p. 9).
Here’s a choice passage from the book:
Therefore it [the Church] reads the whole of Holy Scripture as the book of the end, of the new [vom Neuen], of Christ. Where Holy Scripture, upon which the church of Christ stands, speaks of creation, of the beginning, what else can it say other than that it is only from Christ that we can know what the beginning is? The Bible is after all nothing other than the book of the church. It is it this in its very essence, or it is nothing . . . In the church, therefore, the story of creation must be read in a way that begins with Christ and only then moves on toward him as its goal; indeed one can read it as a book that moves toward Christ only when one knows that Christ is the beginning, the new, the end of our whole world. Theological exposition takes the Bible as the book of the church and interprets it as such (p. 22).

BBC Series Victorian Pharmacy : Managing Change

Victorian Pharmacy is a brand new, quality BBC Production which recreates the social history and environment surrounding pharmacies in the Victorian Era. It is one of those programmes that is pleasing on many levels at once. The presenters are animated and enthusiastic. The research is second to none, and consequently presenting how remedies were made and applied is both accurate and amusing. Camera work and lighting, as you see from the stills are immaculate. But even more is revealed as the pharmacy is put into its context of a unique society. The information and pictures here originate from Episode Two.




Victorian society is unique in this way. Perhaps it was the last truly "old-fashioned" society, based on customs and mores from time immemorial, while the new scientific thinking was just breaking through into people's consciousness. In other words, many stupendous discoveries were just starting to be made across all the disciplines of science, but they were as yet too new to have made too much of an impact. Yet from this time on, the empirical approach resulting from hard science would gain ground, and out of this the very way we live our lives, which really hadn't altered a great deal for centuries, would completely change.
So studying a pharmacy isn't quite the narrow study you would expect.

Here are some elements.

As new science emerged, a new understanding of our daily world emerged too. Ideas behind health and healing would changeand consequently medicines would change.




The secondary element covered by the programme was traditional and the placebo effect. Traditional medicine did not disappear and still hasn't. Some of the tried and trusted herbal remedies still exist for a reason. They work. Others continued to be used because they were traditionally thought to work. Some of these, which have no rhyme or reason to them whatever, continued to be used because of the placebo effect. They were confidently and authoritatively dispensed, so for that reason alone, and with no basis in scientific fact, the purchaser would confidently take them expecting to improve, and they did.

A third element had more to do with what was fashionable. In today's society firms have to be very careful how they word their sales pitch.But still today, as then, items were purchased simply because it was fashionable behaviour. "Because you're worth it!"

One of these customs surrounded the fashionable feminine behaviour of swooning. Who has noticed that ladies don't generally do this any more....unless extremely excited by the presence of pop stars.s!

The habit of swooning, feigning swooning or threatening to swoon was the socially acceptable and attractive( to males at any rate) way of demonstrating their position as the weaker, dependable sex.

The pictures show how pharmacists prepared smelling salts : white ammonia salts collected from stale pee and smelling of such, in a solution which was then soaked into a sponge, (in order that less was used,) topped up with something to disguise the bad smell, like essence of lavender. This was then sold with a high price tag.

I wonder if any regular blog readers have already caught where I am going with this. If I was part of the "Discernmentalist Mafia", I would be comparing swooning with Toronto Manifestations. And dubious clips do appear on Youtube. But there are also great clips, such as the one where a baby goes straight out in the Spirit. (How many mums and dads are thinking I'd like some of that at 3 am in the morning?" )

But no, this post is about managing change in the Church and although triggered by the analogous changes demonstrated in Victorian Pharmacy, it turned out more than usually prophetic of 3 occurrences last week. Firstly, a surprise initial visit to our house from our University friend Mike Terry who was at Exeter University with Christine and myself.
A former naval commander during Falklands, he has just passed a Theology degree, flabberghasted us all by marrying (even later than me) and both he and his wife,American Nicky Sue, run separate local Anglican churches. Bear in mind that as a piano tuner and salesman I either tune or have sold pianos to many ministers of all denominations in the area...so not a few acquaintances are familiar to both of us.

The second element was hearing a podcast (No.10)between Darin Hufford and Frank Viola,two names pretty synonymous with Emerging Christianity in the USA.

The third element was my first ever meeting after 11 years alongside Christine with Peter Stott, who is effectively the senior overseeing pastor of Havant Church. He kindly spent 3 hours of his time with us and some basis of relationship was taking place. These 3 occurrences are entirely relevant to the subject of Managing change in the Church worldwide.

So let's work out from the Victorian Pharmacy.

1. New science was emerging, so new treatments and more hygienic behaviours were appearing.



2. Traditional pharmacy was often slow to change even if, from a scientific point of view,it could be proved to be of no use at all.



3. The placebo effect was often king.




4. Some practices were not just pointless, but both the remedies and the "conditions" in the first place were totally spurious, only existing for another reason entirely : to drive an entirely manufactured form of social interaction. Fashion.

Every stage of corporate and individual Christianity has its wineskins. Its attendant structures.

Before Luther, Christianity had pretty nearly been reduced to the taking of Catholic Mass. The Eucharist. For a more in depth understanding read Frank Viola's "Pagan Christianity"

Luther restated that justification was by faith. Not works. And the ball began rolling again, as each subsequent generation started to get more revelation from the Heavenly Sanctuary, whose earthly 3D diagram was the Old Testament Tabernacle and Temple layouts. This is actually what happened, and things are an awfully lot simpler seen in hindsight. The Anabaptists discovered water Baptism, but also believed in the "washing of the Word". So, without going through everything on this post, but if putting our faith in the Christ on Calvary is the same as approaching the brazen altar of God's judgment, and baptism as a believer is represented by the laver, which also represents the cleansing operation of God's Word, His scriptures......then you can pursue all manner of movements since then, like Darbyism which represented meetings where believers gather round equally to share God's Word in the manner of the Table of Shewbread, and Quakerism followed by later pentecostalism, this sense of meeting in the Holy Place, where there is NO NATURAL LIGHT....no pure reliance on intellectual understanding, but reliance on a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

It cannot be emphasised enough how big a change has come on the worldwide church in the last 100 years through Pentecostalism. This is related also to the Holy Place.

Now each type of church usually begins in Pyramid format, with a leader and congregation, typically matures and then more and more people grow into leading roles. If a leader's vision is all about him being leader, splinter groups form underneath his cork in the bottle approach,and they then hive off with perhaps a greater revelation, to either begin the same pyramid cycle, or to learn to proliferate in a more generous and organic way.

So what happens in the Third Level? The level represented by the Holy of Holies?

Is this where we now are? Well, in the USA, it means walking out of what they call the IC (Institutional Church)and learning the whole Christian Life from scratch based on a completely new set of findings. This would be the angle of Darin Hufford and Frank Viola and many others in the Emerging Church USA.

Neither Mike Terry representing Anglicanism, nor Peter Stott representing quite a serious seeking of God -charismatic-independent church seem to have fully grasped the unusual nature of the hour.

Some of the American believers who have left IC, are still in seeking mode. Others have been in finding mode.

Through my own prayer of desperation between 1978-1987 I too was led into a completely new understanding of things, and the substance of it remains pretty intact today. See the bloglink to the 1989 message "Third Level Christianity". Events drove me out of a charismatic church to spending a whole 10 years or so outside church altogether and learning a bit about how this third level works.... or, maybe, as I have said before, to thoroughly ground me in the true 2nd level before launching into full-fledged intercessory operations. Norman Grubb calls these faith commissionings.

How do traditions change? 1st level churches had seminary trained pastors. They had national conferences around Bible speakers. These became much more colourful in the 2nd level with the ability to sing praise and worship with completely new songs, spontaneous flow, singing in tongues. Leadership became less reliant on seminary trained individuals.

3rd level stuff is even more loose, organic; based entirely around real heart relationships, not the professional ones that still existed sadly in the charismatic setups. It's more about transference of the Living Word, from out of someone's genuine life experience straight through to other people's spirits. Do we go to church? We are the Church. The Church is doing what we are doing.

How does worship work? Well it should be purer. But that's really the wrong question. Or it's a 2ndlevel question coming out of a 2ndlevel mindset.

The truth is this. The whole idea of 1st and 2nd level church is blown out of the water by 3rd level realities. It's like someone coming into the pharmacy asking for a cure for an atmosphere of bad miasma. Science had just shown that the whole "miasma" world view was complete and utter baloney.

The problem was bacteria and you needed to wash your hands, because they were transmitted through air, water and by skin contact.

Here's a typical internal shift in our new reality.

June Melanson posts this excellent quote from Martin Kronback on Facebook "NEED "MORE" OF GOD?" People are looking for "more of God" We got the ALL of God in Christ but it's a mystery. "We carry this treasure in earthen vessels"..."if the same Spirit that raised Christ that raised Jesus from the dead lives in you..." That's because you are already "United with Christ" 100%... if you are born again‎(Romans Chapter 6) Rest in the I GOT IT ALL ON THE CROSS . True Sanctification is a fruit of that rest. No glory to us, but to HIM BE ALL THE GLORY!
We recieved a perfect gift like a Pandoras box (but positive) we got the full gift once but... it opens up in new dimensions and this treasure unfolds itself in and through us. We need to rest in the gift of Salvation!!!!!!!!!!

I tried to clarify this further:

It's the unspoken side of "More of God" that's the problem.What on earth do you mean Chris?Well,included silently in the equation is you as an "independent being" leaning out over a clifftop reaching with flailing hands to try and include "more of God" into your "separation existence". And we get so annoyed when our prayers aren't answered.

It's a similar frustration to Joshua asking the strange looking man "Are you for us or against us" and getting the reply "No!"

You can hear Joshua going"What d'you mean no? That's not an answer!" Then the angel of the Lord effectively says "Because I am the Commander of this show...and you...fall into line!"

In similar vein God would also say to us "I'm not answering your" more of God" prayers", because firstly I am not going to add my glory to your delusion of separation and secondly,I already answered your prayer 2000 years ago and you've just not been listening. I killed your delusional "separation existence" at the Cross and both raised you up and REPLACED you with Me...so how am I gonna add more of Me to your old-fashioned now out of date delusion!!!! "

Mike Terry approached things from a very interesting angle. He said that a Messianic believer

had been talking about the Bible representing both the priestly and the prophetic.But here the meaning of priestly is as in Anglican priest incanting repeated formulaic phrases into which people meditated and prayed. So Genesis 1 was more in this style, whereas Genesis 2 and 3 were more questioning, more prophetic in nature, cutting to the heart of things. The prayer of Jabez is more of a formulaic prayer, as are many many of the shared Israeli prayers. Mike stated the example of Catholic Rosary prayers and the Anglican system of using set services which people knew by heart, and could settle into with the things that were on their heart that week.

The point of singing new songs and choruses repeatedly has the same kind of meditative intent.For me personally, the routine of piano tuning has a similar meditational function, so I cannot really argue too much.

Mike also made another oft repeated point. That church history is filled with schism and why should it be so?

I have thought about this seriously this week and sought to address both topics in a Facebook message to Mike, also including information about our meeting with Peter.
----------------------
Chris Welch 24 July at 16:48
There are certain structures and frameworks.Daily routine/structures of things to apportion responsibilities.The Bible calls these wineskins.The big one is Genesis 1.
No generation yet has learned how to hold the wineskins(the smaller ones)so lightly that the Holy Spirit only has to whisper and we change them.

In Genesis 3 the devil enticed us into a whole new existence where we live thinking we have a separate life from God and we make our own choices from a Tree of 2 extremes.Good and evil.

The opposite of the Tree of Life is not anarchy but order.Man is held in a form of check,a cage of the law of sin and death until they live from the Tree of Life.

Religion and politics are two fierce arms of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The pliable wineskin filled with new wine ends up shortly as the dry cage of religion's next generation.
The e-cclesia-Greek- is the called out community ...German root KIRCHE-KIRK-Church.

The church is always called out by the Tree of Life to extend the borders...to suffer outside the city and bear reproach there Hebrews13:13.

To date no generation has learned how to move with the cloud....and even those Israelites that did fell in the wilderness.
Individuals have.Derek Prince for one.So we know its possible.

Jesus said the Kingdom field would be a mess.Good seed and bad seed.All seed is known by its fruit.

He also said seed has to go into the ground and die.We as individuals do,but on a much bigger arc the Church has too.

Luther was used at the Church's lowest point to start the trek through the heavenly Tabernacle again.The OT was a poor picture version of the Eternal reality.

Luther put his flag in the soil
Reintroducing the New Covenant version of the Brazen altar.
Each move since has taken us progressively further.

No generation has studied how church works like this generation.Initially we youngsters "moved"out from where we were because we did not yet have the authority to speak into the previous move.
I personally am at a crossroads which is why your visit was so extraordinarily timed.
You see,in America,the new move which believes the things I put on that tape cassette in 1989 on the Third Level see my blog(obviously they never heard this tape but the Spirit has taught them)have all left their churches and are calling themselves "Free Believers".
I became established in these things spending 10 years outside a church1988/99....but I believe in the vision of the church local and international.So it was pretty significant meeting I just had on Friday with our senior leader in Havant.The question is...can this generation walk at home with God's fire...or does He again have too recruit elsewhere once more beginning a totally new wineskin from scratch.
Jesus said take out the old treasures as well as the new.
I think you would agree that the church take this to mean old treasures=traditions. I believe it means that which is of God that has been revealed. So for us, it is the scriptures, notable writings that are tested by tons of saints over time, and also every confirmed revelation that has come since Luther. Certainly many of the Anglican practices are not confirmed among the international body of believers. The same goes for the Catholic practices, from whom Anglicanism is largely derived.

During our time with Peter, Christine and I were able to share about the good and the bad of both our times in charismatic churches. We both lived through the strict shepherding periods which came as a result of Yonghi Cho's teaching,Juan Carlos Ortiz and the Fort Lauderdale men.Peter shared the angelic prophecy given in the 50s that a "false move" would arise in Fort Lauderdale.Norita Roberts shared that one with me, and it tore me in two at the time, because what had come through Ern Baxter both in the 1975 Kansas City Shepherd's Conference, and the subsequent Lakes,Capel and Harrogate Bible weeks were SO anointed that I defend them to this day. But now that I see the 3rd level clearer through Ed Miller's eyes, I can see that most of the leaders who shepherded us were 2nd level themselves.

You can read more about the distinctions here,

but without clear 3rd level dealings in your inward parts, you cannot help discipling people to you....and not to Jesus only. You also, like Jorge Pradas, will have this annoying habit of being chief apostle to a set of churches, when Jesus alone determines His own apostleship to a church, either directly by revelation,or choosing who He may from a whole raft of prepared 3rdlevellers.

At no point is an apostle in charge of a congregation. Neither is a pastor.Churches have many pastors.Jesus is the one maturing His church. ("You have not many fathers") But this is how it was in Jorge's framework, and how it was for Daniel Yordy in the Move under Sam Fife. Who knows, is that why Sam died early in a plane crash....because Jesus wanted His church back?

Ed Miller attacked this pedestal positioning of Jorge Pradas by Emsworth. People thought it was sour grapes, because Ed wanted that position. I actually think Ed had more understanding than that, because he always spoke of ministries as Taxi Drivers to the Throne of God.

To be fair on Mike Terry and Anglicanism, they also understand that ministers are not there to build people unto themselves. If bishops sense any leader doing this, they tend to get moved on in the system somewhere else. But the Anglican system actually favours the other extreme, not caring too hoots whether you are even born again. In fact in most Anglican Churches it is positively discouraged. So right there, you have the opposite extreme of cultish behaviour.

So, like the Pharmacy then, we could say that a certain amount of formalism allows for personal meditation, or we could also say it performs the function of a meaningless placibo that makes people feel better.

Please listen to the podcast of Frank Viola and Darin Hufford because it will introduce you to the hearts of these men. You will hear a more 3rd level approach when they are talking together.

They are not vying for limelight. They genuinely love, respect and honour each other's contributions and they both have one thing clear that is analogous to new science and the Victorian Pharmacy.

Both understand "Christ as us". Both talk about Jesus living our Christian life.

2ndlevellers talk about the Holy Spirit and them, or even Jesus in me. A few years ago the Elim movement ran a promotion in Britain called JIM....or Jesus in me. But the understanding is always God and a separate me with a bit of Jesus inside.

This non separate internal revelation of Christ in me the very hope of glory is what marks this new move out. Rather than even pick their way through the myriad complications of American Church life....they have upped and left.....to BECOME IT in their daily lives.

When the Catholic Church formed,(In my opinion, the Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.)

and their attempt at owning the previous history of the Church is downright dishonest, many left in droves for the wilderness. Without a clear "seeing" of what it means to live by the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, as a spiritual empowerment, the religious, or Tree of Good component is SO DANGEROUS, true believers can be forgiven for running for their lives....for the Devil has been a murderer from the beginning.....commencing with the spiritual death of Adam and all those still found in him, and continuing with the King of Glory Himself.

So right now at a personal level I want to open up to a community that God is forming in Havant.If there is any residue hurt that comes from my past that sullies any behaviour towards saints, then may it be flushed out.

But I can trust Jesus on this one, because He is my Life.

If on the other hand , there is a denial going on in Havant caused by them seeing more than God in themselves or other believers, and still a separation in their thinking,

and the same sort of expressions that Jesus lived with like "Who is trying to kill you?....you have paranoia...or they actually said "you have a spirit"

Well yes Jesus did have a Spirit....the Holy One. And He read the thoughts and intentions of people's hearts.....and they surely did kill Jesus.

So the big question is:

Am I moving from hurt?

Are they just in denial? And using this as an excuse not to hear the "New Science"

Or both.

Is Havant just enjoying old Pharmacy medicine a little too much? Not really realising there are no miasmas, only bacteria. That a lot of their problems stem from the old way of seeing, and now it is totally totally irrelevant in the New Light God is blazing from His throne.

In the following linked article I spell out more of the meaning that I felt was being typified by the Victorian Pharmacy.