Disobeying The Word of Ham

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up! See *3 in the text.

"This Christian Leader cannot be trusted"
....said Ken

You can be quite sure that Ken Ham, the fundamentalist "Answers in Genesis" theme park supremo, voted Trump in the 2024 US elections (See here). He also appears to have linked his interpretation of the Christian cause with the emerging far-right where, presumably, AiG's supporting and financing community lies. For example in one of his posts where he mentions the persecution of Christians he says:

Will persecution ramp up against Christians/conservatives?

Yes, it may be that persecution will increase, but who are these "conservatives" Ken mentions and why bundle them together with Christians? Can we talk about Christians/liberals? After all, in spite of vociferous tribal squabbling between Christians Christianity is a very broad church (unless one has a fundamentalist perspective), a church which actually includes people from both the "woke" and the "unwoke" tribes. God is good to quarrelling humankind.

I used to think of myself as a conservative; I still do in fact: I largely support capitalism (intelligently regulated), the democratic status quo, the academic & scientific establishment, and I'm a constitutional monarchist. But somehow I don't think I'm the sort of "conservative" our Ken has in mind! I wonder if he would equate my criticisms of his kind of conservative with "persecution"?

Among the "conservatives" Ken alludes to I have an inkling one can find some or all of the following sentiments.... 

1. Aspirations to destroy our argumentative & complex democratic administration on the basis of conspiracy theories about a "deep state". 

2. A highly ideological form of economic libertarianism...such would likely create a political vacuum giving opportunity to plutocratic authoritarians who would enforce their libertarian ideology, thus bringing in draconian regulation by the backdoor. 

3. Seeking to protect cultural Christianity with nationalistic concepts & boundaries.

4. Telling us to shelve the concept of "empathy" because it's too "woke" or "new-age" (See here)

5. Sympathies with the social and market Darwinism of Ayan Rand (*4).

6. There is nothing wrong with raising a question or two over climate science, but many of those "conservatives" are declaring "climate alarmism" as a hoax, a leftist conspiracy, perhaps promoted by China. The result: Climate complacency. 

7. Widespread support for Donald Trump, a pathological liar who appears to have a personality disorder.

There are inconsistencies in this list but in our passionate and polarized culture-war blatant internal contradictions are easily overlooked (*1). Moreover, the far-right are so far-right, that a conservative like myself looks like a "radical woke leftist". But of course Ken isn't thinking of my kind of conservative. In using the term "conservative" Ken is sending out a virtue signal to his constituency - namely, to the far-right Christians who think of  their Trump supporting culture as the only true "conservativism" (and. perhaps, a corollate of the only true, or at least the best form of Christianity); consider for example those otherwise conservative Republicans who oppose Trumpism and who are categorized by the radical-right as "Rinos". ("Republican in name only").

Such are the people who finance Ken's business interests and he can not afford to alienate them because those business interests depend on them (*2). Moreover, it is in the interests of Ken's business to bring to bear the most spiritually intimidating language when he calls down hell and hamnation on influential Christians who hold views which contradict Ken's young earth literalism, a literalism which is the foundational rationale for the Answers in Genesis organization. For just how spiritually bullying he can get even with very devout Christians see here for example; but I'm also going to comment on a recent post by Ken where he bad-mouths Hugh Ross, an influential Christian who believes in an old Earth, and tells us that Ross "cannot be trusted"; once again testament as to just how extreme Ken's language gets even toward devout and very committed Christians. But then this is just what is meant when somebody earns the label "fundamentalist". 

***

Hugh Ross, leader of the old Earth Reasons to Believe ministry promotes the idea that the Bible and Creation are two books of Revelation. Ken is really riled by Hugh's old Earth views as he is any other influential Christians who hold views contrary to the rationale behind his theme park. I would go along with Hugh's old earth views but I don't accept the two books notion myself. That's because no book written in natural language can be read in a cultural vacuum; the interpretation of natural language necessarily employs huge resources from the rest of the created context; from the cognitive, through the cultural to the historical. Thus, in my view the Bible is organically joined to the rest of creation thus forming an integrated body of Revelation; a medium through which signals from the Divine mind are transmitted. But all that's by the by. What I want to do now is critique a paragraph from an article by Ken where he made his accusation that fellow Christian Hugh Ross is untrustworthy.

***

In a blog post titled "Did God give us two books?" Ken asks "Is nature really the 67th book of the Bible?". Ken does not think so because...

SAYS KEN: Nature is cursed. We aren’t looking at the world as God made it. According to biblical history, we’re looking at a creation that was once “very good” but is now cursed with death and suffering (because of sin) and was judged by a global flood. We can’t look at this creation and figure out what happened in the past without the eyewitness revelation of the Creator (given in Genesis 1–11).

MY COMMENT:  Strictly, the Genesis 3:17ff doesn't say nature is cursed, it says the ground and man's working of it is cursed. That's not necessarily the same as saying the whole Earth or the whole Universe is cursed: The ground and man's working of it is the agricultural foundation of all human production and civilization. From Genesis 3:17ff the most we can say is that human production is cursed whether through human sin or through direct Divine declaration. Fundamentalists like Ken also tend to miss that the serpent of  Gen 3:1 suggests that a created but fallen being existed before the fall of man (*3). So humanity did not find itself in a perfect creation before the human fall. 

Romans 8:20ff, which tells us we are in a less than perfect world is ambiguous; it is ambiguous about the cause of this lack of perfection. Is 8:20 referring to God, Satan or man? But Ken doesn't like ambiguity; being a true fundamentalist and young earth literalist Ken bills himself as being blessed with utter certainty. It is this arrogant habit of mind which he believes entitles him to blowhard hard on what he considers to be heretics. 

But whatever! Imperfect though it may be there is so much about the creation which is still very good although man's relationships revolving around the means of production are certainly hindered by the curse of sin. 

Ken's intent, if I'm reading him correctly is that he's trying to undermine Hugh Ross' 67th book thesis by suggesting that the information delivered to us via creation and which informs about deep-time is Hamstrung by the curse. Well, firstly, as I've said, this doesn't follow from the theology of the Genesis fall of man which is not about the creation in toto. Secondly, I myself have no use for the 67th book thesis; that's not how the Bible works; my view is that the Bible and the rest of creation form an organically unified body of revelation via the equation Meaning = Text + Context (where the resources of Context facilitate interpretation). Thirdly, it doesn't follow that because of human sin light signals and many other signals mediated via creation don't testify to long ages. The creation still yields truthful information about its age and this is not Hamstrung by the fall; after all, the messages of creation are likely to mirror God's integrity. 

One other criticism I would like to make of Ken's paragraph above is that it is misleading to say that God was an "eyewitness" to creation because He doesn't have eyes - that is an anthropomorphism. Very likely we perceive creation in a very different way to how God sees it. 

Hence, in conclusion, using Ken's own words found in his post as a template, I think we can say....

Rather than accepting Ken's authoritarian annunciations about the past and forcing them into Scripture, we must always start with Scripture first and allow God’s Word to be our authority.

Footnotes

*1. But see this article on Science & Culture which does identify a right-wing split. 

*2. See for example a post by Ken titled "The most important part of a church service" dated 20th Feb. As usual he complains about the "compromised" church as it attacks Ken's interpretation of Genesis with "the lies of evolution/millions of years".  Towards the end of the post Ken then stresses the need for the financial support of his organization (The emphasis is Ken's): 

"Your prayers and financial support are vital to helping us boldly continue the ministry that the Lord has called us to do — would you prayerfully consider sending a generous gift today at AnswersDonate.com? Your donation of any size will be a great blessing to AiG. 

Thank you for being part of our Answers in Genesis family and supporting us prayerfully and financially. Please know that support is an investment in eternity as we reach as many as we can with the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel.

 I wonder if AiG is a bit strapped for cash at the moment?

*3. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I notice that Ken published a blog post on the 24th February entitled "When in the Biblical Timeline did Satan fall?". He's playing catch up!

*4. See for example Darren Beatie who looks to be a social Darwinist. This is the kind of person Ken has helped put in power.

Prophet Micheal Brown continues to dodge the plot

 

Although Micheal brown (left) has come out against Trump's
 prophets (middle and right) Brown's prophetic constituency
 is far too Trump oriented for him to dare alienating them.
He's another casualty of Trumpite popularist pressure. 

 

In this post I'll be commenting on Line-Of-Fire prophet Micheal Brown and what he has written here:

Why My Focus is Not on Donald Trump | Articles | The Line of Fire | Your voice for Moral Sanity and Spiritual Clarity | The Line of Fire   

More of my comments on this prophet can be found using this link:

Views, News and Pews: Micheal Brown and the Elephant in the Room (viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com)

***

Democratic politics has emerged over the course of hundreds of years. Implicitly built into its systems is the understanding that human beings face challenges in coming together as a successful cooperative society; there are fundamental barriers to human harmony and agreement.  These barriers exist largely because human beings are both morally and epistemically challenged: In a world full of zero-sum games humans are apt to put self-interest first and this tendency is exacerbated by the epistemic difficulties in accessing truth. When democratic constitutional arbitration cannot be found societies are liable to gravitate toward authoritarianism as the power hungry, the most influential and above all those who foolishly believe they are virtuous impose their will by duress, threat & coercion. Democracy seeks to help counter the huge gravitational pull of authoritarianism by a system of arbitration where it is hoped that all will agree to work through these systems of arbitration. Underlying democracy is the subliminal assumption of human moral and epistemic fallibility and therefore it follows that public disagreement, mutual criticism and hopefully self-criticism are to be expected as part of the cut and thrust of government. The resolution of these inevitable contentions is the job of the agreed democratic constitution, procedures & law, on which it is hoped all will agree, but if not will seek reform via consensual channels. 

If human beings can't agree on a system of arbitration, then democracy breaks down. This breakdown may start with Marxist or Fascist influencers & agitators, during times of social and political trauma, throwing doubt on whether a democratic system is really in the best interests of the popular will. From the Marxist and Fascist perspective, the system is far too corrupt for reform and therefore the underlying Marxist & Fascist goal is the complete overthrow of the institutions of the Democratic status quo in favour of their proprietary and radical vision of government (which, I submit, is likely to be an effective dictatorship). As I have tendered more than once on this blog it seems that we have a substantial threat to democracy in the US in the form of the Godfather politics of Donald Trump and the far-right in general. Since Trump has appeared on the scene demonisation of the opposition and coercive threats have become the norm. He has made threats toward those in those in the legal system who do not decide in his favour and some of the Trump supporting AR15 armed militias have threatened gun violence if Trump isn't elected. Naturally enough once this kind of wagon gets rolling the Trump opposition are liable to respond in kind, resulting in a vicious circle. The situation has become polarised to the extent that trust in US democracy is at a low ebb, and it is therefore under threat. 

When Trump legally became president in 2016 I looked askance at this brash and rude unconventional candidate; I certainly wouldn't have voted for himself myself, but I didn't think US democracy was threatened. But there were some warning signs even then: In the face of evidence to the contrary Trump denied that Hilary Clinton got the popular vote and he also denied that his inauguration ceremony was poorly attended. Was this evidence of his need to feed his ego? It soon became apparent that this man was an out and out liar and a propagator of blame and conspiracy theories as he sought to demonize the classes of people who opposed him; even those in his own party. He was a narcissist, possibly a sociopath who loved power and saw the world as containing only two types of people; namely, those for him and those against him. Whether or not they were Republicans, whether or not they held liberal or conservative values was irrelevant: What simply mattered to him is this: Are they loyal Trumpites? 

Although evangelical prophet Micheal Brown wrote articles which provide evidence for the very view of Trump I have sketched out above he has recently written an article where once again he has failed to acknowledge that the big issue is NOT the political tug of war between liberals and conservatives carried out within a democratic system which seeks to reform itself;  rather it is the self-interested up-and-coming far-right Trumpite demagogues such as the shrewd Steve Bannon and cranks like Alex Jones, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Trey Smith all of whom are seeking to overthrow the system regardless of whether the American government is in the hands of reasonable conservatives or reasonable liberals; the latter are liable to be labeled as far too "Woke" or even "radical leftists". Trumpites will of course deny they are trying to overthrow democracy, blaming the other side for the socialist nazification of society; but then that sounds like the sort of line we hear from a certain Vladamir Putin, the modern Czar of Russia.

Below I'll go through Micheal's article which is typical of his prevaricating stance. 

***

MICHEAL: This article is not intended to influence how you vote on Tuesday, November 5, nor is it intended to influence how you view former president Donald Trump. Instead, it is to help you keep a godly, faith-filled, and sane perspective in the months leading up to Election Day, since things could get pretty crazy before then.

MY COMMENT: In short Michael is washing his hands of the Trump/fascist question. He affects to see no connection between challenging Trump's Godfather politics and being sane, godly and faith-filled. "Not intended to influence how you vote"? What's voting got to do with it if Trumpites deny the validity of any election in which Trump loses?

***

MICHEAL: During his presidency, Trump was sometimes called the “great disrupter” (or, “disruptor.”) If things got dull, even for a moment, he was sure to stir them up. As stated in an October 2018 article on The Hill by Thomas Hicks Jr. and Curtis Ellis, “President Trump — the Great Disruptor who is challenging the premises and practices that all the Serious People tell us are immutable — is disrupting business-as-usual in Washington, New York, Geneva, Brussels and Beijing.” For his supporters, this was great news. For his detractors, it was a disaster. Either way, the Trump presidency was anything but a time of peace and calm, a maintaining of the status quo. That’s why Trump was also likened to a whirlwind, generating headlines like this one, posted on Yahoo News in May 2017: “To Evangelicals, Trump is The Whirlwind. And they’re fine with that.”

MY COMMENT: Micheal is clearly aware that something has changed fundamentally in American politics and that this change has come about since Trump appeared on the scene; that I would certainly agree with! Without doubt Trump is a disruptor and challenges the premises and practices of the political status quo: In fact, he considers its institutions to be the swamp that he once vowed to drain. But let's not glorify Trump as a radical; he doesn't sound like a reformer but more like someone seeking to overthrow the status quo that he loudly claims to be corrupt. So, what do we conclude? That Trump is right and that the American system is a corrupt conspiracy and Trump is its savoir? But then in that case why should Trump be regarded himself as anything other than an aspect of that corruption and conspiracy? 

A democratic system is a system which changes by review, open criticism and incremental reform carried out through recognized channels and not by revolution. So, either the American system is after all an autocracy of hidden conspirators and deserves a Trump revolution or Trump is out to overthrow what is actually a democracy and replace it with authoritarian Godfather politics. I think the latter is most likely. As Trump's son said, the Republican party is now "The Trump Party", so is the USA's next step for it to become "The Trump Country"? Is that what the disruption is all about?

***

MICHEAL: Opinions about Trump became so polarized that I wrote an article in October 2018 titled, “Donald Trump is Not the Christ and Donald Trump is Not the Antichrist.”. I was reminded of this when a colleague sent me a 2023 YouTube video claiming to present, “15 Bible Verses That Identify Donald J. Trump as the Antichrist.” At present, the video has more than 533,000 views.This stands in stark contrast to the 2022 book President Donald J. Trump, The Son of Man - The Christ.

And those who are undecided, there is also the 2023 book Donald Trump Servant of Jesus Christ or...of satan?: Have we been deceived? Judge for yourself!

MY COMMENT: Trump "Not the Christ and Not the Antichrist"? You're using a strawman argument Micheal!  My theory is that Trump is a potential up-and-coming common-or-garden self-glorifying dictator.  In dabbling in hyperbolic theological strawmen, Micheal has become distracted and fails to draw the conclusion that the highly polarized reaction which has attached itself to Trump in particular is evidence of a political system which has taken a dysfunctional turn. This is not American politics as it used to be. Demonisation of the opposition and legal threats and even threats of violent coercion is the new normal. But let's be clear, this started with Donald Trump as a reaction to his conspiracy theories, his unprecedented attacks on electoral procedures, the media and any judges or persons who return decisions he doesn't like.  But Micheal isn't going to take sides: He is washing his hands of judgement, as if all sides are bad as one another and therefore he need not comment. He refuses to see the cuckoo which has made its home in the USA's political nest.

***

MICHEAL:  Added to this are the threats from some Democratic leaders “that they might not certify the 2024 presidential election results if former President Donald Trump wins,” and it is easy to see how chaos could erupt at any moment. This means that the next 8 months (and perhaps those immediately following too) will be marked by election fever on steroids. “If Trump wins the election,” one side warns us sternly, “there will be a civil war.” “If Trump loses the election,” the other side counters forcefully, “there will be a civil war.” Either way, according to some, here comes a civil war. Then there are the concerns about the health and mental acuity of both likely candidates, President Biden and Donald Trump, along with declared and potential third-party candidates, not to mention other, potential legal battles the two principal candidates will face.

MY COMMENT: Like I've already said, at least some of those opposing Trump are reacting in kind and the polarization is now a self-reinforcing feedback system.  But notice how Michael has dwelt on this anti-Trump reaction more than her has the response of Trump supporters.....He wants to keep his Trump supporter base sweet! And again, Micheal is making it sound as if the problem is equally on both sides of the political divide and he is therefore failing to do justice to the fundamental asymmetry here: For on Micheal's own admission Trump is the new radical dimension in the recent turn American politics has taken; Viz: Trump, the great whirlwind who is challenging the premises and practices that all the Serious People tell us are immutable — is disrupting business-as-usual. Too right! If someone comes on the scene saying that those populating the institutions of society, political, media, judiciary, military, administration, and high-tech industry etc. are "woke leftist" operators helping to destroy America it is clear that this is no business-as-usual election but an attempt to bring on a revolution of some kind (Ironically Marxists will also claim our institutions are corrupted, but in their case, they will claim that this corruption is caused by the vested interests of the owning classes). And yet here it suits Micheal's purposes to paint a picture of symmetry between Democrats and the "Trump party". This is his excuse to ignore the elephant in the room.

 ***

MICHEAL: The media will have a field day with this, as will social media influencers weighing in with the latest click bait video. Here comes wall-to-wall madness. Here comes turmoil by the hour. Here comes non-stop agitation. And I have not mentioned the endless polling, often designed to influence as much as inform – if not simply to inflame.  That’s why neither Donald Trump nor the elections are going to be my primary focus in the months ahead.That’s why, by God’s grace, I’m not going to allow anything outside of me to steal my peace or take my eyes off the Lord or get me off my mission......And unless we are called to political action, to getting out the vote or campaigning or fundraising or educating, we do best to focus our attention on things that build us up spiritually, strengthen us emotionally, and fortify us morally. We can pray for justice in the courts and a fair and free election. .....we do best to focus on ways to unite us around Jesus rather than divide us over a candidate.

MY COMMENT: I don't think in this case we can afford to ignore the media as if the "Trump party" controversy is just another over hyped storm in a teacup that will generate plenty of web-clicks. To hint that what Micheal calls wall-to-wall madness may be all just a media jamboree is unfair, and of course plays into the hands of the "Trump Party" who accuse the media of being "woke" and/or "corrupt" when it doesn't come out on their side (The "Trump Party" show signs that they may well be seeking to by-pass and/or control the media). Many in the media express my own concerns about the direction the so called "disrupting whirlwind" is taking us. Many media pundits are far more serious writers than just click baiters and should not all be written off so glibly - although that write-off no doubt pleases Micheal's Trump supporter base. I'm sure the "Trump Party" would thank Micheal for his unbalanced depiction of the media. 

Let us recall again that Micheal's supporting constituency will consist of large numbers of Trumpites who he can't afford to alienate. Instead, as we've seen above, he has described Trump in terms that glorify him as a heroic disruptor and whirlwind, questioning the very assumptions of Western democracy. In this sense Michael has effectively help support Trump in his mission to Trumpify the US just as he has Trumpified the Republican party. In this connection I see no radically different departure from a good fashioned authoritarian and would-be dictator making a classic grab for power via blame, conspiracy theories, demonisation and telling supporters what they what want to hear.  The Bible warns us against populist movements that seek a dictator to rule them (See 1 Samuel 8: 7-18). The 2024 election will not be a case of voting in a Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan, a Bill Clinton, a George Bush or, and I wish to God it was, a Mike Pence or a Nikki Haley.  The US isn't being presented with a straight a choice between Republicanism or The Democrats, a choice between conservatism and liberalism. Rather it's a choice between the freedoms of democracy and the style-over-content of a would-be-King Saul and his Godfather administration. Moreover, Trump is exploiting and corrupting Christianity at the same time. For example, he has clearly dumbed down Dr. Brown's own ministry almost making it another casualty of his campaign to be ruling dictator. One of Trump's worst acts is his attempt to enlist Christianity for his cause; the same sin as that of Russia's modern Czar, Vladimir Putin. 

***

In the above quote we hear that Micheal, for good reason, isn't going to make either Trump or the 2024 elections his primary focus. I agree, there is no reason for him to take the focus off his ministry in favour of polarised US politics. But what he has failed to do is condemn the would-be Godfather of America, Donald J. Trump and his sycophantic followers; instead, Michael's words, if anything, have glorified this man perhaps with a cynical eye on his need to keep Trump supporters on board with his ministry. He has abdicated his duty with the excuses of an affected stance of impartiality and of being lost in the pious reverie of his holy Christian work. 

INTERESTING LINKS

1. Social Causes of US Trump Popularism?

Book Review: Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild | LSE Review of Books

2. Some more material from Doc Brown

The Programming of AI and the Indoctrinating of Our Children | Articles | The Line of Fire | Your voice for Moral Sanity and Spiritual Clarity | The Line of Fire

Enough Already with the Trump Prophecies! | Articles | The Line of Fire | Your voice for Moral Sanity and Spiritual Clarity | The Line of Fire

But see here....

We ‘messed up’ with black Nazi blunder, Google co-founder admits (msn.com)

3. Worth looking into:

Donald Trump 'trying to instill culture of violence, lawlessness and mob rule' to reclaim White House (msn.com)

4. Far-right Christian nationalism is undermining democracy as well as Christianity itself.

‘Demolishing democracy’: how much danger does Christian nationalism pose? (msn.com)

5. I'm on Rees-Mogg's side here and that's saying something!

‘Unacceptable harassment’ of Rees-Mogg criticised after protesters hound the MP (msn.com)

Why? Because it's random!

If you live near this god-father figure your circumstances 
may be "revised" if you  fall out with him

My "Agent-Y" recently remarked that she is always asking the question "Why?" (Hence the "Y"!) regarding the human politico-societal scene especially in view of the recent upheavals: Viz: "Renewed nuclear threat, soaring costs and surveillance closing in on us". The reference to "surveillance" actually hints at Agent-Y's interest in conspiracy theorism. For the conspiracy theorist the hidden "Big Brother" is always lurking in the background, quietly watching us and manipulating us. On the contrary, my thesis is that "Big Brothers" are never hidden;  their potentially threatening very manifest presence is the back-stop tool of the dictatorship trade. It is that forbidding presence which is the fallback when charm, disinformation and secrecy fails. "Putin-the-Terrible" is a case in point: We all know what happens if you are in the sphere of influence of this protection racketeer and you either displease him or fall out with him. Interestingly, according to Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch the word we translate as "Terrible" in "Ivan the Terrible" has more the connotation of "Awesome" in the Russian Language. In Russia there lurks the notion that "might is right" (As, in fact, it lurks everywhere else).

Anyway, regarding the answer to the question "Why?", this is more or less how I responded to Agent-Y:

"Why?" you ask! Therein lies the rub. In a world where humanity has partially failed in its mission to subdue the chaos of the Biblical "abyssal deep", the very problem with chaos is that it is so meaningless that there is no answer to the question "Why?"; in the limit it's just randomness and it admits no other answer.  

Take the Putin crisis: It's the meaningless confluence of chance factors: Viz: Christian Orthodox history rooted in the Byzantium vs Rome fault-line, historical Russian alienation from and enmity with the West*, a guy who only understands dictatorship as a form of government, a guy who only has a few years left to him & is having an existential crisis & has converted to an authoritarian version of orthodoxy, and finally a guy who is an ultra conservative & believes the liberal progressivism of the West is evil. Ironically it might have been better if he didn't have such a rubbish army of undermotivated conscripts which is thwarting him in his military aims and makes him dangerous.  He's painted himself into a corner and is left with only the nuclear option.

So it's the chaotic, meaningless business as usual in the vicissitudes of planet earth. No neat conspiracy theory to tie up all those random loose ends and make it comprehensible. The only way to make it meaningful and comprehensible is to deal with sin and bring order to the battlefield of Kaoskampf. 

In this context I will reference here the introduction and epilogue of my book on Disorder and Randomness where I mention the Sherlock Holmes story The Cardboard Box.  

As I've noted before, some in America's far-right have sympathies with Putin's nationalistic & conservative stance; they see Putin's Russia as a bastion of traditional values. But for me both the far-left and the far-right are seriously flawed. The respective left-right extremes of progressivism vs. conservatism and collectivism vs. individualism are both seductive and beguiling roads to dictatorships, as the evidence of history suggests (Relevant link).

Footnote:

* The Latin and Germanic West has its fair share of the blame: Let's recall the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Western Crusader's.  I do think the West needs to revisit it's history with Orthodoxy and Russia in a spirit of humility and reconciliation. Putin is an end product of grievance, grudge and distrust.  But needless to say Orthodoxy has it's own problem with fundamentalists. 

NOTES

This link to a BBC article by Steve Rosenberg is interesting:  

Retired colonel speaks out on Russian TV - BBC News.

Hopefully at last we are hearing some realism &  sense from Moscow state TV! At least it's a straw we can clutch at. 

Victory to Ukraine!

Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!

 

Ham's Heretics: Wright and Collins!

The above is an online duet by famous Christian scholars Tom Wright (Theologian) and Francis Collins (Scientist). It is titled "Genesis" and Wright and Collins use it to affirm their belief in both Genesis and evolution. I have to confess I haven't listened to the song just in case I find it overwhelmingly cringe-worthy. In any case as the specialism of this blog is really all about a miscellany of fire and brimstone fundamentalists, sectarians, cultists and the religious lunatic fringe etc, the devout, thoughtful, scholarly and mild mannered Wright and Collins hardly fit into these categories! In fact although I don't necessarily agree with their position on evolution my perception is that the following inscription found in St Stephen's church in Norwich, describes them well; and that's saying something; fame, admiration and status can be difficult to handle;

A scholar without pride, a Christian without bigotry and devout without ostentation

Neither will I be commenting on evolution or whether it is possible to reconcile evolution and Genesis. Instead, much more in line with this blog's interest in catching strange fish is the highly partisan and holy-than-thou fulminations of the kind we find in the all too typical outburst of Ken "Hell & Hamnation" Ham who screams down divine wrath on Wright and Collins*. One can well feel the spirit of the inquisition at work in Ham's response as he slanders W & C by stuffing words of blasphemy into the mouths and minds of all those he accuses.  As per below I've used bold type to emphasise Ham's baseless, fallacious and extreme spiritual incriminations:

HAMNATION: BioLogos (the leading “evolutionary creation” group) recently released a video titled “Genesis” that says, “Oh, I believe in Genesis,” while they demonstrate that they don’t actually believe in Genesis.   ...........  Genesis and evolution simply don’t go together—the biblical account of creation (which isn’t just taught in Genesis—it’s confirmed throughout Scripture) and the naturalistic explanation for the existence of earth, life, and the universe are utterly opposed to one another.

MY COMMENT: Ham should really have put it like this They demonstrate that they don't believe in my interpretation of Genesis. In my opinion Genesis and evolution cannot be put together. But qualified and measured statements like that don't make for the convinced sensationalist sales talk needed by a  fundamentalist theme park manager who must make a show of hard selling his line of thought. Also, as I have said on many occasions "evolution", as currently understood, is hardly "naturalistic" (what ever "naturalistic" means) in that it demands very unusual up-front physical constraints to work. In fact under no circumstances can a logically contingent world such as ours ever be "natural";  God, having the property of Aseity, is the only entity that is "natural". 

HAMNATION: So if someone says they “believe in Genesis,” but they also believe in evolution, then they don’t really believe in Genesis. They’ve taken man’s ideas from outside Scripture and added them into the Bible. Millions of years and evolution don’t come from the Bible—they come from the mind of fallen man, and N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, and others are using those ideas to interpret Scripture. Really, they’re setting themselves up as the authority over God and his Word, and they are a blight on the church.

MY COMMENT: Once again a narrow minded and sales-talking theme park supremo isn't going to get involved with measured subtleties like meaning = text + context, an equation which implies that the Bible can never be absolutely self-interpreting. It is the knowledge base we bring to the Bible which brings it alive, either rightly or wrongly (hopefully the former). But of course Ham is spiritually conceited enough to think he's got a direct line to God absolving him of any epistemic responsibility for its interpretation. It is Ham who is setting himself up as an authority over God and his word.

HAMNATION: It would appear that by singing “DNA, shaping creatures from the dust and clay” that DNA — not God — is doing the work of creation. This would be consistent with an evolutionary worldview in which DNA (the molecule of heredity) is supposedly responsible for all the life we have today. This idea is, quite frankly, blasphemous. It steals the glory that belongs to God—and God alone—for what he has created. DNA didn’t create creatures. God created DNA (an incredibly complex information system) when he created life.

To say that God used evolution to create and then to sing this line is incredibly inconsistent . . . and hypocritical. An all-wise Creator doesn’t use the inept, bumbling process of trial-and-error (and death, bloodshed, and disease) that is evolution to create. Instead, he speaks and it is so.

 MY COMMENT: Even if evolution as currently conceived is the explanation for natural history it is misleading to claim that DNA is responsible for all the life we have today: Instead we would have to trace the causes of evolution back to the physical regime that only omniscience could create knowing its likely outcome. So Ham is factually wrong here, although I can see why a dualist mindset like his will think in the dichotomised terms of "God did it" vs "Evolution did it" and then use that canard as the basis for accusations of heresy.  But although I can offer Ham some leeway here he's not got the kind of personality that is going to give allowance for the mitigating circumstances effecting those who disagree with him - rather Ham is going to charge them with heinous sins of hypocrisy and blasphemous and no appeal accepted. I have an inkling that  as Wright and Collins are both respected members of the secular academic establishment this has got something to do with Ham's outburst; the Christian evangelical Trump voting right-wing are very suspicious of "deep government" institutions in any guise, tax funded academia included. And let's not forget that Trump has fueled the fires of suspicion by making friendly noises toward Alex Jones and the QAnon conspiracy theorists. Trump, the would-be dictator, like Ham, has a need to discredit and bypass the institutions of society and appeal directly to his support base.

Although I have reservations about standard evolution myself, I wouldn't want anything to do with Ham's ignorant and mindless inquisitional style condemnation of Wright and Collins.

HAMNATION: And not how Wright and Collins mean when they sing “for he spoke and it was so”—they mean God spoke and over billions of years, natural processes, guided by God, bumbled about creating life on earth as millions of creatures that didn’t quite turn out died out, dying and suffering, killing and eating, paving the way for new, more advanced lifeforms to emerge. No, when the all-wise, all-powerful Creator speaks—it really is so, just as it says in Genesis.

MY COMMENT: Once again Ham is over stating the random "bumbling" element of evolution and wrongly thinking of it as a "natural process". In any case chaos, suffering, fall and evil predate man; that's what the appearance of the serpent in Genesis 3 teaches us.  

HAMNATION:  They sing that God is grace and love, but they are really attributing millions of years of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed to God. By saying God used evolution, they are really saying God—not our sin (which is what the Bible teaches)—is the author of death and the brokenness of creation. That’s not the loving and gracious God of the Bible! God sent his Son to pay for this brokenness and rescue us from the mess we caused because of our sin in Adam.

Genesis describes the paradise of Eden as the first home for humanity—before Adam and Eve’s sin broke creation. But in Wright and Collins’ view, Adam and Eve are standing on layers of sediment filled with fossils (the remains of dead things). This means, in the evolutionary view, they are standing on the evidence for millions of years of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed. How’s that for a “bliss” that we miss? What kind of paradise is that?

 MY COMMENT: As is common with some fundamentalists Ham neglects Satan's fall and the chaos beast - but actually in a sense so does the Bible but for the right reasons. Viz: That the central and primary message of the Bible is the plan of salvation for humanity and not Satan's fall; the latter is mere context even though it alludes to an important cosmic event; this event is not allowed to upstage the Glory of Christ which is the central message of the Bible (Phil 2:1-11). Moreover, like other toy-town fundamentalists Ham fundamentally understates the problem of suffering and evil by glibly (and wrongly) tracing too much back to the Adamic fall.  

Although Adam did screw things up big time for humanity, a claim to be the originator of the Serpent and cosmic chaos is too big a claim for (wo)man. 

 

HAMNATION: ....BioLogos and those affiliated with them are leading Christians into error. Wright and Collins need to repent of their compromise with the pagan religion of the day, repent of not believing God’s Word, and repent of encouraging others to compromise God’s Word. They may sing, “Oh, I believe in Genesis,” but what they really mean is, “Oh, I believe in man’s ideas about the past and have added them into Genesis.” They would do well to heed God’s Word, “let God be true but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4 NKJV).

MY FINAL COMMENT: Notice that Ham automatically gives no credence to the consciences of Wright and Collins or concede that in their own very scholarly minds they have satisfactorily reconciled evolution and Genesis; like other fundamentalists Ham assumes that Wright and Collins secretly understand the Bible in the way that Ham does but are knowingly suppressing it; fundamentalists (by definition) assume their interpretations are "plain" and beyond doubt. This is  the assumption made by all fundamentalists (by definition) that I have met from the Watchtower through the Children of God to Ken Ham.  Ham is effectively accusing Wright and Collins of wilful, knowing sin. Such is the wrath of a Trump voting right-winger who fears and looks askance at the academic establishment, especially if, like Wright and Collins, they claim God's salvation! 

Ham's word is not to be identified with God's word but simply the word of Ham. He's used Romans 3:4 in exactly the same way the Watchtower use it of those who contradict Watchtower teaching. In any case it's worth noting the parallels between AiG and the Watchtower. Ken Ham is a theological dunce who has failed to draw out the anti-pagan lessons of Genesis 1 and instead distorted it with his town-toy "anti-science" and a pagan dualist outlook. He should apologise to Wright and Collins for his baseless and fallacious accusations of heresy.  Unfortunately. however, I see in Ham the spirit of the inquisition, a spirit which follows rules and fails to take cognizance of consciousness. 

***

Postscript

In a recent bizarre web encounter I have had with a fundamentalist who is plumbing the depths of unreason I actually started to feel that relatively speaking Ken Ham is quite a reasonable bloke! That AiG in comparison can seem a moderate outfit goes to show how far some parts of evangelical Christianity (if it's fit to be called that) have gone down the road of utter intellectual debasement and lunacy. In fact so much so in this case that I found myself recommending an article on AiG to the fundamentalist concerned! But more about that weird encounter another time!

Relevant Links:

https://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2017/02/holy-bad-mouthing.html

https://answersingenesis.org/culture/believe-in-genesis-sing-two-scholars-who-dont-believe-in-genesis/

In the post below Ham attacks William Dembski and William Lane Craig, both of a mainstream evangelical persuasion. It's a sign of how Ham's theme park sales interests have pressured him into taking up an extreme position and is over-selling his fundamentalism.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/07/19/which-southern-baptist-professor-proposesteaches-this/

Viz: 

A significant portion of my presentation will center around the teachings of William Dembski and others (such as William Lane Craig associated with Talbot Theological Seminary and Biola University) who sadly contribute to the loss of biblical authority in church and culture.

Footnote:

* See here: 

https://answersingenesis.org/culture/believe-in-genesis-sing-two-scholars-who-dont-believe-in-genesis/

ADDENDUM 20/04/21

The FB post by Ken Ham below comes close to accusing Christians like N T Wright and Francis Collins of idolary. It further adds to Ken's cultic credentials. (Click to enlarge).

Prosperity Christianity Part V: Soft-cop theologian examines Bethel Biblically.

Mike Winger Soft Cops Bill Johnson. 

For the previous parts see:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2019/11/prosperity-christianity-part-1.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2019/12/prosperity-christianity-part-ii.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2020/01/prosperity-christianity-part-iii.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2020/03/prosperity-christianity-part-iv-and.html

The above video is an analysis of the Bethel movement by Mike Winger. He himself is a charismatic and is no enemy of Signs and Wonders per se. He's also generous toward Bethelism and doesn't deny that some of Bethel's teaching can inspire. I would call him a "soft-cop"; in fact some of the comments in the YouTube comments thread suggest he's too generous. But having listened to Winger I can only say that if Winger is a soft-cop then just how hard are those hard cops? I'll move onto a hard cop later on, but really who needs hard cops when we've got Mike Winger's devastating points of criticism! I would, nevertheless,  recommend Winger's video to anyone wanting to find out more about Bethelism. On second thoughts I think he's a "fair cop"!

Winger's Verdict

The following is my interpretation of some of Winger's salient points. This interpretation can be checked by looking at the video. [I have put my own additions in square brackets] 

Winger says he's watched 60hrs of Bethel video footage to come to his conclusions. He doesn't accept that they are a front for shadowy demonic influences and believes that Bill Johnson and his lieutenant Kris Valloton are Christians. He even accepts that real healings do come out of this movement. But he believes there is a lot of fake stuff coming out of it as well. He says that Bill Johnson's vision for Bethel is that of spear heading a world wide movement. Through what they claim to be an apostolic network they aim to bring revival to the world wide church after the image of their own concept of revival. Johnson believes this revival will come by proactively exporting their "Jesus culture". [It's true that the Bethel influence has popped up all over place!]

But Winger sees a mixed bag. He sees twisted theology, a theology which encourages its followers to be fake and to fake healings and prophecies. Johnson's followers call him an apostle although he never makes use of that title himself; but he doesn't stop his followers thinking of him as such.  [The "apostles" of the circa 1980s "Restoration" movement  adopted a very similar coy-strategy to their apostleship] 

Winger shows a clip where it appears that Johnson is saying that "teaching" has less to do with Biblical text than it does in having an apostle as a channel of teaching. He thus subtly shifts the disciples attention away from Scripture to the apostolic figure himself and his authoritative teaching. [Hence, the cut, thrust and ongoing contention of Biblically based argumentation is supplanted by the authoritative quietus imposed by the apostle, where the apostle is almost a kind of embodiment of the Word.... clearly a dangerous precedent given that only Christ himself has claim to the title of being the Word]

On healing Johnson becomes even more extreme: Using Galatians 1 & 2 he informs us that anyone who doesn't accept Johnson's claim that all must be healed is in effect teaching a different gospel! Johnson talks about Jesus being "perfect theology" which for him means we simply must follow Jesus' practices and in a literal sense do as Jesus did: To this end Johnson resolves the resultant contradictions with scripture by constructing a doctrine of "Truth priorities": For Johnson some things in scripture are true but other things are "truer". His lesser truth category means that Johnson can ignore or override, for example, the tribulations of Job in favour of his "Jesus is perfect theology" prosperity Gospel. [Johnson neglects the fact it is still our responsibility to interpret the meaning of Christ's life and therefore we can make no claim to having in our hands "perfect theology" when we study and follow Christ]

To further justify Bethel's prosperity teaching Johnson uses the argument that "God can't give what he doesn't have". Therefore God can only impart health and wealth because He only  has health and wealth - i.e. he doesn't have poverty and ill health. e.g. God doesn't have cancer therefore he won't give you cancer. Consequently Christians must be rich and healthy. Winger calls this shallow theology.  (And see Rev 2:22-23).  But did Jesus really teach a prosperity Gospel? Johnson uses Mat 6:10 to justify his position, but Winger says that this verse only finally applies in the fullness of time when there is, eventually, no death (See Rev. 21:4). In contrast Chris Volloton has said "No one in our congregation is allowed to die except of old age". So says Winger, Vollonton accepts that death does eventually come to Bethelites and therefore Mat 6:10 doesn't, after all, hold at Bethel! 

At Bethel it feels as though there are a lot of healings taking place. But they get round the fact that healing doesn't always happen by poor confirmation of healing and using a doctrine of "keeping your healing"; that is, if your symptoms come back you are told that you are "losing your healing" which then triggers a process of spiritual investigation & diagnosis as to why the healing hasn't taken. They also talk about "the fragility of the anointing": Bill Johnson's son has a hearing problem which hasn't been healed. Once again Johnson finds an excuse to ignore this glaring inconsistency: He says that it will ruin his own anointing if he thinks with critical awareness about this inconsistency. Hence there is pressure at Bethel to avoid thinking about negative outcomes because if you do then Johnson's says it may badly effect your anointing. Bethel, therefore, have many ways of explaining away and/or coping with apparent failures of healing and this includes encouragement to turn a blind eye if no spiritual explanation is available .[In effect Johnson is proactively barring intellectual integrity as a harmful influence on their fellowship; hence a gullible unquestioning idiocy is actively encouraged at Bethel - Idiots for Christ!] 

For Bill Johnson's Bethel any nice and positive sounding words that someone feels they should say are liable to be ranked as prophecy; but only positive, happy words are allowed. Negative prophecies are banned at Bethel.  Hence Bethel becomes the source of many fake prophecies. Bethel also has such a thing as "Destiny cards" which are suspiciously like Tarot cards. 

Bethel are trying to engineer a revival in their own image. They are a contrived movement. 

So that finishes with Winger's assessment. I now want move on to.....ressurection.

A Prayer for Resurrection

The ethos of unwillingness to face the tricky realities of Christian life with critical awareness recently had a very sad nemesis at Bethel. In a very public display the Bethel fellowship prayed fervently for the resurrection of the deceased daughter of one of their worship leaders. The matter was reported in a news item in the February 2020 of Premier Christianity magazine. But the affair also got a wide airing in the secular media; the full glare of public attention as the magazine puts it. The Christianity article tells us how for several nights Bethel held services where they implored God for a resurrection, but after a week they faced the heart-breaking and tragic reality of the infant's death. 

The article quotes Johnson's well known position on healing, a position which is based on the notion that Christ's sacrificial death has already "purchased healing" (A common theological cliche among prosperity healers),  a position that encourages a witch-hunt seeking spiritual pathology should God not deliver (My emphases):

"When he bore our stripes in His body He made a payment for our miracle. He already decided to heal. You can't decide not to buy something after you've already bought it.....All lack is on our end of the equation". 

Well, that tells us where Johnson is going to look for spiritual failure when his prosperity expectations aren't fulfilled!  And I don't think Johnson is the sort of guy who is just going to tell us that his church was merely trying to be obedient to Christ's command to raise the dead (Mat 10:8) as Christianity quotes him, and then leave it at that. No, rather than just shrugging his shoulders Johnson looks like a man who is going to angle for a source of blame. But one thing you can't accuse these Bethelites of and that is a lack of belief. So where is Johnson's theological logic going to take him?  Perhaps he'll blame those Christians who criticise his "perfect theology"? After all, those who criticise his prosperity line on healing will, according to Johnson,  be teaching another gospel!

But undaunted by Johnson's theologically threatening position Christianity magazine, partly through the mouths of various pundits, arrays a strong critique of Johnson and Bethel. It is in great contrast to the Christianity article I quoted in part I where the reporter seems to be a Johnson convert. In this latest article, however, we hear that: 

The episode was grounded in really poor theology....you just take little snapshots of the Bible and pick out phrases here and there to extrapolate these huge expectations to command how God should act in a situation......they were praying for only one possible outcome...A wise pastor would stand with the bereaved parents while also gently sharing that God may have other plans as well.....Many evangelical writers have expressed similar concerns....Bethel's theology results of a transactional view of God....God is seen as a genie who will always say yes to our requests if we just say the magic formula.....my anxiety is around the mental health of the parents and the wider community when the miracle was not forth coming.

But Johnson takes no responsibility for the event. He says that they...

...had no option but to ask for resurrection, because that was what Jesus commanded his disciples to seek after.

...and remember if you don't accept Johnson's view without qualification then you may be accused of  preaching another gospel!

Christianity magazine tries put a brave face on it along and the best gloss. The hope was that....

....this story would encourage small churches to pray for healing miracles not out of habit but in the hope that God may actually act....all Christians should trust God enough to ask for big outlandish miracles even if they don't happen.

I doubt it: More like it will make Christians wary of such public failure. The Christianity article still talks about "the struggle against the giant of unbelief". I don't see any unbelief at Bethel (although I do see a lot of gullibility). Talk like this will only create more unresolved conflict, loss of confidence, heart searching and guilt in the lives of believers about their "lack of faith". Pray for healings and miracles by all means but don't think they are a reward for faith and if they don't happen don't then embark on a witch hunt for a lack of faith and/or spiritual failure somewhere. So in spite of starting well, in the final analysis  the Christianity article falls down badly, yet again.

The Hard Cop

We find our really hard cop on this web site:

http://watchman4wales.blogspot.com/search/label/Bill%20Johnson

Now I'm not sure I would want to meet this guy in a dark alley because he would likely hard-cop me and accuse me of heresy as soon as look at me. But then Bill Johnson, as we have seen, is himself a hard cop who is likely to tell us we are preaching another gospel if we don't tow his line on healing. One hard cop deserves another! So here we go with our stern Watchman4Wales' verdict on Bethel and the Johnsons:

It is important to note that the Ffald-y-Brenin bookshop is also very well-stocked with the works of Bill and Beni Johnson, the Senior Pastors of Bethel "Church" in Redding, California. This has to be one of the unsafest "Christian" couples on the planet, their "Christianity" having all the authenticity of a paste diamond, with Bethel having far more in common with sorcery and New Age mystical spirituality than with Biblical Christianity. From gold dust to glory clouds, from falling feathers to fire tunnels, from floating orbs to a born-again "Jesus," from waking up sleeping angels to grave-sucking necromancy, absolutely anything goes at Bethel under the Johnsons' (mis)leadership.

The Ffald-y-Brenin bookshop can thus lamentably be seen to be recklessly disseminating to the unsuspecting an alternative form of faith that is assuredly NOT the true Faith, but instead a deeply fallacious mystical New Age delusion, a cunning counterfeit of Biblical Christianity inspired not by the Holy Spirit but by a subtle and seducing utterly unclean spirit, working stealthily out of the war-camp of the Enemy!

To back up the charges of necromancy we are provided with pictures of "grave-sucking". Below I  include these pictures with their captions: 

And here's Beni Johnson herself, soaking up the anointing of  C.S. Lewis's bones by lying on his grave in Oxford. She also uses a 528HZ tuning fork for prophetic purposes...

A group of students from Bill Johnson's Bethel School of the Supernatural engage in sucking up Evan Roberts' anointing from his grave at Loughor in South Wales...

Hard copping done! Need I say more? 

Summing Up

Large swathes of Christian culture lack intellectual integrity. In fact I've long since come to terms with the fact that Christianity as a faith is extremely idiot proof - that is, it has a high resilience to the large numbers of gullible idiots (some of whom actually classify as malign idiots) who enter the faith. But in spite of taking onboard hoards of these idiots the integrity and dignity of Christianity's high sounding cosmic message of salvation is no more compromised than is the majesty of deep space in the presence of a few deluded "grave suckers" who inhabit one small corner of the cosmos. If I didn't believe this there would be no Christian faith for me (See here and here). In fact the only other (intolerable) alternative to the Open Gospel would be to join one of Christianity's  mean  little "holy remnants"  of huddled Christian crazies who think of themselves and their sect as the one and only true church and all others to be potentially demonic. Like Winger I don't believe Bethel are demonic but they do have a high density of gullible stupidity in their ranks, a stupidity which allows people like Johnson and Valloton to peddle their prosperity gospel justified as it is by a shallow, muddled and incoherent "quip theology".

Stay comatose!

As we have seen in this series Johnson's strategy is to do what he can to block any self reflecting & self critical stance, a stance which is liable to endanger the Bethelist philosophy of comatose forgetfulness. Critical-think, Johnson effectively warns, may lead to the loss of your all-important "anointing". Any apparent inconsistencies of Johnson's philosophy with scripture are dealt with by a doctrine which ranks and prioritises truths so that some truths can be regarded as overriding other truths. (Winger rightly identifies this notion as gobbledegook). As Winger says Johnson has therefore found ways of preventing scripture as a whole of correcting his contention that Jesus' life entails a prosperity gospel. This prosperity gospel, according to Winger, flies in the face of Job.  The ultimate backstop to critical thought is found in the notion that apostles are a kind of incarnation of scriptural teaching. Hence when the chips are down they can pull out this authoritarian card in order to further help ease through their theology. A claim to authority is the ultimate device to stultify a Berean assault on Johnsonianism. This is, however, not an original strategy: I remember reading the restorationist Arthur Wallis where he claimed that the chief way restorationist leaders exert their authority is via their Bible teaching. Thus, in effect  they claim a special almost priestly right to interpret scripture authoritatively (for more on restorationism see here).

At one point in his video Winger remarks on how Bethel teachers teach in a cheeky humorous way. This can be seen with other popular teachers of this ilk; see here. A brash humorous quip theology has great folk appeal.

All in all Bethel have contrived plenty of auxiliary hypotheses for explaining away failed miracles and stopping critical analysis of this failure in its tracks. Let us recall, however, that Bethel is a highly predatory sect determined to stamp their image on the rest of Christianity: They are pulling out all the stops to spread Johnson's teaching. But they may now have pulled out one stop too many.  Like the Restorationism of circa 1980 its empire building appeal will eventually peter out. 

Note:

Early posts I did on Johnson:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2008/04/big-preacher-guy-phenomenon.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2008/05/spiritual-spin.html