Believer’s authority – Part 1

A critical examination of the doctrine of “the believer’s authority” as taught by Kenneth Hagin in his book of the same title.

Kenneth E Hagin is often referred to as the father of the “Word of Faith” movement – a particular brand of the ‘health and wealth’ or ‘prosperity’ “gospel” – and I would submit to the reader that his definitive manifesto, if you will, was “The Believer’s Authority.”

If not in all cases, it is certainly within my personal experience with “Faith” people that the doctrines espoused within Hagin’s book are key and essential to these people’s very religion.

And so, in providing this examination and criticism of the book, I hope to prevent others from falling into the “Word of Faith” trap, and perhaps offer a light to help those who are already adherents a way out of that cloud and mire.

First, before addressing specific passages of Scripture quoted and statements made in the book, the reader must understand that, like all authors, there are a very many assumptions and presuppositions within what Hagin wrote. In reading anything – even my own words here – I urge the reader to think critically about the content of words and utilize what ever learning they have and resources at their disposal to test what they read. Just because someone makes a statement using a quote from something before it and then using similar language, does not mean their argument stems from or is consistent with what they quoted.

Secondly, if a teacher encourages verbal repetition and memorization or adjustment of a portion of Scripture with no emphasis toward critical thinking and study, be very wary of that teacher. For instance, in the first chapter (page 11) of the “Believer’s Authority” Hagin tells about how he “personalized” the prayers of Paul in Ephesians 1:16-20 & 3:14-19 to “pray” them for himself over and over again – and encourages the reader to do so, without giving any Scriptural basis or reason for doing so… I might point out that the words of our Lord in Matthew 6:7 came to mind as I read this account and suggestion.

Finally the reader should always have this question as a base to examine an idea that is presented to them: is the focus and goal of this idea to glorify God, or to puff up mankind?

And with that we shall begin the Foreword of “the Believer’s Authority” (I am using a PDF of the book that I found online – according to the file it is the “Second Edition – Twenty-Second Printing 1996. ISBN 0-89276-406-6”

The Assumptions of the Foreword

Right from the outset, Hagin gives us the unorthodox and man-centered assumption that he presumably will prove throughout the course of the book; that is that “believers” have some form of undefined, supernatural “authority” given them to use on earth, a power of which they have been failing to take advantage.

He gives us this assumption clearly not only in the foreword of the book, but in the very first sentence; “Back in the 1940s, I asked myself the question, “Do we have authority that we don’t know about – that we haven’t discovered – that we’re not using?””

May I suggest to the reader that this is never how you should approach the Religion of God? Starting with a question that didn’t even come from Holy Writ is dangerous territory to dabble in – the Scriptures should never be approached with a presupposing request for information on a topic it may very well never address.

Now the concept of “authority” is addressed in the Bible, but again, that doesn’t mean we approach the text with a question that presupposes something, because that opens the door to a plethora of misinterpretations.

Which leads to my next thought on the Foreword. Hagin then mentions that he did “word studies” on “power” and “authority,” another questionable and ill-advised tactic that often ends in the “studier” just finding the answers their question assumes – especially when they have no grounding in or understanding of the cultures or languages the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were written in.

In short, the assumptions of Hagin’s book are clear and manifest in the Foreword. The reader’s first questions should be, “why ask this question?” and, “is there even Biblical warrant for it?”

Chapter 1: the Prayers of Paul

In his introduction to chapter 1 Hagin tells us that his book is based on Ephesians, but he only encourages us to read (repetitively) the first three chapters of the Biblical text (pg 9). (I would encourage the reader to read the entirety of the Epistle, if they would like to follow in depth.)

Then he goes on to point out Paul’s prayers for the Ephesians in the first three chapters of the Epistle, at which point he writes “the turning point in my life came when I prayed these prayers for myself more than a thousand times.“(pg 10, italics original)

His subsequent explanation of that I have already addressed where it comes to the vain repetition, however, the reader’s other concern should be that Hagin seems to have a very twisted understanding of what Paul actually meant by what he prayed. But Hagin doesn’t even bother to explain to the reader what he believes Paul means or why he believes it.

We are given a pretty good indication of the vague, superpowerish view Hagin has of some of the things Paul prayed for by his statement in the last paragraph of page 10 when he writes “the spirit of revelation began to function!”

His following proclamation of “I began to see things in the Bible I had never seen before”(pg 10) and his declaration that he “grew spiritually” more in six months than he had “14 years as a minister”(pg 11) does not help me trust that he suddenly gained a “better” understanding of Scripture. Especially not when almost immediately after quotes himself as saying to his wife, “I was so ignorant of the Bible…”(of 11); his ignorance is plain from his view and use of the text of Scripture.

The verse he works these claims, quotes/paraphrasing, and conclusions from, in context is this (I have emphasized the phrase Hagin pulled from the text)

“For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.” Ephesians 1:15-21 (ESV)

From reading the passage in its entirety it becomes obvious that the “spirit of revelation” mentioned in verse 17 is one in the same with the “spirit of wisdom” – and, regardless of what you think this “spirit” actually is, it is obviously that it’s primary purpose is to grant knowledge and confidence or hope in who God is. The entire idea that Paul lays out in verse 18 and following is the awesome greatness of God the Father in His glory, who has granted us salvation and relationship/peace with Him through Jesus Christ.

The fact that Hagin just rips “the spirit of revelation” out of that context to claim some kind of “new” ability to “see things” in the text for himself just indicates to me that Hagin never had or gained a proper understanding of Scripture…

I will return to this subject later, for now I will leave the reader to consider the thoughts and questions posed this far.

~ J D White

A Brief Examination of Positive Confession…

What is “positive confession?” Positive confession is one of THE key doctrines in the Word of Faith movement – also known as the “health and wealth” or “prosperity” gospel – and can be summed up thusly: it is essentially the doctrine of man’s ability to speak things(primarily circumstantial, relational, emotional, and/or physical) into existence – stated differently, it is the doctrine of man’s god-like ability to create and/or modify reality merely by the power of his spoken words.

Like many doctrines of false religion, this one has many forms and extents – depending on who’s teaching it – and it also touches upon many different concepts in its full consideration; however, for the sake of keeping this post fairly short, I will be addressing the purely verbal/spoken end of the doctrine.

Though there are quite a few passages in the Bible used by those who teach the doctrine, Proverbs 18:21 – in my experience – is the most often quoted “go-to text” by those who assume the doctrine to be orthodox. I notice, however, that they rarely(if ever) quote the last half of the verse. Indeed, if my experience with those who quote it for this purpose were any gauge, one would assume there was no “other half.”

It is almost funny how often just going one or two verses back or ahead will undercut the misinterpretation of those who teach that this has anything to do with the supernatural “power” of a human being’s words. For instance, verses 19 & 20 seem to be in the same vein and are entirely ‘relational’ in nature. Nothing metaphysical or supernatural is implied. So why assume so in verse 21?

NOTE: the same principle is suggested in Proverbs 12:12-20 – and I would point the reader to the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:36-37… also, the reader of the Book of Proverbs should always keep in mind that it is not the same form of literature as is found in the Old Testament Prophets or the New Testament Epistles, etc…

James 3:6 is a close runner-up I’ve heard used to teach positive confession. The context, however, would again indicate a primarily ‘relational’ concept.The god-like ability to “speak things into reality” can be nowhere accurately drawn from these passages of Scripture – the idea must be forced upon them; or they must be ripped and twisted out of context to even get there.

The strongest argument (meaning non-Olympian level eisegesis) for the doctrine I have heard made from Mark 11:22-24. However, positive confessors seem to miss the fact that Jesus here is primarily speaking of prayer. The context itself also precludes inserting any form of constant, non-God-commanded, daily speech being full of “power,” idea.

NOTE: see also James 4 for a good idea of how the apostles took and practically applied Jesus’ teaching later on…

Obviously this doctrine is quite a bit more complex (as is it’s refutation) and pervasive in the worldview of it’s adherents than has been drawn out here, but, again, for the sake of brevity I’ll leave the reader to ponder and study further on their own.

I hope this was interesting and/or helpful.

Brief Thoughts on Luke 10

The Context: chapter 9 of Luke obviously contains quite a bit of content, but the information given us immediately before the break into “chapter 10” is of several different “followers” and their interactions with Jesus (‘foxes have holes but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’ –Luke 9:57-62) but the driving story before this is Jesus foretelling His death and “setting His face” toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:21-22, 44, and 51).

The Seventy-Two: “After this” is how chapter 10 begins, and thus a proper understanding of what Jesus does and instructs in the beginning of the chapter seems to hinge on keeping in mind what came before it.

Where did Jesus send these disciples out to in pairs? “Every town and place where he himself was about to go.” (Verse 1)… why did he send them out? Presumably – based on verses 5 through 12, and 16 (and 9:1-6) – to preach what He had taught them; but specifically we are told He commanded them to ‘heal the sick and say to them “the kingdom of God has come near to you.”‘As I read through chapter 10 of Luke this evening it occurred to me that the connection of this event to Jesus’ going to Jerusalem to be crucified is of no small significance. In all of the synoptic gospels Jesus’ instruction and teaching of His disciples (particularly the apostles) seems to grow more earnest and “to the point,” if you will, as He approaches the cross compared to earlier in His ministry. Could it be that Jesus sent out the seventy-two to heal the sick and prepare the way for Him not just so that people would know He was coming, but perhaps so that he would not encounter quite as large a mob looking for miracles as He would have otherwise?

Many things to consider and ponder over in why Jesus sent out these men, but let us move on to when they returned to Him for the sake of this particular discussion…

Verse 17 is translated thus in my ESV Bible: “The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” … now, what were the Lord’s specific instructions to these disciples? To ‘heal the sick and proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom of God.’ But these people do not come rejoicing that those who have heard their message are repentant and receptive to Christ, but that they could command demons!

Granted, some or many of the sicknesses they were commanded to heal could have been caused by demonic possession or oppression, but Jesus’ response in verses 18 and 20 seem to be more a corrective or warning rebuke than an encouraging affirmation of their joy.

The interpretation above is far different than that given by those who want to hone in on verse 19, I know, but I cannot read that verse separate from everything else going on. Also, those who want to emphasize verse 19 – almost to the exclusion of verse 20 – usually miss several markers that serve to indicate that much of the authority given was specific to that time and group of people in many ways. The phrase “nothing shall hurt you,” for one, is incredibly restrictive to where we can apply to whom and when the “authority” Jesus mentions is given.

Moving on again, since it is in the same chapter, I have heard some try to correlate verses 23 and 24 to verses 17 and/or 19… but it seems more reasonable to me – considering the use of present-tense verbs, the content of Jesus’ rejoicing in verses 21 and 22, and His previous admonition to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” – to understand that what Jesus is referring to is, in fact, a combination of Himself being God in flesh standing before men and, in that, the further revelation of God’s very nature…

Here my thoughts begin to trail in too many directions to type now… and I’ve already gone longer and in different directions than I intended (hopefully because the text forced me to and/or the Spirit was gracious in restricting me to it 😉

Hope this was an interesting and/or thought-provoking read.

Self-Esteem . . . Or God-Esteem?

I once heard a preacher make a great statement that is quite relevant to the last two posts I’ve put up – and his statement actually gave me the title for this post… But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I’ve probably been thinking about this way more than is even helpful, but I couldn’t shake the question: does God really command me to love myself? I’ve read and heard a lot about self-esteem and how it can supposedly effect your attitude, relationships, and even “success” – whatever that means – in life. But I’ve always found it hard to believe that any of those teachings are Biblical. Honestly, am I supposed to believe that Scripture actually teaches that one of my problems is that I think too poorly of myself?

So, naturally, to answer my own questions, I go to the Bible – and specifically I go to the places that describe mankind’s essential problem:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them…

…as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.

All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”

“Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… ~ Romans 1:18-32, 3:10-18, & 3:23 (ESV)

(NOTE: see also Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 36:1-6, Ephesians 2:1-3, etc.)

So, according to Scripture, my problem is not that I am “deceived” or self-deprecating, but that I am a God-hater. And thus I pervert the good things God originally made and act against His law, thereby earning for myself the just and righteous wrath of my Almighty Creator. What is worse, I can do nothing to appease the wrath of this thrice-Holy God, because even my attempts to do so are tainted with selfish, evil idolatry.

Now, the good news is that God has appeased that wrath Himself to save a people from Himself, for Himself. Jesus Christ, God the Son, took upon Himself the penalty for sin to redeem a people for Himself, thus making it possible to clothe them in His righteousness and delight in them for God’s own pleasure and glory.

So, since God has saved me and clothes me in the righteousness of His Son through my repentance and belief upon/in Him, I must forever focus upon the work and might of God – as that, and more, is merely the due reward of His act – and in so doing, forget myself (as far as is necessary without forgetting my state apart from Him, and His action) in the ever pursuing of His honor, praise, and glory.

(NOTE: see the entirety of the portions of Romans quoted above, the rest of Psalm 36, Ephesians 2:4-10, and the entirety of the New Testament…)

So, to return to what I opened with – and to close – here is a paraphrastic quote of something I first heard Voddie Baucham say:

“What we need is not more ‘self-esteem.’ What we need is more God-esteem!”

And here are a couple quotes I saw throughout the length of time it took me to gather my thoughts for this post:

“If any man thinks ill of you, do not be angry with him, for you are worse than he thinks you to be.” ~ C. H. Spurgeon

“Only those who have learned well to be earnestly dissatisfied with themselves, and to be confounded with shame at their own wretchedness, truly understand the Christian gospel.” ~ John Calvin

NOTE: at some point I will post something in response to those silly people that would read these quotes and say “but now your focused back on your ‘wickedness’ instead of God! (I.e. Christians shouldn’t think about their sin)” … But – for now – suffice it to say a healthy (and poor) view of one’s self, balanced with a mindset of self-forgetfulness, SHOULD lead the disciple of Christ to greater and greater love for and confidence in the merciful, gracious, and worthy God and LORD of the universe.

The Implications of Believing There’s a Command to Love Yourself

So I recently put “a command to love yourself” into a search engine to see what I’d get… I’m not sure why, but I was kinda surprised at the litany of stuff actually arguing for the idea.

However, I shouldn’t have been surprised, because the American Dream has always – in one way or another – encouraged the love of self. In fact, much of contemporary “Christianity” today focuses on a “you are worth so much” chant that logically leads its teachers to follow this chant with a teaching that will keep listeners satisfied and “in the club,” so to speak.I’ve primarily heard the “love yourself” teaching twisted out of the Scriptures by Joyce Meyer (I’m pretty sure it’s actually her primary “teaching” platform), however, I’ve heard plenty of similar teaching – if in more veiled language – from many other sources.

One article I found online is a good example of this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/loving-yourself-the-biblical-command-we-tend-to-forget/

You will notice, however, that the author uses no Scripture (aside from the half quotation of “love your neighbor as yourself”) to back up their claims that to “love yourself” is even an idea in the imperative of the command. Now, there are professing Christians that will try to go to passages about “abundant life” and such and try to twist their base ideas into something that will work with their teaching on Matthew 22:39... But as I’ve tried to briefly point out in my last post, I do not believe the whole testimony of Scriture would even come close to substantiating such a claim.

Besides that, no matter how much “Christianese” you use, the logical end of such and argument is self-love and/or self-worship as a prime goal in life. It also diminishes a person’s ability to rightly judge their own sinfulness by inserting a third category of responsibility that the Bible does not teach.

I thought this article was a perfect example of the logical end to such a false message: https://bayart.org/2016/08/22/how-to-fall-in-love-with-yourself/

Anyone who can read such self absorbed advice and not cringe or have red flags go off in their brain has a lot to learn about what the Bible says about mankind, God, and the character and worth of Christ.

A Command to Love Yourself?

    “You can’t love others well until you love yourself.”

    I’ve heard the phrase (or at least something like it) used as a starting point for a self-help message by a “preacher” on tv and seen it plastered on pictures online… The tv personality (and most of the professing Christians that I have heard/seen use the phrase) supposedly got the idea from Mathew 22:39.

    “The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (HCSB)

    I’m sure you noted that the first half of the verse indicates that this is a “second” following something before it. I’m also sure you noted that the primary factor in this verse is “your neighbor” not “yourself.”

    But let’s back up a moment and get some context – in the 22nd chapter of Matthew, Jesus finishes a long string of parables and deals with several “test questions” brought to Him by the Pharisees and Sadducees (taxes and resurrection respectively), and then comes the following passage.

     But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” ~ Matthew 22:34-40 (ESV) 

    Here Jesus has quoted from Deuteronomy 6:5 for the greatest, most defining commandment from God, and then He summarizes the whole of the Law with His added “second commandment.”

    If you go back and read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and even Numbers, you get a much better sense of what “loving your neighbor as yourself” looks like, than if you just have the self-esteem toting, “you are special and deserve to be loved,” material success focused societal lense of our day.

    Jesus’ statement even taken by itself cannot come close to being interpreted as meaning anything along the lines of “here Jesus has acknowledged the truth that if you don’t like yourself you’ll be an angry and unhappy, and therefore unloving person. Because if you can’t even accept yourself for who you are and stop being critical of yourself, you’ll never be able to love people.” No. The context of the statement and its relation to the Law of God make the treatment of your neighbor the primary and only subject in that sentence. No person listening to Jesus at the time would have inserted anything about their “self feelings” into what was being taught.

    Inserting the “importance of good self-esteem” concept into the statement also becomes impossible in light of Jesus’ direct teachings on the subject of “self.”

    Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. ~ Matthew 16:24-27


    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” ~ Luke 14:26-35 (ESV)

    These passages obviously indicate that the disciple is to be marked first and foremost by self-denial and self-sacrifice. And I believe this is further attested to by the way the epistles echo Jesus’ summary of the “Law and Prophets.”

    For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.  ~ Romans 13:9-10

    Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. ~ James 2:5-17 (ESV)

    No mention of how you feel about “you” except to point out hypocrisy or self-deception.

    In fact, I would submit to the reader that something of an opposite perspective is being taken by Jesus (and His Apostles) – that being something like this: “you already love yourself so much that you should be treating others as good as you treat yourself.”

    NOTE: Something of the idea in Ephesians 5:29 comes to mind as a Scriptural phraseology for what I’ve suggested above.

    You see, human beings are so selfish that even in the case of those who are suicidal and/or “hateful” of themselves in one way or another, they are still so focused on themselves that they are literally loving/worshiping themselves over anyone else. Romans 1:18-32, 3:10-18, 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9, etc…

    To paraphrase several great preachers; we don’t need more/better self-esteem or to learn to love/accept/be happy with ourselves – we need to repent of our selfish selfcenteredness and evil, and to hold God in high esteem and love Him to the utter forgetfulness of ourselves so that the only thing left for our consideration is how best to obey His commands.

    “War Room” & Satan

    PART TWO

    Keeping along the lines of the Name of Jesus and the proper ways to address and relate to God, I’ll now address the many “prayers,” if you will, that were addressed to Satan in the War Room.

    …Yes, I did just say that prayers were offered to Satan in War Room – in fact, I would argue that nearly 40% of the actual “prayers” in the film are addressed to the devil. (NOTE: “prayer” in the sense of “talking to an invisible spirit-being”)

    After the Name of Jesus is finally introduced into the film as a way to get what you want, Clara begins to hammer into Elizabeth about how ‘the devil is the real enemy.’ (after a brief outlining of the Gospel – which is utterly ruined by Miss Clara then ‘preaching’ about the Power of Satan) … Side NOTE: Satan is NOT the “thief” who comes to “steal, kill, and destroy” (John 10:10)- the context does not in anyway imply that Jesus would have us think of the devil when we quote that passage.

    So, to summarize, we have a massively over emphasized – if not overdeveloped – demonology presented to us just after a brief, outline of the Gospel, which all follows on the heels of finally introducing Jesus as a magic-word formula.

    But it gets weirder. After this the first prayer we actually hear from the lips of Elizabeth is in beseeching God to stop her husband from committing the physical act of adultery(her husband has clearly been shown to be an adulterer-at-heart already in the film). This is followed by her reading a few verses on her wall, ending with James 4:7 – repeating and emphasizing the line “resist the devil, and he will flee.” At which point she gets up and walks through her house talking/”praying” to the devil – a practice that is nowhere taught in Scripture. The passage from James is primarily about repentance and the devil is referenced as a “tempter” not some enemy that is out to “steal your joy, kill your faith, and destroy your family.” The moment you resist temptation and refuse to sin, you have “resisted” and are un-influenceable by demons.

    NOTE: 1: Satan is not omnipresent, and thus is incapable of being in more than one place – and with the mess Elizabeth and her family got themselves into, I highly doubt they’d be worth his time. 2: Elizabeth makes a silly statement by telling the devil to ‘go back to hell’ after her rant against him – the Bible nowhere suggests hell is a realm from/over which Satan rules.

    After this, one of the only four “prayers” we are actually “in on” is that of Miss Clara after she hears the news of Tony’s repentance. Her response is a brief statement of thanks and then she moves immediately into talking to the devil! Telling him he “got his butt whooped” as if he could hear her or had anything to do with the situation, or (heaven forbid) it wasn’t already a guaranty that he would be beaten in the first place… And then she shuffles off camera singing some sort of old gospel song.

    My chief concern here – and I’ll wrap it up with this – is that Satan is nowhere in Scripture ascribed as the Christian’s primary enemy (if there is such a thing). To suggest that is the case (that he is in any way ultimately responsible for Tony’s sin), downplays the utter evil and rebelliousness of mankind’s own sinfulness – which is presented regularly and often as man’s primary problem in the Bible.

    FINAL NOTE: Because I decided to only address the two subjects that I have, I thought I’d share a few articles that I thought had some good points on the film: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/august-web-only/who-does-screenwriter-say-that-i-am.html & http://www.thewrap.com/critics-destroy-war-room-7-worst-reviews-crushing-christian-drama/ <on these ones I’m just offering some food for thought as to the “negative” responses that people might not have heard unless they went looking for them… I don’t agree with every aspect of every article (but it should go without saying that I don’t necessarily agree 100% with everything I share 😉