The Slander of Christianity In Discussions About American Indians

Over the past couple of days, I have been in a sort of debate on social media with a post someone published regarding the American Indians in West Virginia, my home state.   While the post itself was interesting, it also drew out some "social justice warrior" and snowflake types who painted Christianity as somehow being an "instrument of White colonial oppression" and thus somehow "evil" to the "peaceful" Natives.   Thing is, does this actually have any basis in fact?   I want to talk a little about that today.

The subject of the American Indian is one that I am very intimate with, as it is part of my own history too.  Going back several generations in my own family, I have on my father's side about a one-sixteenth heritage that is Mvskoke (Creek).   A cousin of mine, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, who is actually a member of the Mvskoke Nation and teaches at their college in Oklahoma also has provided some valuable family history information on a 4th great-grandfather of mine by the name of Richard Taylor.  According to some transcribed oral histories (found at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Taylor-40820 - Accessed 2/27/2019), Richard Lawrence Taylor (1781-1884) was originally from North Carolina, where a small branch of the Mvskoke Nation had settled near the western part of the state.  My cousin mentions that he was registered as a member of the Mvskoke Nation with the Eastern Creek #11141 and that he fought in the Creek Wars in northwest Florida during the years 1814-1815.  His granddaughter, Parsilla Buckelew Richburg (1851-1931), was my great-great-grandmother on my maternal grandmother's side of the family tree.  Richard Taylor appears to have been a fascinating individual too, living to the age of 101 and having a HUGE family due to three marriages, the last to my 4th great-grandmother Nancy Hollingshead Taylor (born 1812).  This American Indian heritage was talked about and was a source of pride in my dad's family, although no one really could figure out where it came from until thankfully my cousin and other family members were able to research it more fully.   There is a lot more that could be said about this subject, as it would warrant a whole article for itself, and perhaps I can revisit it later.  For now though, the point is that I have American Indian heritage, and unlike Elizabeth Warren's publicity stunt, I can actually prove and document it.  That puts me into a position to say what I am about to say next.

On the social media post, many Leftist people were saying some disturbing things about the Church, mainly because one better-informed person noted that Protestant Christian sects such as the Moravians not only brought Christianity to the Indians in North Carolina but also literacy and a standard of living that helped them rise above some of the squalors they lived in at the time.   For making that point, some ignorant young girl who was perhaps in her teens or twenties got on there and castigated this guy for saying it, saying that Christianity "stripped" the Indians of their "native culture."  Others loved attacking the Franciscan, Jesuit, and Dominican missionaries in the Spanish Southwest, who likewise brought literacy and the faith to those Indians there and in Mexico.  Of course, to such people Christianity is seen as a "White religion" and thus an "oppressive tool of colonialism," and therefore must be eradicated for all the "damage" it has done.  Many of the people leveling this slander, however, are often sheltered young White kids who reap the benefits of Western Civilization (they have their smart phones, Chromebooks, and i-pods) and all of a sudden they become "social justice warriors."  If they are that adamant, then I would say perhaps that they need to set a precedent and leave all their luxuries behind and go away.  In contrast to the liberal claptrap many of these people spew so ignorantly, the evidence overwhelming documents that Christianity often benefits the cultures it is introduced to - after all, if it wasn't for the Moravians teaching the Cherokee to read, would Sequoyah have been able to create a whole language system for his people?  Sequoyah's accomplishments as far as the Cherokee language are concerned can be ranked with St. Mesrop Mashtots and his creation of the Armenian alphabet, as well as the numerous Aramaic-based scripts one finds among tribes in Central Asia and China that can be attributed to Assyrian Christian missionaries who worked among those peoples.  All of them, ironically, are connected to the spread of Christianity among their respective peoples.  Not only that, but also the hospitals, universities, and libraries we see in many parts of the world are the fruit of Christian mission work too, with some exceptions (many of the exceptions, though, can be credited to Jewish communities).  Also, the advent of healthy hygienic practices and other things we often take for granted are attributed in many cases to Christians of devout faith who used that faith to reach others.  Even classical antiquity as far as Western Civilization is concerned owes its survival to dedicated monks in medieval Europe.  A few books I would encourage people to read on this which document the contributions the Christian faith has made to civilization are the following:

Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity Changed the World.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Thomas E. Woods and Antonio Canizares, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery History, 2012.

Mar Aphrem Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls - The History of Syriac Sciences and Literature.  Trans. by Matti Moosa.  Piscataway, NJ:  Gorgias Press, 2001.

These books show that far from being "destructive," in many cases Christianity saved human civilization, and often from its own negative aspects.  As Aquinas and Bonaventure both taught in their writings, it is to be remembered that God authored two "books," Nature and Revelation.  Nature should always bear witness to Revelation, and through supernatural grace Revelation heals, elevates, and perfects nature.  To put that into this perspective, supernatural grace has the capacity to restore things to the way they were created and intended, and this too is part of the missionary mandate of the Church.  This means that the Church has always mandated preserving what is good in a culture, and reforming what is bad.  So, if anything, contrary to some liberal White self-haters, the Indians actually benefitted from the fruits of exposure to Christian faith.  Although it is obvious that abuses happened, and persecution was real - no one can deny that for sure - a cursory look at history affirms that often those abuses and persecutions against Indians were often carried out in spite of Christian conviction, as those doing such things were often motivated by other things than spirituality - they were often more or less influenced by Enlightenment secularism in many cases, which was on the rise both in Europe and later in colonial America.  If one really looks at the evidence further, they may be surprised to find that often the greatest defenders of Indians were in fact Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.  The same thing is true today as well.  That leads me to address some disturbing things I have heard from some who want to either discredit the Judeo-Christian worldview or European/Middle Eastern people (read that as White people).

In the course of debating this issue with self-styled "experts" on social media and elsewhere, some things were very shocking that I heard coming from the keyboards of these people.   For one, when certain things such as the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe that occurred in Mexico in 1531 are mentioned, some of these weirdos online actually defend the pagan religious practices of the Aztecs, which incidentally included ripping the beating hearts out of human sacrificial victims, or flaying them alive so that some demonic pagan shaman can dance around in the skin until it rots off his body.  Such people think these despicable practices are somehow "superior" to the Catholic faith which later came to predominate in Mexico (including the ten million or so conversions that happened as a result of Blessed Juan Diego's witnessing of the appartion of Our Lady of Guadalupe).  Of course, what is also interesting is that many of these people identify also as "pro-choice," which essentially means that they also hold up the racist eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as almost a godlike figure (not to mention their adulation of sex pervert Alfred Kinsey, who was responsible for more human trafficking and sexual abuse of his "research subjects.").  It also explains why they also would gravitate toward socialism and anarchy (some of the more radical of these people are involved in Antifa and other terrorist groups) and would suppress the rights of those they disagree with in order to promote their own agendas.  In reality, the average modern "progressive" Bernie Sanders supporter has more in common with George Armstrong Custer when it comes to human rights than they would with someone like Wilberforce, who ended slavery in Britain peacefully in the 1800's. thanks in part (wait for it!) to Judeo-Christian principles.  There are a lot of contradictions on the Left side of the political spectrum on this and other issues, and ironically it is the Judeo-Christian worldview that shows how deficient those leftist agendas are.  Leftists talk a lot about "human rights," but then turn around and glorify butchers such as Che Guevara and Mao, and even pagan Aztec leaders like Tlacaellel, who more or less intensified the brutal human sacrificial system in Aztec religion (as if it wasn't bad enough already!) by slaughtering thousands on the pinnacle of the Temple Major in Tenochtitlan on a single day.  They cite the abuses of certain Conquistadors of the period as justification for this, but in reality it is as Warren Carroll notes in the following:

"Moreover, many Indians had the impression that the new faith was something alien, something belonging to White men which could only be mediated through them.  It is a danger that confronts all missionary work, and especially in a situation such as this was, where the differences between cultures were so sharp, the contact had been so sudden, and the break with the past so complete.  

The Indians waited, and watched.  What did Christianity really mean to their conquerors?  What did it really mean to them?" (Warren Carroll, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness.  Front Royal, VA:  Christendom Press, 1983. p. 88)

I also want to note what my friend Charles Coulombe says about this as well, as it is important to see things in context here:

"At any rate, it so happened that, at the time of their discovery, there were no Indian nations capable of real resistance to the Europeans, save the Aztecs and Incas.  The bloodthirstiness of the former and the rigid interior conformity of the latter seriously depleted their ability to defend themselves against any technologically superior culture with which they might come in contact." (Charles Coulombe, Puritan's Empire.  Arcadia, CA:  Tumblar House, 2017. p. 17).  

The point of both quotations above is this - a combination of factors led to the historical events that unfolded, and rather than painting the Conquistadors and other European explorers as the sole "bad guys," it is important to remember that humanity as a whole has a concupiscent nature - Romans 3:23 reminds us of that when it says that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that is due to the events in Genesis 3, when sin entered the world through Adam's deception by Satan and his willful disobedience that resulted.  This means then - great revelation knowledge coming here! - that the Indians were not perfect either!  Indians had been warring with each other, enslaving and conquering rival tribes, and also engaging in barbarity (human sacrifice and other things) since before they arrived in North America over either the Bering Strait or across the Atlantic (in the case of the Solutrians, which I personally believe to be a valid hypothesis).  So, my question to the "social justice warriors" is this - are the Spaniards, Brits, French, and Portuguese somehow worse because they messed up on occasion too than the Aztecs, or perhaps were they all just products of sinful nature?  Also, is it fair to paint every White European who came to America as somehow "bad?"  To answer that, perhaps some of the detractors of "colonialism" need to take a more objective look at history, and they may be rudely surprised at the fact that many dedicated missionaries - both Protestant and Catholic - really reached out to the Indians in various parts of the Americas, and perhaps maybe the Indians of that time who were recipients of that display of Christian charity were actually grateful (God forbid, right?) for that service.  A careful and objective reading of real history may surprise many honestly. And, that leads to a final point I want to make on this.

The same young SJW girl who castigated Christianity as being "harmful" to the Indians also took issue with the name "Indian," insisting instead that we call them "Native Americans."  The interesting thing about this girl is that in looking at her profile, she was whiter than Wonder Bread, and probably has about as much Indian heritage as Elizabeth Warren if not even less.  Over the years, I have been in touch with many of my Mvskoke relatives, as well as a number of friends who are members of different tribal nations, and I have yet to find one who is actually offended at being called an "American Indian."   As a matter of fact, most of them could honestly care less, save a radical faction among them, and they even use the term themselves.  If I could get truly technical on this with the White liberal ding-dongs who insist on the "Native American" nomenclature, that too would be incorrect, as historically there are actually in that sense no Native Americans per se - the Indians were just the first to arrive, that is all, and they also came in successive stages and even booted out earlier arrivals who came before them, conquering and subjugating them long before the first European explorers even knew about the existence of the Americas.  Given the racial diversity among Indians (they are by no means a homogenous group), not all of them even came from the same place;  some crossed the Bering Strait, and others followed the Ice Age Atlantic ice shelf (probably fishing or hunting seals) across the Atlantic (that is known as the "Solutrean Theory," as proposed by Dr. Dennis Sanford and others), which means some Indians may actually be European themselves if one looks back far enough!  Therefore, if we want to battle semantics, our Liberal friends may want to reconsider that due to the fact that Indians themselves don't really care one way or another if you call them "Indian" or not.  They know who they are, and if they are not bothered by it (and having Mvskoke heritage myself, I am not either) than why should anyone else be?  Of course, this will naturally go against the mythology of "political correctness," but that mythology needs to die anyway.

Suffice to say, Christianity is not the "evil" it is often portrayed as being in the mythology of "political correctness," and as a matter of fact, even its detractors owe much of their own existence to it.  Rather than destroying civilization, Christian missionaries have often overwhelmingly been the saviors of civilization - Christianity finds and incorporates the best out of a culture and preserves it, thus making its benefactors better in many cases than they would have been without it.  It is true of European, African, and American civilizations, and thus is the narrative we need to propagate.  Thank you, and look forward to sharing with you all again soon.

Cowardly Christians in An Age of Political Correctness - the Shapiro/Grand Canyon University Incident

For some time now, I have been documenting how our American Evangelical Protestant friends are at this point essentially a house of cards about ready to collapse.  For many people, the delusion is that the Evangelical Christian of today is essentially the same as the Moral Majority activist of the 1980's, but more often than not this is far from the facts if one sees current events objectively.  One recent incident that exemplifies this well is the cancellation of a speaking engagement that conservative personality Ben Shapiro was supposed to have at Grand Canyon University, which is a well-known Evangelical Protestant institution based in Arizona.  I wanted to weigh in on this a little today, as it ties into some other observations I have made in the past as well as some I didn't touch on but have been watching closely.

Ben Shapiro

I want to first talk a little about Ben Shapiro.   Shapiro is a sort of "rising star" in conservative circles due to the fact he is articulate, can hold his own very effectively in a debate, and he also takes seriously the whole "know thy enemy" strategy as he prepares for his appearances in debates and such by reading up on the opposition (something more of us should do, just sayin').   He is the host of a radio program that is easily accessed online at his organization, The Daily Wire, and he is definitely worth checking out if you haven't done so already.  Also, as a devout Orthodox Jew, Shapiro is strongly pro-life, he advocates unapologetically for traditional marriage (one man and one woman), and also holds views that I as a traditionalist Catholic would share.  In other words, he is pretty sound in his convictions, and no conservative/traditionalist Christian should have any problems with where he stands, as on moral/social issues he is in complete agreement with us.  I first heard of Shapiro a couple of years ago, and honestly, I enjoy his broadcasts and try to listen to them at least once a week.  Also, like myself, he is not a 100% Trumper necessarily, but like myself, he rightly gives credit to where credit is due.  He is, in essence, a brilliant thinker who objectively observes the situation, and then responds accordingly.   I have nothing but the highest respect for Ben, and honestly, I would love to meet the guy in person.  If you want more biographical information on Ben, there is some good material at his website, www.dailywire.com.   

Now, let's talk a little about Grand Canyon University.   GCU, as it is popularly called, dates back to 1949 when the Arizona (Southern)Baptist Convention established it as Grand Canyon College.  However, in 2000 GCU ended its affiliation with the Southern Baptists and was for a time under management from a corporate entity called Significant Education LLC and was a for-profit enterprise (the first Christian for-profit educational institution).  The university re-instated its non-profit status in 2018 (due to a tax debt - go figure!).  It is now touted as the "largest Christian university in the world," within excess of twenty thousand enrolled students.  However, in all honestly, it is basically a Christianized University of Phoenix setup, and its academics I am not quite sure about.  My wife had originally attempted to enroll there for an elementary education program a few years back, but for some reason she just didn't feel comfortable doing so and backed out.  It was probably a wise decision on her part to do so.   That gives a bit of background on GCU, and to be honest I am just not all that impressed with it, and haven't been for a long time, but until they blackballed Ben Shapiro I never really took anything to do with them seriously.  However, given they are a highly visible presence in the American Evangelical spectrum, perhaps more attention should be given to them regarding what they are truly about. 

Turning now to the current focus of our discussion, the events surrounding it happened just this week, when Shapiro was scheduled to appear at an event at GCU but was abruptly cancelled due to some jibberjabber about "the school's commitment to promoting inclusion and unity on campus at a time when political divisions run deep."  Many felt that this excuse was lame due to the fact that GCU is supposed to be a "conservative Evangelical Christian institution," and that its own faith statement is not in conflict with anything Shapiro has said or convictions he holds.  Even a GCU spokesman admitted this, but then said "a high volume of rhetoric" in Shapiro's speeches is what led to the cancellation.  They then tried to justify this by saying that such "rhetoric" does not lead to "community-building" or "problem-solving," and that their stated position was to "bring unity to a community that sits amidst a country that is extremely divided and can't seem to find a path forward toward unity."  What they are really saying is this - "We don't want to offend anyone with the truth because it might cost us our tax-exempt status."  Of course, tax perks are only part of it, as there are even bigger issues I have seen at some other institutions, and I want to talk about that now ( Information on this incident from Jessica Chasmar, "Grand Canyon University cancels Ben Shapiro, Citing Schools Mission of 'Unity," published 2/4/2019 at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/4/grand-canyon-university-cancels-ben-shapiro-citing/ - accessed 2/5/2019).  

Anyone following my blog posts over the past few years knows of the rather negative experience I have had at my alma mater, Southeastern University, back in 2012-2013 when originally I had contemplated earning my Master's from there.  Southeastern, which like GCU identifies as an Evangelical Protestant university (although affiliated with the Assemblies of God instead of the Baptists), was but one example.  Also, you have read about the recent decision of a high-profile Pentecostal academic, Dr. Paul Alexander, who "came out" as transgender and decided to change his name to "April" after years of pushing the "gay agenda" amongst Pentecostal academic elites.   Other self-identified Evangelical institutions (Wheaton College comes to mind) have waffled on issues ranging from the "gay agenda" to embracing Islam, and the rise of such personalities as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Padgett, and other "Emergent Church" people among Evangelicals have spawned an anomaly called the "Evangelical Left," something honestly that would have been unconscionable only 20 years ago.  While there have been those occasional radicals and oddballs in Evangelical circles (two that come to mind are Tony Campolo and Ron Sider) for decades, in general, they didn't reflect their faith tradition and were even sort of shunned for their views.  However, in recent years this has changed drastically - I am not going to get into all the statistics, but Josh McDowell, James Emery White, Christian Smith, and others have documented these trends among younger Evangelicals in particular and it is disturbing.  Lest you think Catholics are unaffected, look at the recent actions of some among the Catholic hierarchy too - Cardinals Wuerl and Cupich, and Archbishops Dolan, Stowe, and others - and you see it there too.  Christians are acting ashamed to be Christian, and to stand up for traditional values, and not only that but we are becoming cowards when we think a MAGA hat is dangerous or that allowing someone like Ben Shapiro to speak at a Christian campus is somehow "divisive."  It is an obvious sign of the times, and let's examine that briefly.

In the Bible - which both Catholics and Evangelicals view as authoritative in all matters of faith and morality - Jesus Himself gives us a dire warning concerning this cowardice in Matthew 10:33 when he says this - "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."  Let me just say to preface that Church teaching is unchanging - while praxis can be adaptable, belief and doctrine are eternal.  For those who try to make Church teaching and Biblical commands fit their agenda, Jesus also has a warning for them in Revelation 22:18-19 - "18I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."  This warning didn't come in a vacuum either, for in Deuteronomy 4:2 God Himself warns that we do not add nor subtract from His commands, and in Deuteronomy 12:32 we are instructed to just obey those commands and not to "tweek" them to our liking, to interpret it in modern vernacular.  There is a reason for this - those commands and that law are from God Himself, and in themselves they are the perfect embodiment of faith and morality because they have divine origin and sanction.   Therefore, when we seek to compromise that truth because it is not "popular" with the current cultural paradigms, we commit a grave error.   GCU, by its own complicity, is doing just that.  When we also look at the parables of Jesus, in particular the classic "Parable of the Sower" found in Matthew 13, it is an indication that there will be some upon whom the Gospel will never take root, despite their exposure.   These people are the Laodiceans, and their fate is apostasy unless they have a heartfelt conversion to the truth and repent of their lukewarmness.  Apostasy, then, leads to eternal damnation if it is not dealt with and corrected.  Those who are in charge at GCU and other professed "Christian" universities need to recognize this fact, and they need to more clearly understand where their loyalties are and make some serious decisions.  In other words, what Ben Shapiro says is not what they should be worried about - as a matter of fact, Ben is probably more on-point than they are.   They should be worried more about offending the Holy Spirit than they are about offending the proponents of cultural conformity.   

I am not going to invest a lot of time on this issue except to say many Christians in the US need to grow some stones and "man up" a little, because the cowardice shown by GCU and even Archbishop Stowe in regard to the Covington boys is reprehensible, and it may cost us dearly in the future if we don't correct that now.  I am sure that great Christian leaders of the past - Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, Pope St. Leo XIII - are turning in their graves at how weak and wimpy American Christianity has become while our enemies are making gains even without popular support.  If we are to prevail in the culture wars (and we must, as our own freedoms to live our lives productively may be at risk) we need to stop apologizing for crap we are not responsible for, and be proud to take a stand for what is right.  If we don't, who will - let's remember the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler against Christians and Jews to remind us.   Have a good week. 

Some Thoughts on Perry Stone

For many years I have followed the ministry of Perry Stone, who at one time was an up-and-coming televangelist who in recent years has made a mark on the national scene.  I have a lot of vested interest in Perry and his ministry, and I wanted to basically just take some time to elaborate on that today.

Perry Stone is an evangelist who is affilliated with the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), one of the largest Holiness/Pentecostal denominations in the US and also perhaps the oldest (some would dispute that, arguing for the Pentecostal Holiness Church being the oldest of this tradition, but that is for another discussion).  His own ministry, Voice of Evangelism, is also based out of the same city as the headquarters of his denomination.  A part of his ministry is a weekly television broadcast, Manna-Fest, and he also has a plethora of published works from his headquarters office.  In recent years, Perry has been making somewhat of an impact on the Christian community, as he has become more widely known in just the past ten years or so.  Now approaching 60 and already a grandfather now, Perry continues to have a prominent profile, and as a result he naturally generates an abundance of both positive and negative feedback.  I am not here to either endorse or castigate Perry or his ministry, as personally I have no qualms with him, but like any human being he does have his strengths and weaknesses, and that is also important to remember.   My main emphasis here is to reflect on my own experiences over the years in regard to Perry and his ministry.

Perry and I share a lot in common.  For one thing, we were both born in the same home town (Parsons, WV), and even in the same hospital - the doctor who assisted in his delivery, as a matter of fact, employed my late great-grandmother at the hospital for a number of years.  It is also highly likely that we are possibly related through Perry's maternal grandfather, whose last name was Rexrode - back in my own great-grandmother's family, we are distantly related to the Rexrode family, and although at this time I would have to research it more, it is highly likely he and I may be distant cousins.  This is a huge reason why I take a personal interest in Perry, as I also know where he comes from.

Perry's other maternal grandfather, the late Rev. John Bava (1913-1997), was an Italian immigrant who later had a dramatic conversion experience and became a local Pentecostal minister who was well-known in the region on radio.  I remember some things about him from when I was a kid, as Rev. Bava was noted for a droll sense of humor and also was well-respected by many people of different denominations in the area.  However, Bava's real claim to fame was in a local record company, Cozy Records, he founded with his wife Lucy (Perry's grandmother) around the year 1940.  Although Bava and his wife were devout Pentecostal ministers, Cozy Records featured a variety of local talent, including Western swing groups, bluegrass bands, polka orchestras, and even some early rock and roll records.  The releases on that label are now highly valued by collectors, and a three-CD set was released recently of the label's content that is readily available.  Bava and his wife, as well as other local gospel groups, also recorded prolifically on the label as well.  Another rumor in our family I have to substantiate is that two of my own aunts actually sang on the radio with the Bavas back in the mid-1950's.   It would not be a surprise if this were the case, but it just needs to be verified first.
(information on Rev. Bava comes from Paul Vidal, "The Cozy Records Story," published originally in June 2002 at http://www.bigvjamboree.com/CozyRecordLabel.htm - accessed 1/31/2019.  Also, from https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/john-f-bava/29905149, also accessed 1/31/2019). 

Colorful picture of John and Lucy Bava from a Cozy Records research site

John and Lucy Bava were the parents of Perry's mother, Juanita Stone, who is someone I talk to on occasion on social media and she is a dear lady.  Perry's dad, Fred Stone Sr. (1933-2011), was from the southern end of the state, from a small town called Bradshaw in McDowell County, which today is still one of the most economically-depressed areas of West Virginia.  Fred was also a Church of God minister, having started his ministry in the 1950's and in addition to pastoring several churches in Virginia, West Virginia, and elsewhere, he also preached revivals back in the day.  Perry actually released a set of CD's of his dad relating stories of his ministry, and it is some inspiring stuff honestly - Fred was a man of integrity, and he also had to overcome a number of challenges, which is why I personally believe that many of the manifestations he witnessed over the years to be genuine, including cataracts falling off a man whom he'd prayed for at a meeting.  Fred was someone honestly I would have loved to have met and talked to, as he communicated a sincere humility and also an honest devotion to his faith, and that is admirable in itself.   He was also a major inspiration for Perry himself going into ministry, and I think also acted as a restraining force on Perry to prevent his son from being enamoured with the bright lights and celebrity status a lot of TV preachers seem to fall into.  It is my hope that after Fred's passing a few years ago, Perry will continue to use what he gained from his dad in his ministry, for if he does he will have a great impact on the lives of people in a good way.

The late Rev. Fred Stone Sr., Perry's father

Truth be told, Perry had some good mentors in his life, and I believe that is one reason why I have always had a great level of respect for him, even when I disagree with him on something.  That being said, I want to from this point focus first on some positives of Perry's ministry, and then I want to address a few areas I feel he needs some work in.

First, let me say that I believe Perry to have a legitimate call upon his life, and he also takes it seriously too.  This calling has led to him having some rather enlightening and rather revolutionary teachings that I feel are needed and that many have forgotten about.  Perry's teaching on the meanings of dreams and visions, for instance, are actually quite insightful, and I have learned much from those myself.  It was Perry's teaching that also encouraged me years ago to start writing down dreams I have and also understanding the underlying spiritual significance in them.   Perry was also one of the first people to expound on the whole Genesis 6 thing with the giants, and although I differ with him in a couple of areas, he did challenge me to explore the issue, and come to find out, many early Church Fathers, as well as later writers of the Church (notably Fr. Ludovico Sinistrari), verified much of what Perry said.  Also, the way he presents his teachings really piques one's interest in the subject, as Perry is a master communicator and he knows how to present his point in a way that grabs one's attention.  He has also made liberal use of illustrations and props in his sermons, both on TV and live, and this also makes the teaching just sort of pop out at you as you hear it.  These are some valuable strengths that Perry has which can be drawn upon even by people like myself who are Catholic catechists, and indeed I have used some of his techniques with success in teaching both adults and kids.  Naturally too, Perry is also quick to give credit to those who mentored him - his dad, his grandfather Bava, and other influential ministers - and it has given him a degree of teachability which also compels him to learn as well as teach others.  These strengths of character and witness are things I feel are the key to the success of his ministry too. 

That being said, I want to also honestly say that Perry is not perfect, and he has a few areas he could use some work on too.  This in no way devalues his ministry, and it in no way is a reflection upon him as a person nor does it judge his heart or spirit.  Rather, it is just some constructive criticism for him to take to heart because like the rest of us Perry is also a human being, and as such he has a concupiscent nature too.  What that means is that we cannot elevate him or anyone else onto a pedestal, for it will only lead to disappointment later when fallible humanity fails us (which it inevitably does).  Perry is not a "false teacher" or some charlatan, nor can he be accused of endorsing the "Word/Faith" heresy - on the contrary, he has rightly condemned that in many of his messages over the years.  Just because a preacher is on TV doesn't make him (or her) a "blab it and grab it" mouthpiece (although there are too many of those to be sure).  That is why it is important to evaluate Perry fairly and in Christian charity, and not as the result of a proverbial axe to grind.

One major weakness I have noted with much of Perry's teaching is that often he has excellent material, but he fails to document his sources for the material he presents, and thus at times errors can happen.  Perry is an intelligent guy, and no doubt he does "study to show himself approved," but he just needs to do so a little more judiciously.  Sloppy research on the part of a minister, academic, or anyone else is like leaving a back door open to attack by a vandal, and when Perry does this, there are people with their bows ready to shoot him for it, trust me.  He often tries to compensate for this by saying something to the degree that the sources are too many to mention for time's sake, etc., but still that is no excuse - he would be wise to invest the time to provide documentation for his position, as it would also challenge his listeners to check things out and study for themselves too.  God gave us brains for a reason, and we need to be good stewards and make generous use of them.  And, that includes proper research.  If Perry were to address this, I believe it would also help others who don't take him as seriously by labeling him a "TV preacher" and dismissing him as someone not worthy of serious consideration, and he could be used greatly of God to reach many others.  Perry deserves better, and his potential that God gifted him with is boundless - it is up to him now to realize that too. 

Another area that Perry needs some work in is his usage of overly-spiritualized Charismatic jargon.  One phrase in particular makes me cringe, and that is when he is describing something tangible and uses the term "in the natural" to do so.   For one thing, it sounds dumb (forgive me Perry for saying it, but have to be honest!) but it also could lead to a heresy.  In the early Church, a sect called the Gnostics threatened the survival of the Church due to their rejection of all matter as somehow "evil" and only "the spiritual" being good.  Although I know Perry and other Pentecostal people who use this "in the natural" phrase are not intentionally embracing Gnosticism, it is still disturbing that they would use terminology that presupposes those convictions.  Perry would do well to read some of Aquinas and Bonaventure on the subject, especially with the idea of God being the author of two "books," Nature and Revelation.   God created "the natural," and in Genesis we read many times that when he did he pronounced it as "good."  Nature reveals the glory of God, and we don't always need some esoteric prophetic utterance to see it either - look at something as basic as a snail shell, and you see it every day.  It would be good to see Perry get a true revelation of this, as it is needed today.  

A third thing I would caution Perry on is his deriding of "tradition" as if it were something bad, and that at times leads to a mild anti-Catholic attitude on his part that I don't believe he intends but it still communicates because of his own culturally-embedded "traditions of men."  Often, those who deride "tradition" as a cussword are themselves enslaved to the tradition of anti-traditionalism - this is what the warnings against "traditions of men" apply to.  Many long-practiced traditions are good things, and there is nothing inherently evil about them.  Some may justify good traditions for bad behavior, but it in no way nullifies the tradition itself.  Perry needs to understand that in his ministry and maybe rethink how he communicates that, as many devout Catholics are part of his audience and enjoy his teachings and this could ruin his witness with them.  Catholics who are inspired by the good fruit of Perry's ministry should become better Catholics, and not potential converts to Pentecostalism or be driven away from ecumenical dialogue because of a deeply-embedded anti-Catholicism that manifests itself in certain teachings.  Hopefully, should Perry read this, he will take that to heart.

The fourth thing I am concerned about in regard to Perry's teaching is not Perry himself, but some of the company he keeps.  Over the years unfortunately, Perry has associated himself with some questionable characters, and he might want to rethink those associations as they could come back to haunt him later.  One of those individuals was on his program several years ago, a guy who calls himself "Dr. Miller."  The "Doctor" was, honestly, an ignorant hick who couldn't string an articulate sentence together, yet Perry promoted him for God knows what reason.   Not to use an overly-religious cliche here, but honestly this "Dr. Miller" creeped out my spirit, as something just wasn't right with the guy, and fortunately Perry hasn't had him back on since.  I am also concerned with Perry's association with Randy and Paula White, both of whom are scandalous to the same degree as Jim and Tammy Bakker were in the 1980's.   I understand that Perry has been good friends with them since they were all young ministers together, and his friendship is not the problem - it is perfectly fine to be friends with whomever you choose, but quite another thing to be publicly associated with such individuals when they are morally or doctrinally in error.  Randy White, for instance, was caught more or less schnockered, was stopped for driving under the influence in Tampa, and he and Richard Roberts also seem to be good drinkin' buddies.  Then, he and Paula's divorce is an issue, especially since Paula has gone practically secular now - she was problematic to begin with, as she did embrace a "blab it and grab it gospel" much like her predecessor Marilyn Hickey did, but then she hobnobs with those openly hostile to true Christianity (Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce Knowles, and her new rock star husband, to name a few) and she has rebranded herself a "life coach."  Randy and Paula needed to step away from the pulpit years ago, as their fame and celebrity status corrupted them.  If I were Perry and did count these people my true friends, I would be encouraging them to seek some counseling and also would advise them to step back from public ministry for a while until they get some issues straight.  Maybe Perry has done this, and good for him if he did, but if he hasn't he may need to take this into consideration.  Another guy Perry is associated with who raises some concerns is Bill Cloud.  Cloud, a Church of God minister as well, is also in essence a Judaizer, and this could open doors to heresy as Cloud has the potential of being another Joseph Good, a Judaizing TBN star who later outrightly denied the divinity of Christ, a BIG heresy for one professing Christianity.   By advocating the practice of Jewish ceremonial law, Cloud in essence was (at least several years ago) preaching a gospel of "salvation by works," and that too is dangerous.  Perry knows better than that, and it would be a judicious move if he would distance himself a little from Bill Cloud on that issue too.  

A final thing I want to talk about in regards to some weaknesses in Perry's ministry is his emphasis in recent years on daily Communion.   As a Catholic, I am definitely on-board with the idea, but it is how we understand it that is different.  Perry sees daily communion, especially in his book The Meal that Heals, as a way to get God's promises to be more real in one's life.  He is on the right track, but is missing some crucial things.  For one, the Eucharist is a sacrament, and as such, its main purpose is to dispense a supernatural grace that aids in our own elevation, perfection and healing.  However, the Eucharist in itself is not sufficient unless one embraces the whole truth, and that boils down to this - the Eucharist, via a mystery of faith which cannot be explained, is the Body and Blood of Christ, shed for our sins.  Our partaking of it is like a form of time-travel in that it takes us back to the very foot of the Cross itself, where that Body and Blood does its work of redemption upon us.   At the center of the Eucharist then, we don't just have a desire to be "healthy, wealthy, and wise," but rather we have Jesus Himself, and the Eucharist is our entering into Him.  Jesus is to be the focus of all of our faith and what we do, and that is the one area Perry misses.  If Perry ever accepts the Eucharist as the Sacrament in which the Real Presence of Christ is entered into by us, a teaching like this could be radically transformed in such a way that it indeed would change lives.  But, the way he presents it now falls short of that.   Again, Perry needs to study more on this one. 

I offer these evaluations not in any way to condemn Perry, and I am hoping no one takes it that way at all.  Rather, I like many people see a great potential in Perry and his ministry, and if he would work on some weak areas he could become so much more of what God wants him to be, and thus reach even more people.  Also, while I would probably be ecstatic if Perry would ever formally convert to the Catholic faith, at the same time, he needs to grow to a better understanding within his own faith tradition.  If he does that, then God can still use him in a great way.  Perry is family, and I love him because he is both biological blood but also a brother in Christ to me, and while I may have some concerns, at the same time Perry doesn't deserve to be unjustly attacked, and he can be assured I will always have his back and come to his defense if anyone spouts false witness against him.  However, as with everyone else, if you like watching Perry's program or attending his meetings, always be ready to embrace the good of what he has to say and quickly discard that which is not good - that is a rule of thumb we should exercise with anyone.  Fried chicken is delicious to eat in other words, but don't swallow the bones; just digest and savor the meat.  On that, I will wrap up, and hope this will be edifying to those who read it. 

My Alma Mater and A Textbook Issue

A couple of weeks ago, a small controversy broke out on the campus of my alma mater, Franciscan University of Steubenville, over the use of a certain textbook in a Literature class there which the professor assigned to his students.   The issue was fortunately and judiciously handled by the University, but it is important to weigh in on the whole thing as an alumnus, which I am about to do.

The initial word of this whole incident was published by a traditionalist Catholic periodical called Church Militant, which is edited by noted Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Voris.  To explain a little about Voris (born 1961), he is a Catholic author who takes a very conservative, traditional stand on many moral and social issues, and honestly there is a lot of common ground that I would agree with him on (especially in opposing the LBGT agenda that is trying to overtake the Catholic Church in recent decades).  He has written some viable material, and some of what he says does have validity on certain issues.  But, like other "RadTrads," Voris does tend to at times go off the deep end, and he also tends to give into conspiracy theories on some things, and the issue with my university is one of those.  Voris's slanderous remarks against Franciscan University were some of the most venomous vitriol I have heard in a while, and he even accuses the University of theological liberalism (which, honestly, I have never seen evidence for) and all of this over some reports he came across of a textbook.  So, while on other issues I would agree with Voris, on this one he missed it totally.  Now to talk about the issue a little more in detail.

Michael Voris, Traditionalist Catholic editor of "Church Militant"

The controversy began when the Chair of the English Department at Franciscan, Dr. Stephen Lewis, assigned a class of his a certain book by one Emmanuele Carrere (born 1957), a French atheist and virulent anti-Catholic writer whose 2014 novel The Kingdom was the subject of the controversy.   Lewis assigned segments of The Kingdom for his students to read, and that caused a crap-storm, although not without valid reasoning.  Carrere's writing is very explicitly pornographic, and it has no compatibility with the Catholic worldview, and he also borders on the blasphemous in The Kingdom when he sexualizes the Virgin Mary in such a gross way that it really takes a strong stomach to read it. Some students, parents, and faculty were so upset by Lewis's assignment of that reading that they made a protest which came to the ears of folks like Voris.   Voris, instead of looking into the character of the professor himself, went off on a tangent in an article blasting Franciscan University for its "theological liberalism and apostasy," and in doing so it also brought some negative press to the university.  As we will see, Lewis had a good intention but perhaps an unwise execution of that intention, and therefore it is important that we know the facts of the story first.  

French atheist author Emmanuel Carrere

Dr. Stephen Lewis, Chair of the English Dept. at Franciscan University

Almost immediately, the President of Franciscan University, Fr. Sean Sheridan, issued a statement on the issue, and it was followed by similar statements from my own faculty advisor, Dr. Bob Rice, as well as Dr. Hahn.   The statements that Fr. Sheridan, Dr. Rice, and Dr. Hahn issued were articulate, they reaffirmed the mission of the University as passionately Catholic in worldview and theologically orthodox, and they also issued apologies to the students and parents while at the same time allowing a fair assessment of Dr. Lewis's intentions, which I concur with wholly.  As noted in Fr. Sheridan's statement, the use of the book was a mistake, but also he noted that he did not believe Dr. Lewis had any malicious intentions in utilizing it (which I agree with as well).  As Fr. Sheridan notes in his statement, the purpose that Lewis utilized the text was "as a tool to contrast how Catholics and non-Catholics approach faith in literature and to prepare students for challenging conversations with people who think like Carrere" ("Fr. Sheridan's Letter to the FUS Community," not dated, at https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/franciscan-u-apologizes-after-first-defending-pornographic-book-that-blasph - accessed 1/14/2019).   Dr. Rice also defends rightly Dr. Lewis's character when he notes in his statement, "Even more troubling was a recent article (meaning Voris's) because it directly involved a colleague of mine in the English Department, a man who I know to have a sincere faith and love for the Church" (Bob Rice, "I (Still) Love Franciscan," published 1/10/2019 at https://bo-rice.com/2019/01/10/i-still-love-franciscan/?fbclid=1wAR3oygQXVRtWT6GZr_kdkwud3Sg3l3qilJ6Rhv1jEwzF07ru_R9x1Awpmew - accessed 1/14/2019).   As Franciscan University is also a Newman Guide-approved school, the Cardinal Newman Society also weighed in on the book itself by noting that the book is "contrary to the mission of a Catholic college," and that three observations were important:

1.  An English reading assignment that is viciously blasphemous (in this case in regard to Our Lady) and is explicitly pornographic is reprehensible, disgusting, and without academic merit.

2.  Defending an assignment entailing reading such a book on academic freedom grounds completely warps the true meaning and purpose of academic freedom, which the author of the Newman Guide statement notes protects teaching and research within the confines of a professor's discipline and in comformity to truth, which is foundational to a university like Franciscan's Catholic mission.

3.  Fr. Sheridan presented a clear and strong apology that entailed implementing policy changes that would safeguard against future scandals, and in the Newman Guide's assessment Franciscan appears to have acted quickly in replacing the professor as chair of the English Department.  This apology deserves to be accepted with charity and wisdom. 

The Newman Guide author also appears to be supportive of Fr. Sheridan's response, which is fortunate, and affirmed that Franciscan does continue to uphold its much-deserved reputation as a strongly faithful Catholic college ("Statement Regarding Franciscan University of Steubenville and the Newman Guide," published 1/11/2019 at https://newmansociety.org/statement-regarding-franciscan-university-of-steubenville-and-the-newman-guide/ - accessed 1/14/2019).  I think the Newman Society did the right thing, and I wholeheartedly concur with their statement.   And, that leads to some concluding thoughts on my part.

I love my alma mater, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and by all indications for me it is one of the soundest, most orthodox Catholic universities in the country.  Many "RadTrads" such as Voris unfortunately go looking for their proverbial axes to grind, as to many of those people anything that is post-Vatican II is for them somehow "evil" and "apostate," despite the fact that many good and devout Catholic people attend the "Ordinary Form" (or "Novus Ordo") Mass and it in no way has shaken their own vibrant Catholic faith.  As a professed Traditionalist myself who prefers the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass, I am aware that the Novus Ordo has a few kinks yet to work out, and liturgical abuses do exist no doubt, but I am not ready to totally dismiss everything that is post-Vatican II, including many of the documents that came out of that Council, many of which do have some rich insights which are fully in line with Magisterial teaching.  And, not everything about the Novus Ordo is bad either - it has some good things in it too, although my personal preference is the older form.  I say all of that to make the point that often people like Voris jump on something like this like a buzzard on a gut wagon because they are seeking to justify their own ambivalence against anything that is post-Vatican II.  It is sad really, and despite a commendable theological orthodoxy, many "RadTrads" need to make a little visit to the confessional to deal with some of their own issues on this, as what they do oftentimes is devoid of true Christian charity and is more about their own axes to grind than it is about resolution to an issue.  That being said, let's get back to the textbook issue.

I commend Fr. Sheridan - whom I have had the privelege of meeting, and found him to be a man who possesses a godly humility and a wise demeanor - for articulating such a clear statement, and for taking the action he did on the issue.  Removing Dr. Lewis as Department head was probably a wise measure at this time, and I believe Fr. Sheridan had good premise for doing so.  As for Dr. Lewis, I don't know him personally, so I am not in any position to judge his heart or character, but with the evidence presented,  I would like to make a couple of important observations.  First, as mentioned, I believe Dr. Lewis to have a good intention concerning what he did, and as Fr. Sheridan and Dr. Rice noted, I also believe there was no malicious intent on his part in assigning the text.  However, despite intention, perhaps Dr. Lewis was somewhat unwise in his execution of his intention, which created the stink in the first place.  If I would have been Dr. Lewis, there are two steps I would have followed before utilizing such a text in my classes:

1.  I would have first consulted with Fr. Sheridan and my peers for approval to use the text, and would have gotten some input from colleagues both in the Department and from faculty peers as a whole.

2.  Before using the text in a class, I feel a disclaimer of some sort would have been in order, particularly in written form - this would have informed the parents and maybe advised them that this was a controversial text that didn't reflect the position of the University or the professor himself, and that the purpose of using it would be stated in such a way that it would be easily communicated to both students and their families.

In other words, I think Dr. Lewis's mistake was a simple, unintentional error in judgment, and it is hoped he will learn from the experience.  I personally believe he will, and as Dr. Rice and others I do know have vouched for his faith and character, I trust that will be the case as well.   None of us are immune from such things, as I myself have erred on occasion too.  For instance, recently I encountered a misunderstanding generated in my 6th-grade Religion class I teach at my parish when discussing the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead at the last day, and innocently one of my students said when I mentioned how we would be raised incorruptible and in the bodies God intended for us, "So, we will all look like the Kardashians!"   The comment was innocent, and quite honestly it was humorous, but one of my other students went home and told his parents, and that same Sunday I was approached and "chastised" by these parents for bringing up the Kardashians in class (which I didn't do myself).  I had to explain to these misinformed but well-intentioned parents what happened, and luckily the situation was straightened out.  However, it just proves that oftentimes a cultural reference, if you are not clear on intentions, can be taken out of context and cause a stink, and my experience with the "Kardashian" comment in many ways is similar to Dr. Lewis's with this controversial novel.  And, that lays a responsibility on students and parents as well - before you accuse a professor or teacher of "going rogue," it is probably a wise idea to talk to them first and maybe get their reasoning behind it, as it may be something innocent or maybe is being utilized to make some point.  It also admonishes the students in said class to pay attention as well, as perhaps Dr. Lewis did explain his intention but it got "lost in translation."

In my own earlier experience with Southeastern University, where actual liberalism was taught by the Religion Department faculty, I actually did try to see it from their perspective before I made a final judgment, and in that instance my original convictions were confirmed.  However, Dr. Lewis is not these liberal Pentecostal academic elitists, and honestly there is no comparison.   However, it took a lot of digging and seeing where those guys at Southeastern were coming from, and at times it was hard because as persons some of them were actually friendly and likeable.  This is why the Church teaches the use of faith and reason together to discern things, as they balance each other out.  Facts are an important part of this process, and when you have a certain bias towards something (as Michael Voris does against the post-Vatican II Church) it can be a hindrance rather than a help.  That being said, I will now close by saying that I believe Dr. Lewis to be a good man of integrity and a capable educator who is also a fallible human being who made an error in judgment, and I still love Franciscan as a sound Catholic university true to its mission and in no way compromised theologically or morally.  Hopefully others who read up on this situation will see it likewise.  Thank you. 

Weighing In on Covington

The March for Life is a momentous event every year that takes place in January, and it is one of the greatest displays of support for the rights of the unborn.  Every year, hundreds of thousands of dedicated people from all walks of life brave the winter chill to attend this event, and it is truly inspiring.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to attend one of these yet, although I hope to maybe next year given I live only about 65 miles from our nation's capital where it is held.   For the most part, the March for Life is ignored by the secularists, the mainstream media, and others, and it is also a generally civil affair that is orderly, respectful, and there is a spirit of collegiality among the participants that is unparalleled elsewhere.  However, this year something happened in that for the first time a controversy arose that involved an old American Indian guy, a Black racist cult, and a group of teenage Catholic school kids from Kentucky, and that is what I wanted to talk about as it is a pretty big deal in the media right now.   Let us first recap what happened, then give a little background, and then I want to give some of my own perspective on this.

Covington Catholic School student Nick Sandmann (left) and American Indian activist Nathan Phillips (right)

At the end of the March for Life events on Friday afternoon, a group of kids from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky were in front of the Lincoln Memorial waiting for their bus to head back home.  The students from the school were all teen boys, and they wore the much-talked-about red "MAGA" hats as a sort of identifier to keep together as a group.   On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a group of Black religious cultists affiliated with the "Black Hebrew Israelites" was demonstrating about something, and their attention became fixed on the young Covington students, whom they started to jeer at and spit venomous racial epithets such as calling the kids "dirty Crackers" and other names, including some derogatory homosexual references.  In the middle of all that, this crazy Indian guy beating a drum and chanting makes his way into the middle of the group of kids, and comes face-to-face with one of the students, Nick Sandmann, and then proceeds to beat his drum in this kid's face.   Not knowing what else to do (what can you do when a crazy man is beating a drum at you impromptu in your face?) Nick just stands there and smiles, doing nothing (a wise move on his part, and actually commendable due to the aggressive nature of the old Indian guy banging a drum right in his ear).  And, that touched off a mess - the kids were labeled as "racist," accused of "harassing" the Indian guy, and of course, the secular media eats this up without revealing the facts behind the whole thing.  All of this, incidentally, was based on footage from a few seconds of video.  In a short time, however, another longer video surfaces, and it clearly showed the kids were innocent of the slander being directed at them by a gullible public and a ravenous secular media.  The kids - in particular, Sandmann and his family - endured death threats, condemnation from even their own diocesan bishop (who himself should have known better), and possible destruction of their futures.  Why all this hubbub, and why is it that despite the evidence some still vilify these poor kids?  Let us first examine the other players in the drama, and we'll go from there.

The American Indian guy was a noted activist named Nathan Phillips, who is presented as an "elder" as well as reportedly being a Vietnam veteran.   Phillips is 63 years old, and in doing some research on the guy I found out he has a history of this type of activism.  Also, his status as a veteran is somewhat ambiguous as well, as given his age he would have technically been too young to serve in Vietnam.  Also, although he may have a good service record as being in the military (which I wouldn't dispute) the man could not have been a combat veteran either.  And, as far as his status as a "Native elder," it would probably be wise to get verification of that from the tribe he identifies with, as American Indians don't take that title lightly - they highly venerate and honor the elders, or "Old Ones," as some call them, and thus the office of "elder" in a tribe is something that one cannot claim but is bestowed as an honor - does Phillips have that distinction?  Best to ask his tribal leadership first. 

Let's now talk about these "Black Israelites" that more or less instigated the entire thing.  There is a cultic movement, dating back to 1979, called the "Black Hebrew Israelites" that was founded by a Black racist radical by the name of Yahweh ben Yahweh (1935-2007 - actual name is Hulon Mitchell Jr.).  According to the thinking of this group, the "real" Israelites of the Bible were all Black, and the Jews and Whites in general to them were considered "satanic oppressors and infidels."  In that, Yahweh ben Yahweh mirrors several other Black religious leaders, such as Elijah Mohammed (and his successor Louis Farrakhan) who led the Nation of Islam, "Black Liberation" theologian James Cone (as well as his proteges such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright), and to a lesser degree the "African Zion" movement of the 1920's of Marcus Garvey.  Interesting enough too, Yahweh ben Yahweh actually taught that Whites and Jews, as well as former members who left the cult, were to be killed, and this idea led to his own conviction in 1991 of conspiring to murder - it was even reported that one of his victims was decapitated.  The people on Friday who were at the Licoln Memorial were followers of this guy, and thus that speaks volumes of their intentions.

Yahweh ben Yahweh (Hulon Michell Jr.), founder of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement

Now let's talk about Nathan Phillips (born 1954) a little.   Phillips is a 63-year-old Native American activist who has a history of demonstrations that often are characterized by the same face-to-face confrontation we saw Friday with Sandmann.   He is part of the Omaha Nation, and although born into the Omaha, he was taken and raised by a White family at an early age.  His military service is verifiable, although he enlisted in 1972 at the age of 17 and thus never really was part of the Vietnam conflict because he received his Honorable Discharge in 1976 (the Vietnam conflict ended in 1973).   His big claim to fame was the "Standing Rock" protests which were directed against the Dakota Pipeline in 2012, and that led to a music video entitled "Make it Bun Dem."  In 2015, he was involved in an incident similar to the encounter with the Covington students at Eastern Michigan University, where he claimed he was "harassed" by students there too although evidence also exists to the contrary.  His presence in Washington this past week was for his participation in the Indigenous People's March, which was held at the same time as the March for Life.  All of this together shows that there is more to the story than perhaps the "mainstream media" wanted to spin, and let's talk about that now.

First, my thoughts on Phillips are mixed.  I am myself of at least 1/16 Mvskoke Indian ancestry, and in my opinion, the Indigenous People's March and the March for Life are both valid things that both deserve support.  The plight of American Indians is a real one, but fortunately, in recent decades more awareness of it has made discrimination against them almost non-existent.  Most American Indians are also decent people, although many nations of them are plagued with social problems (alcoholism is a big one on many reservations, especially out West).  At the forefront of recognizing the dignity of American Indians as persons is the Catholic Church, which in its history in the US has done more to aid the native populations than almost any other religious organization.  As for Phillips himself, while I highly doubt he can be called a "Vietnam veteran," he is nonetheless still a veteran in that he honorably served our nation, and that I respect him for - he received his Honorable Discharge, and has a valid military record, although not a combat veteran.  Also, as a member of the Omaha Nation, he is to be respected for his rich cultural heritage, and that is not in dispute either - as a descendant of Mvskoke Indians myself, I see common ground with the man on that.  However, what is problematic is that Phillips seems to be on the wrong end of the political spectrum - he expects "progressive" liberals to share his values, but he is sadly deluded in that, and in that delusion he has bought into their "victimhood" and entitlement mentality, which does neither him nor the Omaha people he is part of any good.  The encounter with the Covington students, in particular the singling-out of Nick Sandmann, demonstrates how ridiculous this mindset is, and as an American Indian supposedly with the title of "elder" (that still needs verification from the Omaha Nation leadership honestly) he should be setting a better example.  What he did was stupid, and honestly, it was fodder for the secularists and the pro-abortion crowd who want to discredit the March for Life, and I have a couple of my own thoughts on that.  First, I want to state up-front that what I am about to say is my opinion only and is not to be taken as stone-hard fact;  there is a possibility I could be proven wrong for what I am about to speculate, so I am open to correcting it and will do so if necessary.  It has been my contention for some time that many of these incidents are staged by certain individuals who pay "activists" and "demonstrators" to create a stink to discredit those they oppose - I believe we saw that in Charlottesville a couple of years ago, when it came to light that some of the "neo-Nazis" were in fact paid actors.  I am not going to state as fact that this is the case with Phillips, but the whole thing is just a little off - why did he just all of a sudden show up, make his way into a group of Catholic school kids, and start banging a drum in one kid's face totally impromptu?   I am seriously thinking (again, this is just me and I could be wrong) that more will come to the surface on that later.  And, that leads me to a couple of other thoughts.

Although the secular leftists and their "lamestream media" lapdogs have tended to ignore the March for Life in the past (they were more focused in the past couple of years on the obscene "pussy-hat" Women's Marchers that occur the following day, which draws far fewer numbers), it is obvious that the pro-life movement must be causing some angst for the Lefties with its huge base of support, so they I believe are in an orchestrated effort to discredit the movement any way possible.   Also, both Left and Right somehow view the American Indians as untouchable, and always have, this despite the fact that most American Indians are aloof from that political battleground and those that are involved in it are equally distributed on both the Right and Left ends of the political spectrum.  So, what better weapon then for the Left than to utilize an old Native guy to initiate a confrontation with a group of Catholic school kids - who is going to dare come against a venerated "Native elder?"  The mentality a lot of times with the American Indians is similar to what some Evangelicals have in regard to Jewish people (and being of some Sephardi heritage myself, I identify with them too) in that anything the modern nation of Israel does is "beyond reproach" and therefore exempt from individual scrutiny.  Fact is though, both Jews and American Indians are fellow human beings, and are prone to the same concupiscent nature as the rest of the human race is - a fruit of the Fall, I would add.  That means that although we respect them, and even champion their cause as a people, at the same time there will be those individuals among them who do dumb things, sin, and make mistakes - Nathan Phillips is no different in that he is a fallible man just like the rest of us.   So, whatever the facts eventually reveal, the thing is Phillips invaded young Sandmann's space unprovoked, and he was wrong.  However, let us also remember that this was Phillips' stupidity, and doesn't reflect on every Native American in the nation - many of them probably think he was stupid too in doing what he did.  With video evidence now showing that the students did nothing to provoke this man, nor did they respond violently, I think a round of apologies is in order to these young men, in particular, Sandmann.

Now let's talk about the Catholic response to this.  One hallmark of the Catholic faith is that our dealings with our fellow man focus on three things:

1.  The dignity of the personhood of all

2.  The allowance of supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect us on a daily basis

3.  Appealing to both faith and reason in every circumstance

The Catholic Diocese of Covington, KY, where these boys and their school are located, issued an official condemnation of the boys as if blaming them for this incident.   The Bishop of the diocese was premature in his conclusion, and before spouting off official edicts he should have waited for all the facts to be presented before having a knee-jerk reaction to the incident (if some of these bishops would have been that quick to act in the sex abuse crises that have plagued the Church recently, which had much more tangible evidence available, we might have had some resolution now to that).  Our own Archbishop of Baltimore, William Lori, followed suit much to my own disappointment, and that was tragic as well.   So, I think it is time I give our good bishops a lesson from our own Catechism of the Catholic Church in regard to this matter.  First, I would like to direct Bishops Foye and Lori to CCC 2477, which says this:  "Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury."  Further in the same paragraph, "(He becomes guilty) of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor."  This is elaborated further in CCC 2478, which reminds us (via a reference from St. Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises) that "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way."  Moving on to CCC 2479, it says this:  "Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor...Thus, detraction and honor offend against the virtues of justice and charity."  In CCC 1753, we are reminded also that "the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation."   Then there is CCC 1791, which reminds us that "This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.  This is the case when a man 'takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.' In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he (or she - my add) commits."  This leads us now also to the words of Scripture, in particular, the commands of the Decalogue, which form one of the "Four Pillars of Catechesis."  Exodus 20:16 states that the ninth commandment (or 8th for some) is this - "thou shalt not bear false witness."  Although many in the past have interpreted this as the sin of lying, it really isn't (although often lies are entailed in it).  In reality, it is a prohibition against defamation of another's character and gossip, and it is complementary to one of Jesus's commands that often is misconstrued and misapplied these days - the mandate in Matthew 7:1 to "judge not lest ye be judged."   What God has already judged, by the way, is exempt from this so we can speak out against abominations such as "same-sex marriage" without violating this verse, but that is a whole other subject.  In the context of the verse, Jesus is admonishing his followers not to draw hasty conclusions about individuals without first knowing the facts (faith + reason, in other words).  If anything, this verse could be easily applied as well to racism, which is a direct violation of almost every commandment.  As it relates to the Covington students though, it is the bishops as well as others who condemned them without knowing the facts who violate the principle behind both of these Scriptural mandates.  So, if I were Bishops Foye and Lori, I would be paying a visit to my personal confessor to straighten this out, and then I would apologize to Sandmann and the other young men for "bearing false witness" against them.   The bishops are the leadership of the Church, and they bear more accountability for this sort of thing, so they should be setting the example by owning up to their own rash judgments.  Hopefully as more evidence comes available, they will do just that.

My heart really goes out for Sandmann and the other kids from Covington who were unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time.  They are bright young men, and by all accounts good students and strong in their Catholic faith.  They also have the potential for good futures ahead, at least until this happened.  Now, a sinful bishop threatens them with expulsion over something they were innocent of, and it has consequences - these young men could have their entire futures ruined, and that is tragic.   I hope that Phillips can sleep at night over the turmoil he has caused children, and honestly, if I were the Omaha nation I would consider maybe giving him the boot for this nonsense.  And, if Bishop Foye doesn't recant his initial condemnation of these young men, he doesn't need to be a spiritual leader of his diocese, and perhaps it is time to look for a bishop with more integrity if that is all that Foye can do.  A young man's future doesn't need to be destroyed by a bunch of racebaiters and autocratic bishops, and they should not be punished for something that they have truly been vindicated for.   As this unfolds more, I may have more to say later, but for today I feel this is sufficive to express my own feelings.   Thank you for allowing me to share. 

Some Thoughts on the Word/Faith Movement

Evangelical apologetics have a certain admittable edge over what we as Catholics have, and coming from the position of a convert to the Catholic Church from the Pentecostal tradition, there are some things that Catholics need more education on regarding some things within Protestant traditions, and one of those is in regard to what is termed "televangelists."   Networks such as Trinity Broadcasting have a significant number of Catholic viewers, and I know of many Catholics (many involved in Charismatic Renewal for instance) who are regular viewers of people like Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, and other noted celebrity preachers on TBN and other networks.  Despite their mass appeal and high viewership, it must be understood that many of the things that these "televangelists" say are not only contrary to what we believe as Catholics, but they even are heretical by more orthodox Protestant standards too.   Catholic apologetics, by far, has tended to ignore a lot of this, and when the "televangelist" is addressed, often it is in relation to anti-Catholicism and most of that attention is directed toward TV preachers such as Jimmy Swaggart who are outrightly anti-Catholic.   That is a necessary vocation too, and that junk does need to be exposed, but I would argue that a far more insidious hazard lurks behind the glitz and glamour of "religious television" that for the most part conventional Catholic apologetics tend to ignore, and that is why it must be addressed.

In the last article, I dealt with academic elitism evident at some Pentecostal universities these days, and I did so as someone who was once on the "inside."  Likewise, I am writing this from the perspective of one who has been there.  What is called the "Word/Faith Movement" is a substratum of the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition that unfortunately shares little in common with traditional Pentecostalism or even the Charismatic Renewal movement that transformed so many Catholic Christians in the 1960s through the 1980s.  Some people who have researched this movement even say it is not Pentecostal or Charismatic at all, and they have some legitimate concerns to back up that assertion.  However, it has become intertwined with the Pentecostal and Charismatic communities over the past 40 or so years due to many of its proponents coming out of those traditions, and for the normal "Joe Schmo" on the street, there is no marked difference between the two ideas.  Even former Pentecostals like myself have dabbled there at some point - in my younger days as a budding Foursquare minister at a Bible college, I listened to Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and others like them, and I even saw Kenneth Hagin in person at one of his meetings back in 1990 in Ozark, AL.  The allure of these types of individuals is due to the fact that they take something legitimate and true, and then spin around it a whole system that ends up being foreign to the core truth that may have spawned the whole thing.  As I began to grow in my Christianity, in time I began to see the futility of such things, and at first it caused a lot of confusion - I was mad at God for a while over it (and it wasn't even his fault) and it took years to unravel some of the garbage I imbibed from that movement.  Some things I even still tend toward even today.  That being said, let me now explain what the idea behind this movement is, as well as giving a little history.  Then, I want to deal with one heretical aspect of the movement that we as Catholics need to be seriously aware of, as it involves a pillar of our faith.

The "Word/Faith" movement, also known as the "Health and Wealth Teaching," "Positive Confession," or by the more pejorative term "Name it and Claim it," is something that gets its core convictions from such Bible passages as Philippians 4:19 - "The Lord shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory."  The core truth in this is absolutely true - God does supply needs, and I can testify of many times in my own life where a serious need had been miraculously met in a way I didn't expect.  The problem with the proponents of the "Word/Faith" doctrine is that they take this to the point where essentially they reason that God wants us to somehow be in perfect health, have abundant wealth, and achieve an unrealistic level of perfection based more on our desires than on our actual needs, and this is where that teaching goes horribly wrong.  A lot of times, God's provision of our needs is just that - he gives us what we need.   This is in opposition at times to what we want, because oftentimes needs and wants are two different things.   Let's take this example that I am about to share.  You have just been offered a job somewhere that you need, but you may have a transportation issue making it work.  You need reliable transportation to get you to work, and you need the work to provide the financial support to meet your other necessities.  Question is, how is that need provided?  You can pray for it, and if it is God's will (more on that later) for you to have this job, he will make sure you get there.  But, his way of supplying the need may not necessarily be with a brand-new Rolls Royce dropping out of the sky.  The way the need may be met may be simply providing you with a small financial blessing of some sort until your paychecks kick in to allow you to afford to take the city bus to your work location, but that is providing a need.  Or, it may be that God leads you to a decent car dealership who gives you a good deal on a modest car (such as a 1992 Prius or something) that will get you back and forth, but it still meets a need.  So, God has answered the prayer in that case.  Things like that happen all the time, and that is what Phillippians 4:19 is about.  Where the "Word/Faith" people get it wrong is that those "needs" to them are extravagant wants that appeal to the lust of the eye.  For the "Word/Faith" person, the bus is not good enough, because in their thinking we serve this "big God" who can provide a Rolls Royce, and the job - ha!  To them, a job paying $12 hourly that meets your expenses every month and keeps a roof over your head is not good enough either - you need to "claim" that executive position paying $100,000 a year (although you know full well you don't have the training and experience for it) and if you don't, then you are guilty of "not trusting God" somehow.  And, there is the fundamental problem - although God has provided and met the need you have, if you are a "Word/Faith" disciple this is not good enough, and you demand more.   That thinking has caused more problems for people than can be documented here, and it is destructive and even dangerous.  For those who teach this stuff, there is a worse danger - those "teachers" say often that you have to "sow a seed" into their ministry, and if you make that "faith promise" (which, basically, means that you are committing sometimes thousands of dollars you don't actually have) then you too can be healthy, wealthy, and wise.  The flaw in this whole scheme is glaringly obvious - if that actually worked, there are two things one would notice.  First, those extorting this money from needy people who don't have it wouldn't need to do so, in that they should by their own rationale have more money than they know what to do with and should be giving it away themselves.  Second, if you drive past one of those "megachurches" where this crap is taught, you begin to notice something - there are not a lot of Lincolns, Cadillacs, BMWs, and Rolls Royces in those parking lots, are they?   More often than not, the only person driving anything remotely like that in those parking lots is the "teacher" who is spouting that stuff, and that person got it by bilking all those other people driving 20-year-old Fords and Toyotas in the parking lot out of a load of cash.  Common sense begs that one looks at the plain evidence in sight, but many do not tragically.  So, the question is why people follow this stuff, and where did it start?  Let's go back to origins first.

What we call the "Word/Faith" movement has its genesis in two different streams.  The first has to do with a Baptist minister by the name of Essek William "E.W." Kenyon (1867-1948).   Kenyon was not a Pentecostal, and although he was marginally associated with the Keswick and Holiness movements of the 1800s that presaged Pentecostalism, he had a whole different line of influence that shaped his teachings.  In his early days, Kenyon attended something called the Emerson School of Oratory in Boston, which had its origins in the work of Charles Wesley Emerson (1837-1908), a Unitarian minister who also had some influence from the teachings of Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), a cultic pseudo-Christian theologian who was influenced by occultic esotericism.  Emerson School at the time was also a hotbed of another cultic heretical movement called New Thought, which was a more popular offshoot of Christian Science.  New Thought is what is known as a "mind science," much in the same way as its parent movement, Christian Science, and it teaches that essentially all "bad" things are in the mind and that the individual has the power to change reality essentially by changing their mind and how they think.  It's most popular modern-day expression, the Unity School of Christianity, still garners a lot of followers for the same reasons in many cases many "Word/Faith" teachers do on the airwaves.  It is where the whole idea of "positive thinking" came from, and some proponents of this (including Kenyon) even proposed that in order for the positive thought to become reality, one has to "confess" it by speaking it out - essentially, "speaking the thought into existence."  The problem from the outset with this is that it is similar to occultic ideas of magic, in that circumstances can be manipulated by thoughts/words, and thus it would be contrary to a Christian view on these issues, as only God Himself has that power.  Some people, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Kenyon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Kenyon - accessed 1/8/2018) dispute the role of New Thought metaphysical teachings on Kenyon's beliefs, insisting instead that he got them from Keswick and Holiness influences.  However, neither the Keswick nor Holiness movements actually teach this sort of thing - both believe, as did the later Pentecostals, that the supernatural was real, and thus divine healing was possible (Catholics affirm that as well) but there was not any room for manipulation and "positive confessions" to facilitate it.  Hence, the difference.  Later, Kenneth Hagin would get "revelation" from Kenyon's writings (so much so he reportedly plagiarized them in his own books) and take these ideas further, and it would spawn a whole mess of heresies that Hagin's successors - Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, Benny Hinn, etc. - would expand to even more ridiculous levels.  However, unlike Kenyon, Hagin had other roots, and as the "Father of the Faith Movement," he is pivotal to the discussion as to his origins.

Beginning in the 1930s, a number of Pentecostal evangelists began striking out on what is popularly called the "Sawdust trail," holding huge meetings in tents.   Revivalism was not limited to Pentecostals though, as Baptists such as Billy Graham were also doing similar crusades at around the same time.  In the 1940s and early 1950s, a number of these Pentecostal evangelists became well-known for their emphasis on divine healing, and their crusades began to feature that prominently.  One of the biggest names of that period was Oral Roberts (1918-2009), a Pentecostal Holiness evangelist (later Methodist and then Foursquare) who also pioneered teaching called "seed faith."  The idea of "seed faith" was that one had to "sow a seed" (which often signified financial contributions of some sort) in order to get a response from God, and this extended to a radical new interpretation of verses in Scripture such as Phillippians 4:19 in that a new "give to get" mentality was being fostered.  This, naturally, is in stark contrast to what the Church has historically taught on this, as spiritual gifts such as divine healing were traditionally seen as manifestations of grace in which merit or position mattered little, in that they were tied to the Atonement.  Despite this, Roberts cannot be rightly called a "Word/Faith" teacher in that for the most part, his doctrines were more in line with the classical Pentecostalism of his faith community and he only made this deviation based on his own opinions.  However, Roberts was not the only evangelist out there, as a whole movement, called the "Salvation/Healing Revival," had taken prominence particularly in the early to mid-1950s with such individuals as Gordon Lindsay, A.A. Allen, Jack Coe, Kathryn Kuhlmann, and others.  One of those was a young Oklahoma Assemblies of God minister named Kenneth Hagin, and this is where the "Word/Faith" movement has its genesis as such.

Kenneth E. Hagin Sr. (1917-2003) was a Texas-born Assemblies of God minister who around the year 1949 became a traveling evangelist in association with the "Salvation/Healing" movement.  He formed his own evangelistic association in 1963 and began to be nationally broadcast sometime around 1967.  Hagin, through both this association with the "Salvation/Healing" movement and his cursory readings of Kenyon's material, began to teach this "Word/Faith" doctrine, and a host of others soon rode in on his coattails, including Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, Marilyn Hickey, and others, in the early 1970s.  Soon, the proponents of this movement dominated the airwaves and even influenced the teachings of people not traditionally associated with the movement, such as Jim and Tammy Bakker, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts.  It is one reason too why many people mistakenly associate all Pentecostals and Charismatics - in particular those with television outreaches - with this teaching, which is not exactly fair to many of them.  In recent years, a new crop of younger teachers of this doctrine has now taken over the airwaves, including such individuals as Joel Osteen, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, and Casey Treat, but they essentially teach variations of the same ideas originating with Kenneth Hagin.

E.W. Kenyon, thought to be the earliest influence of the "Word/Faith" movement

Kenneth E. Hagin Sr., the real "father" of the "Word/Faith" movement

Before moving forward, there are a few observations about all this I want to make.  First, I want to say that I acknowledge that there are actual Christians who are disciples of these "Word/Faith" teachers, and they are still Christians despite their belief in bad teachings.  Second, like everything else, at the core of even the worst of these "Word/Faith" people may be some good that can be taken - for instance, I know from years ago that Kenneth Hagin's Bible school, Rhema Bible Training Center in OK, did have some fine music LP's, one of which I actually have.  Also, I actually did receive a nice blessing when I attended a Kenneth Hagin crusade back years ago when a guy sitting behind me slipped me a note with a $20 bill in it saying "This is a blessing from God," and to be honest that met a need for food that week when I was a struggling college student in my dormitory.  Third, it is important to also note that although there are extremes that come from these "Word/Faith" teachers that should be rightly rejected, it must also be remembered that at the core of their teaching is some truth that we must be careful not to discard - we take that truth and see where it fits into historic Church teaching, and then it can be accepted in its proper context.  The truth, in this case, is that God does provide needs, and also that supernatural healing is possible.  But, let's also remember that these things do not mean unlimited wealth and perfect health, and if you are expecting a model's body with a Rolls Royce in your driveway, you will be tragically disappointed, as that is not how God works.  It is at this point I want to discuss this more thoroughly before moving on. 

At the root of the excesses of "Word/Faith" theology regarding wealth and health is a materialistic worldview.  At the core of this materialism is something that writer John Horvat defines in his book Return to Order (York, PA:  Tradition Family Property, 2013) as "frenetic intemperance."  On page 7 of the book, Horvat defines frenetic intemperance as a "restless, explosive, and relentless drive inside man that expresses itself in modern economy" in two ways:

1.  It seeks to throw off legitimate restraints

2.  It gratifies disordered passions

Though Horvat's definition is more or less focused on economics (in particular characterization of Keynesian economic theory that embodies these ideas), it can also be applied theologically in regard to the "Word/Faith" teaching.  At the core of the "positive confession" of unlimited wealth and perfect health that are hallmarks of "Word/Faith" teaching is a type of disordered frenetic intemperance that seeks to throw off legitimate restraints (these "Faith teachers" are fond of saying, for instance, that those who disagree with them are "being religious" and "bound by tradition," and traditional teaching is what indeed restrains the excesses of heresy) as well as gratifying disordered passions (by promoting the "confession" of "wealth and health," it appeals to the base greed in the hearer).  We now turn to a seminal evaluation of this movement authored by Christian apologist Hank Hanegraaff entitled Christianity in Crisis, as now his evaluation of this movement on these grounds shows how frenetic intemperance, rather than genuine faith in Christ, drives a lot of the heretical teaching in this movement, and it has created practically an alternative belief system that bears little semblance to traditional Christian teaching.

I first read Christianity in Crisis back in 1997, and to be honest it was a hard pill to swallow, as at the time I myself was beginning to be weaned away from a lot of teaching like this.  Hanegraaff's book was actually written a few years earlier (around 1993 I believe) and I had refused to even touch it much less read it then.  But, as I began to see things more clearly, I believe God led me to an audio version of the book I found in a library at a retirement community I was working security at during that time, and the timing of my discovery of this was perfect.  Despite preconceived notions I had of Hanegraaff's motives, I actually found that he was very graceful and compassionate in his writing of this text, and he had the heart to see people delivered from some of the more destructive teachings of this movement.   This is what also inspired me to maybe begin a sort of Catholic perspective on this movement, as that has been sadly neglected, and I think Hanegraaff's approach is a great place to begin.  Hanegraaff in the past year or so has been received into the Orthodox Church, and being the Orthodox perspective is identical to the Catholic one on this subject, I am hoping that he can maybe continue to shed light on these teachings so as to benefit both Catholic and Orthodox readers and inform them better.  That being said, let me give a brief synopsis of Hanegraaff's premise, as it is concise and very easy to follow. 

The construction of Christianity in Crisis is built upon the acronym FLAWS, and Hanegraaff sets it up as follows:

1.  Faith in Faith

a.  Force of Faith

b.  Formula of Faith

c.  Faith of God

d.  Faith "Hall of Fame"

2.  Little Gods

a.  Deification of Man

b.  Demotion of God

c.  Deification of Satan

d.  Demotion of Christ

3.  Atonement Atrocities

a.  Re-creation on the Cross

b.  Redemption (of Christ) in Hell

c.  Rebirth (of Christ) in Hell

d.  Reincarnation of Christ from Demonic to a mere "Son of God."

4.  Wealth and Want

a.  Cultural Conformity

b.  Cons and Cover-ups

c.  Covenant-Contract

d.  Context to the Third Power

5.  Sickness and Suffering

a.  Symptoms and Sickness

b.  Satan and Sickness

c.  Sin and Sickness

d.  Sovereignty and Sickness

Hanegraaff notes that the heresies of the faith movement can be systematically categorized by this diagram.  Essentially, how it works is like this - faith is a force that our words activate, and since we are essentially "little gods," we have the power to confess with our words and create what we desire.  In order for that to happen, Jesus had to be "born again" a demoniac, then "born again" again in hell, and demoted to a mere "son of God" so that we become those "little gods."   And, because we are now "little gods," we are mandated to be healthy and wealthy, and if we are not, then somehow we are cursed or are harboring some "dark, secret sin."  However, the focus I want to look at now is on something that is very disturbing, based on this faulty idea of "sovereignty and sickness" that these "Word/Faith" teachers propagate, as it bludgeons even the words of Jesus in the classic "Our Father" prayer He Himself taught us.

The great Catholic theologian/philosopher Romano Guardini, in his 1934 classic work on the Lord's Prayer, has as the backbone premise of his book that one petition in that prayer is the "gateway" to the rest, and that is the petition "Thy will be done."  As he writes on page 4 of the book, he says "We are exhorted here to ask that God's will be done. So this will must be something that is worth asking for; something precious for which we have to petition with all the earnestness and ardor of prayer; something holy and salutary." (Romano Guardini, The Lord's Prayer. Manchester, NH:  Sophia Institute Press, 1932.  p. 4).   In regard to this also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us via the words of Scripture itself that "if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, God listens to him" (CCC 2827, John 9:31).  Note also CCC 2611 - the prayer of faith goes beyond just calling on God's name but also entails disposing of the heart to do the will of the Father (note also Matthew 7:21).  In stark contrast, "Word/Faith" teachers such as Rod Parsley, Frederick Price, and Benny Hinn mock this essential aspect of our prayer life by saying it is "stupid" (Price), a "succumbing to the traditions of men," (Parsley), and "being religious" (Hinn).  Hanegraaff documents a rant by Frederick Price which is very disturbing in regard to this, in that Price actually says that anyone who has to say "Thy will be done" is "calling God a fool" (Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009.  p. 275).   My question to Price then would be this - was Jesus calling Himself a "fool" by teaching us to pray the "Our Father?"   If so, Price and his cohort have a serious problem - they are calling God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and 2000 years of orthodox teaching a lie.   God's will is ultimately what is good for us, and we have to rely on it as Christians.  We are not forced to obviously, and God respects our free will if we choose not to follow His will, but as followers of Christ, it should be engrained into us that following God's will is exercising our will in trusting that He knows best (which he does obviously).  That is why Guardini correctly concludes that God's will is indeed something worth asking for, and something very precious to seek after.  So, for some TV preacher like Fred Price to come along and bludgeon that, it means that perhaps Price has a problem with trusting God himself.  For these "faith teachers" to say things like this also calls into question their own conversion.  No one can judge man's heart except God Himself, but if actions are any indication, some of these "teachers" may be living a lie and that fact alone would qualify them as false teachers that should not be given any serious thought, especially by Catholic Christians who have a richer reservoir of teaching to draw from that is proven and true.  And, this is one reason why Catholics would do well to stay away from such nonsense, as what these people are teaching is, in essence, an outright heresy based on their own mindsets and not on solid teaching and evidence as provided in Scripture.  That was the core issue I wanted to address in regard to this movement because as a catechist I am charged with transmission of what is called the "Four Pillars" (the Creeds of the Church, the Our Father, the Decalogue, and the Sacraments) to those I am chosen to instruct.  If any of my students are hearing the garbage spewed by those like Fred Price and Rod Parsley on TV, it is my responsibility to point out to them that what those individuals say is wrong, heretical, and could endanger their souls.  If I don't, I risk innocent blood on my hands.  This is a very important reason why Catholics need to "step up their game" on addressing such things, as right now it's the Evangelicals who are doing commendable work to expose these errors, and we would do well to maybe pay attention to what our Evangelical brethren are doing in this case and address the issue from a Catholic perspective.  

I hope this provides a brief overview for those of us who are Catholic Christians in dealing with the popular television preachers that many of our own Church often get sucked up into listening to, and in doing so hopefully we can be more educated and discerning as to what we nourish our souls with in regard to teachings, etc.  More could be said, and perhaps at some point I will do so, but for now this hopefully will whet the reader's appetite to examine this issue more carefully.  Thank you, and will see you next time.