Can Good Fruit Come From Bad Seed?

Just a little (very quick) research I did as part of a discussion on a Christian forum. Chiropractic seems to have become one of those widely accepted therapeutic practices that even Christians have no problem with.
But should we so easily accept its legitimacy and submit ourselves to it? I first had concerns about this in the mid-80s when I become interested in the widening influence of new age thought within the church.

In general reading about alternative therapies compatible with the “new age movement” I came across information about the origins of chiropractic.
I no longer have that 25 year old reference material, but in response to the forum discussion I took a look at Wikipedia and found the following information.

Daniel David Palmer or D.D. Palmer (March 7, 1845 – October 20, 1913) was the founder of chiropractic. Palmer was born in Pickering, near Toronto, Canada. While working as a magnetic healer in Davenport, Iowa, United States he encountered a janitor, Harvey Lillard, whose hearing was impaired. It was reported Palmer successfully restored the man's hearing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_David_Palmer

Palmer founded a school based on his work that would become the Palmer School of Chiropractic in 1897. He regarded chiropractic as partly religious in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_David_Palmer

D.D. Palmer was a man with subjective and personal religious beliefs. As an active spiritist, he said he "received chiropractic from the other world" from a deceased medical physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_David_Palmer#Palmer.27s_fundamental_idea

D.D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, and his son B.J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century. It has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, innate intelligence and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in the vital energies that distinguish living from non-living matter. In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited similar forces such as qi and prana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Many involved with present day chiropractic try to distance themselves from the origins of their practice. But can anything good emerge from such a false foundation?  Can good fruit be produced by bad seed?

HE’s BA-ACK (the attempted return of Bentley’s revival and related abominations)

What is REALLY being brought into the church?

The practices and “Christian” groups mentioned here are the ones to which I was refering in my earlier article: “Thoughts on gifts of snakes and fish”.


KUNDALINI WARNING – Urgent
by Andrew Strom.

I just saw the video of Rick Joyner announcing that Todd Bentley is back ministering every night at Morningstar in North Carolina and now they have so-called “revival” manifestations eerily similar to Lakeland. They also announced that they are streaming these big meetings every night on their new TV channel – and they are
greatly promoting the whole thing.

Now I am a tongues-speaking Pentecostal myself – but can I ask a simple question here please? What kind of “spirit” was it operating in the Lakeland revival – when the leader and main focal-point of the meetings (Todd Bentley) was having an adulterous
affair behind the scenes? Was it truly the “Holy” Spirit that was anointing something so sensual and unholy? And now that Todd divorced his wife and married his mistress – are we supposed to welcome him back and this “anointing” with him? What is going on here? Rick Joyner has been warned very specifically by high-level ministries not to do what he is doing now – bringing Todd Bentley back into the limelight. And yet it seems he does not care. Apparently the “manifestations” are all that matter.

So what exactly are these ‘manifestations’ if they are seemingly at home in such an unholy environment? Are they from God at all? (I am talking here about the violent “jerking”, uncontrollable laughter, bodily contortions, drunkenness, ‘portals’, strange “angel” encounters, etc.) Why do we not see such an ‘anointing’ in the Bible? Why aren’t Jesus or the apostles promoting these manifestations if they really are true Revival? Why instead do we see these things all the way through the New Age and Hinduism, etc?
Do we not realize that many false religions have their own version of “laying on of hands” that results in these very types of manifestations? This ’spirit’ is not in the Bible – but it is all the way through Kundalini-type Hinduism! Don’t you think this should alarm us?

WHAT is KUNDALINI?
If you search for Kundalini and Shakti on the Internet, you will findthat multitudes of people in the New Age and Eastern religions still experience these powerful manifestations. Often this is with the help of a Guru, who touches them on the forehead so that they can experience a “Kundalini Awakening”.

As researcher Robert Walker wrote in 1995:
“The meetings which mystic Hindu gurus hold are called ‘Darshan’. At these meetings devotees go forward to receive spiritual experience from a touch by the open palm of the hand, often to the forehead, by the guru in what is known as the Shakti Pat or divine touch. The raising of the spiritual experience is called raising Kundalini…
After a period when the devotee has reached a certain spiritual elevation they begin to shake, jerk, or hop or squirm uncontrollably, sometimes breaking into uncontrolled animal noises or laughter as they reach an ecstatic high. These manifestations are called ‘Kriyas’. Devotees sometimes roar like lions and show all kinds of physical signs during this period. Often devotees move on to higher states of spiritual consciousness and become inert physically and appear to slip into an unconsciousness…”
And as the guru Shri Yogãnandji Mahãrãja wrote:
“When Your body begins trembling, hair stands on roots, you laugh
or begin to weep without your wishing, your tongue begins to utter deformed sounds, you are filled with fear or see frightening visions… the Kundalini Shakti has become active.”

In China there is a popular Kundalini-type movement called ‘Qigong’.
When a Chinese Qigong spiritual master spoke in the USA in 1991, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that many in the crowd began to experience “spontaneous movements”. The master told his audience, “Those who are sensitive might start having some strong physical sensations – or start laughing or crying. Don’t worry. This is quite normal.”
When you see videos of these “kriyas” or other Kundalini-type manifestations, you would often swear that you are watching a modern “Impartation”-type church meeting. (And I say this as someone who believes strongly in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I just don’t believe in “alien” anointings infiltrating the Body of Christ! There is a big difference between Kundalini and the real Holy Spirit).
Since 1993-4, I believe a foreign spirit has been allowed to invade the church – first through Rodney Howard-Browne’s ministry – then Toronto, then the Prophetic movement (which I was part of at the time) and on into Lakeland and many other ministries and movements. I urge people now to “test the spirits” just as we are commanded to in Scripture. Do not let just anyone lay hands on you. This is a powerful spirit and it has the backing of a lot of big-name ministries. In fact, these men and women are the very ones responsible for allowing it to spread right through the body of Christ. And one day they will be answerable to God for doing so.

We are specifically warned in the Bible that the Last Days will be a time of “seducing spirits,” false prophets, ‘lying signs and wonders,’ and that we always need to watch for “angels of light” masquerading as the real thing. Why does the modern church not take these warnings seriously? Aren’t we living in the very days that the Bible warns about?
Right now I need to do something that I have never done in such a way before. I have never before published a list of ministries or movements to watch out for. But this time I have to. This sickness has gone on long enough. I urge you to cut yourself off from the following ministries and their tainted “anointings” my friends.
Even though some of these people say “good things” at times, it is simply not worth having any involvement with them due to the tainted anointing that they endorse or minister in themselves. Here is the list-
(
1) Todd Bentley.
(2) Rodney Howard Browne – the so-called “Holy Ghost Bartender.”
(2) Rick Joyner or anyone connected with Morningstar Ministries.
(3) John Arnott & any connected with TACF (The “Toronto Blessing”).
(4) Peter Wagner of the ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ who claims to be head of a worldwide network of ‘apostles’ – who publicly endorsed Lakeland and will soon preach at Toronto TACF alongside other “false anointing” advocates.
(5) Mike Bickle and IHOP Kansas City (-I lived nearby for over two years – and know how much they are into all this stuff. Mike Bickle promotes it in his book).
(6) Bob Jones – the Kansas City prophet whose ministry is utterly tainted by it all.
(7) Patricia King and anyone else from ‘Extreme Prophetic.’
(8) John Crowder & anyone connected with “Sloshfest.”
(9) Bill Johnson of Bethel church, Redding – who says some good things but publicly endorsed Lakeland and promotes the “false anointing” very strongly behind the scenes.
(10) Heidi & Rolland Baker of IRIS Ministries – who do good work amongst the poor in Mozambique – but who have also carried and promoted this tainted anointing for years.
(11) Randy Clark, Wes & Stacey Campbell, and other key figures from the “Toronto blessing.”
(12) The Elijah List – and almost anyone featured on it. Of course there are a huge number of lesser-known preachers and ministries who carry or endorse this Kundalini-type “anointing” around the world. But I have concentrated here on the most influential that I know of. It really is an enormous issue in the church. I urge anyone who is a supporter of any of the above ministries to really check them out thoroughly. If you find (as I have) that they carry or endorse this false Kundalini spirit in the church, then please stop supporting them in any way – and whatever you do, don’t let them “lay hands” on you!
I am putting everything on the line to be “naming names” like this.
But I believe it is that serious. How on earth did we get to the point where “kriyas” just like Hinduism are spreading through the church?

Andrew Strom is a student of “Revivals” and has a website revivalschool.com

CONVERSATIONS WITH A WITCH

The following is a compilation of an ongoing email dialogue I had with a woman who claims to be a follower of Wicca (witchcraft).


“I apparently try to see too much of the positive, I used to argue with those preaching at my door that I don't believe in a god which would throw you into a fire and brimstone hell”

Could I use this approach to change the government?

I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia
I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia
I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia

But enough flippancy…

Perhaps you are taking the wrong approach. You are making assumptions about
the nature and motivation of your hypothetical God by expecting him to act in a way that is acceptable to a particular human way of thinking.
Suppose this God thinks and acts differently to us, even in a way that we could find objectionable. What could we do about it? Does refusing to believe really make a difference?

Why would this God want or need to throw anyone into a fire and brimstone hell? And what right would he have to do so?

What if this God was responsible for our origins? Was the one who created us in the first place? Would that give this god any kind of ownership over us, giving the right to reward or dispose of us as he sees fit? What would this god be entitled to do with any part of its creation that didn't come up to the required "quality control" standard?

What if this God had done everything in his power to enable us to achieve the required standard and avoid the abhorrent outcome of hell, but we were too focussed on other things to take notice, or too proud of our self-perceived good qualities? What if it wasn't this God’s desire to send people to "hell", but they refused to accept the way out he had provided?

“I wanted to know why the Vatican with all it's vast fortune didn't do more to help the poor, such as soup kitchens, temporary housing etc, the answer from the Sister on that one was, "there will always be the poor", would get terribly angry looks from certain people for bringing a homeless person into the canteen for a cup of coffee and a feed,”

It should not be ignored that Jesus said that many of those who would find themselves condemned to "hell" were people who claimed to be his followers but who did not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked; in other words, those who claim adherence to religion, but don't LIVE it.


“Of course, the problem as I see it is that we receive all Christian messages second-hand - at least - via the Bible, which was written by a range of different people, each with their own thoughts and ideas and locations and eras. Which would be the same problem with any religious book - it's not directly from God, but filtered through humans. We learned in film school that as soon as you put your eye to the viewfinder and press record, you are unconsciously tainting the picture with your choice of framing, exposure, etc so that it is subjective - there's no such thing as a completely objective film shot - and therefore, documentary, or movie, or etc etc. Same thing with writing - by its very nature, it's tainted by the choice of wording, by omissions or additions...”

This is why the New Testament begins with four gospels. They give the perspective of different witnesses to the life of Jesus. This is also why there are more than three versions of creation told in the Bible, and why the two books of Chronicles and the two books of Kings tell of some of the same basic events from different perspectives. It seems like God was a Post-modernist even prior to Modernism.
The fact that the bible was written by so many different people over so many different eras is often pointed out as evidence of the divine influence over its content - because DESPITE OF these wide ranging origins, it remains consistent. Yes, there are minor discrepancies as can be seen in the gospel accounts but there is no discrepancy in overall theme. While some critics try to use these differences to discredit the gospels, these differences in fact provide convincing evidence of their authenticity. This is EXACTLY how the genuine accounts of different witnesses would appear, as each writes according to their own perception and memory of events.

As for the bible being filtered through humans, I think you are quite correct as can be seen with the above mentioned gospel discrepancies. While some insist the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, I see it as a collaborative effort. It details the relationship between God and mankind throughout early history, and the bible is itself is a literary illustration of that relationship. The God revealed in the bible is one who WANTS to be known by mankind. Therefore I see no problem with this God, the creator of all things, having “editorial influence” over the book that tells the world about Him, and thereby preventing any "tainting" of His message.

I have come to see the Bible as being an “authorised biography” of God rather than an autobiography. By this I mean that it was not written or dictated word for word by God Himself. It was written by men under God’s inspiration and authority.

Despite the importance Christians give to the bible it would be a mistake to assume that its content is the sole source of their knowledge and relationship with God. While many churches stick with their rituals and historical tradition, there are others who recognise that God is not trapped between the covers of a 2000 year and older book. They believe in a living and active God who continues to relate to his followers today.

“ People are afraid to think for themselves and reinterpret, because they've been told that questioning and interpreting is not for them... it denies faith and all that. So I guess what upsets me is not religion, but dogma. And denial of the intellect and of common sense. If only there were a greater part of the Christian community that could have as open and enquiring a mind as you do! Although you acknowledge that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of Christian knowledge - I wonder how many everyday people who identify themselves as Christians agree, or have even thought about looking beyond the Bible?”


To put things into the correct perspective, while I think the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of Christian knowledge, it is the foundation that all Christian knowledge and understanding are built upon. Any further understanding can not be in contradiction to it. Acceptable teaching or inspiration from "beyond the bible" would always be compatible with the written word. However, Jesus spoke out against those who tried to enforce the "letter of the law" but ignored the spirit of the law. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

On the other hand, Jesus also made it known that the spirit of the law was harsher than the letter. He equated wrongful anger against another as being equal to murder in God's eyes and lustful thought was equal to adultery. The spirit of the law goes deeper than judging actions; it also takes into account the attitude of the heart.

Valid interpretation of a belief system has to be done with respect for the foundations of what is being interpreted. Move away from the foundation and you have something totally different. Following Christ requires a recognition that mankind has fallen from the standard required by God, resulting in spiritual death. But God has made a way for us to regain a relationship with him through faith in Jesus Christ. Without these basic (simplified) foundations there is no Christianity. Any religious system or spiritual belief that tries to adopt or borrow Christ to further a different agenda is way off track. For example, I wish those syncretists who speak of "Christ Consciousness" and being "Christed" would discover enough integrity to change their terminology.

I have no problem respecting the right of other people to hold their own beliefs. We are all responsible for our own search for truth and have to be willing to face whatever consequences come out of the decisions we make. However, I do get annoyed when people try to merge Christ into a pick and mix “spirituality” that denies the very teaching that Christ gave. We can't water him down and take only the “palatable” parts of his life and teaching.
Likewise I do not tolerate the beliefs of those who claim to be Christians but are selectively blind regarding Christ's life and teachings, although I do recognise there is always room for growth in understanding and maturity.

People have every right to investigate different religious and spiritual beliefs for themselves as they seek for truth, but the SERIOUS seeker can't select a bit from here and a bit from there to create their own personally tailored spirituality. If the source beliefs from which those selections were taken are mutually exclusive, there can be no integrity in the patchwork that's created. It might be comfortable, it might make them feel good, but it has no logical, intellectual, or spiritual integrity. Without that internal integrity within the belief system itself, how can it give a relevant and valid view of the external world?
Those adopting Syncretism of this type are not genuine in the pursuit of spiritual reality. They are more concerned with personal comfort and good feelings than in seeking truth - which will often challenge and confront.