I missed this a couple of days ago. The Christian Post provided free advertising for the following activity masquerading as therapy:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXWFZz0Qjo[/youtube]
This video cannot be shown enough. This is what the Christian Post is advertising with their puff piece on the International Healing Foundation. Doyle says being attracted to the same sex is a matter of poor parenting. Richard Cohen, the founder of IHF, says the therapist should establish a parent child relationship as a means of replacing what clients didn’t get from their parents. This is a dangerous and false premise. Some gays and some straights didn’t get what they needed from their parents, but this doesn’t make them gay or straight. Putting the therapist in the role of a nurturing parent is reflects a wrong diagnosis and potentially sets up an unhealthy dependence on the therapist. Furthermore, a robust line of research suggests that the pillow beating catharsis treatment is fundamentally unhelpful.
Perhaps these points and more are why no graduate training programs offer these approaches for the purposes designated by IHF. I know of no graduate training programs housed in Christian colleges which teach these techniques. Even at Liberty, Doyle was not allowed to consider Cohen a clinical supervisor, nor was he allowed to count his experience there toward his school internship.
Chris Doyle says the IHF does therapy. However, I even wonder about that. According to their 2012 990 form, they took in very little money in program services fees with the lion’s share of their income coming from donations.
I hope the reporter will consider doing a counter point article in response.
Month: July 2014
Woodstock – Joni Mitchell
Recently, I came across this performance of Woodstock by Joni Mitchell on You Tube. I always liked the song Woodstock as recorded by Crosby, Still, Nash & Young but didn’t know the story behind it. Now I do; and you can too if you press play.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjQCvfcXn0[/youtube]
One of these pop festivals…
Who Are the Real Evangelicals? A Q&A with Historian Thomas Kidd
Historian and author Thomas Kidd caught my attention again with his column at Anxious Bench about evangelicals who are not evangelicals. He contends there that there are four groups of Christians who are often confused for historic evangelicals but should not be considered evangelicals. Theological liberals make up the first group, and orthodox Presbyterians (I would add Christian reconstructionists) the second group. The next two groups, advocates of the prosperity gospel, and Christian nation proponents (think David Barton), will probably flinch about not being included. I have clearly lumped most of those people under the evangelical umbrella at one time or another so Kidd’s precision interests me.
I asked him if I could ask him a couple of questions for the sake of discussion here. He agreed and here is the exchange:
Me: Can a person be in two groups? Can a Presbyterian in your group 2 also be an evangelical? I suspect many believers in a Christian America would also see themselves as evangelical. Can they hold every other tenet of evangelicalism and work for a political solution to the nation’s problem?
Kidd: Yes, I would assume that virtually all evangelicals would also have some other denominational/congregational identity. Plenty of Presbyterians, especially in the PCA and the EPC, would fully accept the evangelical label. My point regarding Hart’s type of confessional Reformed folks is that there are conservative Protestants who explicitly reject the label evangelical, even though much of the media would automatically regard them as evangelical.
I agree that most in the Christian America (as well as prosperity gospel) camp would embrace the evangelical label, but if the core of their Christian message is American patriotism and politics – if there is, for them, an indispensable connection between the American Founding and Christianity – then I don’t see how that fits with historic evangelicalism.
Me: In the case of group 2, the Presbyterians, they have a name for their group. However, how about groups 3 and 4. How would you label them?
Kidd: Group 3 are the advocates of the “Prosperity Gospel,” Group 4 are advocates of “Christian America.” These are not how they
would necessarily label themselves, of course.
Me: As a follow up to question 2, I suspect the Christian America advocates would view the belief in America’s Godly Heritage as a hallmark of evangelicalism since they believe many of the founders were evangelicals. By excluding this group from the historic evangelicalism, are we not engaging in a debate over what historic evangelicalism is? It seems to me that historic evangelicals and Christian nationalists are in a dispute over the definition of evangelicalism with the Christian nation group believing your definition of evangelicalism is missing the important political element. What is your reaction to that formulation? If you think I am right, can you say briefly what you point to historically to suggest they are off?
Kidd: Yes, the whole debate is a question of what historic evangelicalism is. Christian America folks are often eager to cast the non-evangelical Founders as evangelicals, because doing so helps to justify their close connection between the Christian faith and the American Founding. Thus their desire to find quotes that might suggest that Jefferson or Franklin, or other non-evangelicals were actually devout, traditional believers.Historic evangelicals, conversely, say that while they would be delighted if it turned out that Franklin or Jefferson were actually evangelicals, there’s no good evidence to suggest that they were. This is no big deal for historic evangelicals, because our faith is not fundamentally connected to the American Founding. We’re thankful for the many good things about the Founding, especially the traditions of religious liberty and God-given equality. But we don’t need any of the Founders to have been Christians or evangelicals. Some were, some weren’t – they were a mixed lot, even if they pretty much all held to some basic Christian/theistic ideas, like the notion that God is the author of our liberties.
Thomas Kidd is the author of God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution and the upcoming George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father.
Kidd: Group 3 are the advocates of the “Prosperity Gospel,” Group 4 are advocates of “Christian America.” These are not how they
would necessarily label themselves, of course.
Me: As a follow up to question 2, I suspect the Christian America advocates would view the belief in America’s Godly Heritage as a hallmark of evangelicalism since they believe many of the founders were evangelicals. By excluding this group from the historic evangelicalism, are we not engaging in a debate over what historic evangelicalism is? It seems to me that historic evangelicals and Christian nationalists are in a dispute over the definition of evangelicalism with the Christian nation group believing your definition of evangelicalism is missing the important political element. What is your reaction to that formulation? If you think I am right, can you say briefly what you point to historically to suggest they are off?
Kidd: Yes, the whole debate is a question of what historic evangelicalism is. Christian America folks are often eager to cast the non-evangelical Founders as evangelicals, because doing so helps to justify their close connection between the Christian faith and the American Founding. Thus their desire to find quotes that might suggest that Jefferson or Franklin, or other non-evangelicals were actually devout, traditional believers.Historic evangelicals, conversely, say that while they would be delighted if it turned out that Franklin or Jefferson were actually evangelicals, there’s no good evidence to suggest that they were. This is no big deal for historic evangelicals, because our faith is not fundamentally connected to the American Founding. We’re thankful for the many good things about the Founding, especially the traditions of religious liberty and God-given equality. But we don’t need any of the Founders to have been Christians or evangelicals. Some were, some weren’t – they were a mixed lot, even if they pretty much all held to some basic Christian/theistic ideas, like the notion that God is the author of our liberties.
Thomas Kidd is the author of God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution and the upcoming George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father.
Michael Peroutka Asks for Help from League of the South in Bid for MD Council Seat
Michael Peroutka, fresh off his 38 vote victory in the GOP race to run for a seat on the Anne Arundel County Council, asked for help from the League of the South in his bid for a Council seat in the fall election. In a post on the The League of the South website, League president Michael Hill boasted:
The League office received the following e-mail today. This means that after a vote recount, our Southern Nationalist candidate won the primary election!
Dr. Hill:
I am happy to report that after all votes were counted, we were ahead by 38 votes.
Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
They will come after me in the general election in November. Not only locally, but also from across the country. There are many, as you well know, who hate the idea of Godly, constitutional government.
I ask you to ask the membership for prayers and for whatever financial support they can muster. I am grateful for our friendship and for the work of LS.
Please accept my thanks for your hospitality in Alabama.
I will be in touch.
Michael [Peroutka]
Hill calls Peroutka “our Southern Nationalist candidate.” For his part, Peroutka goes beyond an informative note to ask for support from the League and expresses gratitude for the “work of LS [League of the South].” This is a pretty clear indication that Peroutka’s return to elective politics is an effort to advance the goals of the League of the South.
Peroutka is probably right about national opposition. Because this race appears to be an effort to promote League of the South principles, I suspect supporters and opponents alike will take an interest in the election.
The motto of the League on the image above is “survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people.” By Southern people, League president Michael Hill does not merely refer to all inhabitants of Southern states. Hill means European white people. On the “pro-white” website Occidental Dissent, Hill released a statement about the purposes of the League:
“As President of The League of the South, I’d like to thank Rand Paul, the GOP, Salon, and all the other cultural, social, economic, and political organs that are helping us separate the proverbial men from the boys. To wit, you are helping us destroy any “middle ground” to which the timid can retreat for safety. Soon, those like Mr. Hunter will learn that there’s no place in the GOP for Southerners who wish to remain . . . Southerners. Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: The survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and region. In other words, we understand what it is to be an historic “nation”–a specific people with a unique culture living on a particular piece of land. And, God willing, we shall one day have a name and place among the nations of the earth.” (emphasis in original)
Hill is glad for Peroutka who won the GOP nomination in Anne Arundel County. However, Hill differentiates Southern Nationalist candidates such as Peroutka from the GOP. While on paper, the ballot will appear to pit a GOP challenger against a Democrat. However, the voters of Anne Arundel County will choose between a Democrat and a Southern Nationalist. The Southern Nationalists want to secede and form a nation of white Southerners. I wonder what the voters of Anne Arundel county will choose?
See also this Capital Gazette editorial correctly noting that Anne Arundel County GOP voters have given their party in a dilemma.
With Questions Unanswered, Mars Hill Church Keeps On Pushing Mars Hill Global
Last week, Mars Hill Church admitted that they had caused confusion regarding donations to the Mars Hill Global Fund. While answering some questions, they left some unanswered. One big question: How much money was actually spent on Ethiopian and Indian evangelists between 2012 and 2014? Mars Hill offered to direct donations made to the Global Fund to mission purposes if requested. However, I wonder how most donors will ever know they are doing that. How many former/current members who donated to Global are going to be cruising the Mars Hill website and stumble on the Global FAQs? If ever donors find out, they could trigger a windfall for Ethiopian and Indian missions if they request the money go where they thought it was going to go.
Shouldn’t Mars Hill Church alert the donors to the Global Fund about how the money was used? ECFA guidelines require it.
As if we need any more confirmation that Mars Hill portrayed Mars Hill Global as a means to help the international missions, I present this You Tube video of a former Mars Hill member who looked up a Looney Tune segment and got a Mars Hill ad before the cartoon started. The ad was for Mars Hill Global and was filmed in Ethiopia with no mention of any application to the United States. Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mm4GOwGZ8[/youtube]
In fact, the ad was this video which asked Mars Hill members to give more than their tithe to Mars Hill Global:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XcseC6KpSBk[/youtube]
I recently learned of an older lady who donated a substantial sum to Mars Hill Global thinking it would go to Ethiopian missions who is now bewildered by the recent message from the church. She doesn’t want to give her name but she used to attend Mars Hill and sat through many of the videos filmed in Ethiopia before giving her gift. Another individual who doesn’t want to be named also gave in 2012 thinking his money was going to missions. The several donors I have spoken with are afraid to go public.