Beth Moore Led a "commissioning" for 11,000 Women (and men) at Unwrap the Bible Conference - by Elizabeth Prata

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------------

The author grapples with this event and its meaning for seemingly insignificant reasons that she never really identifies. Her analysis centers around some sort of perceived impropriety, but she never identifies what is actually improper. It is not our intent to defend the conference or the people involved. We wasn't there. But we can evaluate the author's assertions. And that we shall do.

The author is particularly troubled by the idea of this event being called a commissioning. It isn't really a difficult idea, or one that warrants such hand-wringing by the author. A biblical example, ἀποστολή, which means to send away, "sent on a defined mission by a superior." We find this word used in Ro. 10:15: "And how shall they preach, except they be sent [ἀποστολή]? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" 

A commissioning as a biblical concept is broad and edifying. It needn't be restricted to one woman's idea with everything else dismissed if it doesn't fit her paradigm. 

One might wonder why the author struggles so with such innocuous concepts. And clearly the editors of worldview weekend thought she was worthy of being published, which is troubling as well. 

And we should note that our intent is not to defend Ms. Moore. We are here to examine the author's statements.
--------------------------------------------- 

June 18, 2014

"The Commissioning."

It happened at the Women of Faith "Unwrap the Bible" Conference.

But first, some background.

This past February, just weeks ago, Beth Moore and four other women concluded the Unwrap The Bible event in Houston, and closed it with what the sponsor of the event, Women of Faith, called "A Commissioning". (??) (Two question marks...)

"Unwrap the Bible" was touted as America's largest bible conference, sponsored by "Women of Faith [3]." (WOF) It was held for two days at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church. (We are happy to raise a read flag here. We have plenty of concerns about Osteen's ministry, but we don't necessarily know that this event is specifically related to his ministry. And like a lot of things, the author doesn't bother to inform us.)

In addition to five women who were to teach and preach their way through the weekend, WOF used clips from Catholic Mystic Roma Downey's "The Bible" series to punctuate the biblical "truths" the lineup of teachers was to teach. (Since the author does not tell us which clips were used, we cannot know if they were unbiblical. Further, we know that screenplays frequently take artistic liberty. We don't think Ms. Downey ever claimed her movie series was a literal biblical presentation.) 

Downey also promoted [4] the conference prior to its inception. Christine Caine, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Lisa Harper, and Sheila Walsh were the 5 scheduled bible teachers. Joel Osteen's wife Victoria opened the conference with a prayer. Lisa Bevere [5] was on hand too. Eleven-thousand women attended.

At the very end of the conference, Beth Moore did not offer a benediction for the women, (Benediction: "Latin: bene, well + dicere, to speak, a short invocation for divine help, blessing and guidance, usually at the end of worship service."

Seems to me that a benediction and a commissioning have some things in common. The author doesn't seem to understand either of them.

Here's a list of 22 biblical benedictions, only one of which does not contain a blessing directed to the people. Perhaps the author doesn't realize that a benediction is a blessing spoken out over the people? 

Does the author even know what a benediction is?) 

she did not sing a song for them, (Now it's our turn for the "??".  Is Beth Moore a singer or something?) 

she did something peculiar. Very peculiar. (Not just peculiar, very peculiar. Yes, something's not right, and the author is suspicious. Planting doubt in the reader's mind, she's going to tell us just how peculiar this is. Or is she? We will see.) 

She held a "commissioning". At Moore's insistence, telling women to grab the person next to them, and repeat after her, Moore led the 11,000 women in a ceremony whose likeness I can't find anywhere in the bible. (Ok, they had a "ceremony" not found in the Bible. Like passing the offering plate is in the Bible. Or meeting on Sunday is in the Bible. Or children's church is in the Bible. 

So rather than saying a benediction, apparently the "proper" way of dismissing people, Ms. Moore commissioned them, that is, she sent them out. Very peculiar...

To distill this down, the author seems to believe that any and all ceremonies must be found in Scripture. Or, as we will see a few paragraphs from now, they have to be what she calls "an authoritative sacramental ceremony," a phrase not found in the Bible.)

At Moore's command, the 11,000 women dutifully paired up, hugged up, listened and then spoke in unison in call-and-response style with Moore leading them in this "commissioning." If you've never heard of a "commissioning" like this, I haven't either, because it doesn't exist. (Well it does exist, doesn't it? The author just documented it.  

And we should note that the author's experience is her defining criteria. That is, "If I've never heard about it, it doesn't exist." This is a rather nonintellectual method of evaluating the varieties of Christian understanding and practice.) 

Moore has ripped the normal word from any biblical context ("Ripped." Ms Moore has done violence to Scripture by performing a ceremony not found in the Bible! You know, like wedding the ceremonies pastors do, exactly like they are found in the Bible.  And communion in those little plastic cups, a clearly biblical way of partaking of the bread and the wine.

So, we find two particular commissionings in the Bible: Joshua [Nu. 27:23] and Paul [Col. 1:25]. These men were essentially pressed into service for God. Is this something that can happen today? Of course! People are pressed into service in all sorts of ways with great ceremony, little ceremony, or no ceremony at all. 

One might begin to wonder why Ms. Prata is making a big deal out of all of this.)

and any known ceremony (Can we ask where the author gets her criteria? The Bible? Her church teaching? Or is she making it up as she goes? On what basis is this ceremony a heresy? Is she going to quote ANY Scripture?) 

and has redefined it into something a seeker sensitive, New Age, pop psychology, comfy feminist would love. (See, it's either known and approved by Ms. Prata, or it's something eeevil and worldly. No other choices. If the author hasn't heard of it before, it must be "New Age, pop psychology," and a "comfy feminist" would love it. Can you imagine? Basing your judgments upon ignorance?) 

And love it they did.

I am not making this up- the Women of Faith intended for the last segment of the conference to be called a "commissioning." (Well, she is certainly making up a lot of to-do about nothing!)

At last month’s Unwrap the Bible event in Houston, Beth Moore wrapped up the weekend with a “commissioning.” She gathered major points from all the speakers’ messages and had the women in the audience speak them over each other. We loved it and thought you would, too.

I'm sorry, but I don't love it. Not one word "spoken over the women" at the end of WOF Unwrap the Bible conference that Moore was "commissioning" was scripture. Not one. (Appalling ignorance. We are beginning to have serious concerns about Ms. Prata. In a couple of paragraphs you will find the transcript of that commissioning, and we will cite multiple Bible references so that the author might be edified.) 

Many of the concepts in the ceremony were unbiblical, to boot. (The author continues to level this charge. Will she ever document this claim?)

How Moore introduced "the commissioning" to the women was: "This is our way of sending you out with this truth embedded in the marrow of your bones." (The author, persisting in her biblical ignorance, seems to have never read He. 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.")

Who Is Jehovah? Who Is Jesus? - Phillip R. Johnson

A very good explanation of the deity of Christ. Originally found here.
----------------------------------

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known for their denial of the deity of Christ. According to their theology, Jesus was an incarnation of the supreme archangel, not God in human flesh.

The historical name for this teaching is Arianism. Arius was a fourth-century heretic whose doctrine was opposed by Athanasius and condemned at the council of Nicea in 325. Arius's doctrine of the Incarnation was virtually identical to that of modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses. Arius even used many of the same arguments JWs employ today. Athanasius brilliantly responded to Arius and exposed his distortions of Scripture. Athanasius's work entitled On the Incarnation stands as an effective reply to the Jehovah's witnesses.

But for the moment let's ignore the writings of Athanasius, the documents of the Nicene Council, and every other historical and theological source except Scripture itself. Is it possible to demonstrate conclusively from the Bible alone that Jesus Christ is set forth in Scripture as God? I believe it is. And I am convinced that those who reject Christ's deity must therefore also reject the plain meaning of the Word of God.

At least eight lines of argument combine to make the biblical case for the deity of Christ:

1. The Old Testament predicted a divine Savior

We need only sample a few key passages to make the point:

Psalm 2 is a Messianic Psalm and was recognized as such by Jewish scholars centuries before Christ. In Acts 13:33, Paul affirms that this psalm has a Messianic meaning. The psalm closes with these verses, "Worship [Jehovah] with reverence, And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!" (vv. 11- 12).

There the phrases "Worship [Jehovah] with reverence" and "Do homage to the Son" are parallel. And as is typical in Hebrew poetic parallelism, this means the two phrases are logical equivalents. Worship [Jehovah]" means "do homage to the Son." Moreover, this psalm presents the Son as Someone in whom believers can take refuge—a Savior who is God's own Son, identical in character and rank with God the Father.

Psalm 110 is identified as a Messianic Psalm by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 5:6; 7:17). Here David calls Him Lord: "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet" (v.1). Jesus Himself quoted this verse in Matthew 22:43-45 to demonstrate that He existed before David and was superior to any earthly king. The word translated "Lord" in that verse does not necessarily designate deity. It is a Hebrew word that often applies to an earthly Master. So it's only a single piece in the puzzle—not particularly significant by itself, but when weighed with the rest of the evidence, its full meaning becomes clear.

Other Messianic prophecies are even more clear in ascribing deity to the Lord's Anointed One.

Isaiah 9:6, for example, is a clear promise of the Messiah. It gives a string of names that apply to Him: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father [or, "father of eternity"], Prince of Peace." An earlier prophecy by Isaiah, found in Isaiah 7:14, gave Him the name Immanuel, which literally means, "God with us."

Micah 5:2 prophesied that Messiah's birthplace would be Bethlehem, and it spoke of Him with these profoundly important words: "From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

In Malachi 3:1-2 we find one of the clearest, most vivid prophecies of the coming Messiah. Mark 1:2 identifies this verse as a prophecy of Christ:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
Notice that it portrays Jesus as Lord (this is the Hebrew word Adonai), who is coming to His temple. And He is coming to do a work of divine judgment.

2. Jesus is called Jehovah

At this point the well-trained Jehovah's Witness would want to make a distinction between the word Adonai, which is translated "Lord" in most English Bibles, and the Word Jehovah (or Yahweh), also translated "Lord" in most English Bibles. If you want to tell the difference between the words in most translations, when the original is Adonai, the word "Lord" will appear in capital and lowercase letters; when the Hebrew word is Jehovah, the word "LORD" will appear in capital and small capital letters.

Why Can’t We Simplify Our Tax System? It Turns Out, We Can - by David Cay Johnston

Originally found here. Posted here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

I was so shocked to find a leftist who advocates simplification of the federal tax code that I just had to read it. Unfortunately, we will discover that the author doesn't want the tax system simplified. 

The author is a Pulitzer prize winner. As such, we should expect thorough analysis, sophisticated reasoning, and devastating logic. So, read on:
-------------------------------

Filling out federal income tax returns for individuals and businesses takes so much time that it’s the equivalent of creating three million full-time jobs, according to IRS Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson. (So the author identifies the problem. Complying with the huge and complex tax code, which as we know was created by Congress, is an industry unto itself. Large sums of money are spent each year jumping through the hoops of our onerous, invasive, and burdensome tax system. Let's see where the author goes with this.)

In China the highest-paid workers are required to file an income tax return every month. I filled out one of their returns in less than a minute. (Oh my. Is he really trumpeting the processes of a communist government? China is noteworthy because it requires a MONTHLY reporting system? Does the author wonder why a government would require people to file papers every month? Apparently not. He tosses us this little orphaned factoid without context, analysis, or commentary of any kind.)

That enormous gulf (Wha? There's an enormous gulf between our tax system and that of the Chinese, and we need to be more like them? Because of one little feature of their tax reporting process? Really?) 

Boom is back, but must be responsible - Bozeman Chronicle editorial

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------------------
Ever the socialists, the Chronicle editorial board wants this resurgent prosperity in Bozeman real estate to be carefully managed by government. Apparently, growth is a good thing, but the wrong kind in the wrong way is bad. And of course, the City has demonstrated competence in managing economic issues in the past, so they are the natural choice to bring even more of their stellar skills to bear on the economic practices of private individuals. Yeah, right.

Read on:

----------------------------------

Word that the city set a one day record for building permit applications recently signals the housing boom of pre-recession days may be making a comeback. That should translate into good news for the economy: the return of high-paying construction jobs, rising home prices, opportunities for developers and real estate agents.

But it also calls for vigilance on the part of local government leaders when they are confronted with the big development proposals that are likely on the way in the coming months and years.

Caution should be the word of the day.

The pre-recession building boom consumed more and more open space in and around Bozeman, spawning our own unique version of Montana urban sprawl. (Left unsaid here is that the previous boom was heavily regulated by the City. Subdivisions were slow to be approved, and onerous requirements were attached to those approvals, like lot size, paving requirements, open space set asides, and affordable housing allocations. As a result, many people were choosing to move outside the reach of the City, which resulted in what the Chronicle calls "sprawl." Apparently entirely lacking in self awareness, the editorialists ironically call for exactly the same policies which created what they now complain about.) 

As elected leaders guide another wave of development, they should encourage growth upward rather than outward.

In more rural areas, county officials have unique challenges. Continuing to approve housing developments where each home has its own well is not acceptable. Planners need to encourage more community water systems. And lawmakers have to amend state law that grants automatic water rights to every home. We know now that aquifers are limited and being depleted at an alarming rate.

Southwest Montana largely avoided the housing collapse seen around the rest of the nation during the Great Recession. Montana bankers were more conservative in their lending practices and — as a result — found themselves with fewer foreclosures on their hands. (Hmm. Why might that be? Were Montana banks able to be more conservative by not lending to people who couldn't afford to buy a home? Does the prices of homes here as compared to, say, California make any difference? Isn't interesting that the Chronicle identifies prudent lending practices as a benefit, while others consider it redlining? Why were big banks elsewhere forced to lend to people who did not qualify? And has there been any federal legislation that impacted how, when, and to whom a bank could make a loan?)

That wisdom should continue to prevail as another round of home flipping could be on the horizon. (Yes, let's have more of the same failed policies.)

A booming housing market can be a great thing. A return to rapid population growth sets the stage for a lot of people to make a lot of money. And climbing home values will enhance the wealth of existing homeowners. But not all growth is a good thing.

State and local elected leaders should not hinder growth. They should process the right kinds of development plans quickly and efficiently. But growth must also be managed smartly with an eye toward preserving the quality of life we all enjoy. (They should not hinder growth, but they should continue to hinder growth. Yes, of course.)

Ellie Kinnaird: 2nd Amendment never said right to bear arms was absolute

Originally found here.My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Is the U.S. Supreme Court ever wrong? You bet.

Start with the 1857 Dred Scott decision that affirmed slavery. Or Plessy v. Ferguson, 1895, that affirmed separate but equal treatment of blacks constitutional. Or Lochner, 1905, that found employers could exploit their workers, requiring them to work unlimited hours, even up to 80 hours a week. And in 2007, denying Lilly Ledbetter the right to continue her gender discrimination suit against Goodyear Tire for paying men more than her, even those she trained, for no legitimate reason. (I wonder if she has any issues with Roe V. Wade, Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell, or Kelo v. New London? As is typical with Leftists, they believe the Supreme Court provides the inviolate, absolute gospel only when they happen to agree with the ruling. Otherwise, it's overreaching or denying people their rights. Witness their hysterical opposition to any sort of restrictions or standards regarding abortion, or their reaction to Citizens United.)

And they got it wrong in the 2008 Heller gun decision that gun advocates so sanctimoniously love to quote, greatly expanding gun accessibility. (Let's see if she's able to tell us exactly how they got it wrong.)

The Court overturned long-settled law dating from 1875 that the Second Amendment applies to the government, not an individual gun owner. (The least she could do is get the situation correct before she continues on her rant. The Heller case was the very first time the Supreme court had considered the issue, which is why it was noteworthy. It had never considered the second amendment before. 

And its decision overturned lower court decisions, which is hardly a rare occurrence. As a matter of fact, courts of all kinds overturn rulings on a regular basis. Witness state laws regarding marriage, abortion, and other topics near to the heart of Leftists. They have no complaint at all when it goes their way. So the writer's appeal to precedent rings hollow.

The second amendment, like all of the Constitution, defines and limits government. It has nothing to say about the rights of The People, except in passing, as it imposes further government limits. This is explained by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I repeat, the Constitution is about the limits to government, not the limits to the People.

So there is no possible way that the second amendment can be construed to limit the possession of arms by the People.)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Got that? A well regulated Militia? (A common error for the Left, thinking that because a militia is mentioned that this is the only allowable opportunity to possess a firearm. Of course, the amendment plainly does not say that. 

Legally speaking, the militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...", and can be either in the National Guard or separate from it. The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. The are already armed!

Having completely misrepresented the second amendment, the writer now goes on to list a number of illegal uses of guns, searching in vain for a cogent, relevant point to bolster her argument. Somehow, in her mind criminals engaging in criminality has something to do with the matter at hand. What that might be is never explained.) Let’s see, is a Chicago ghetto kid armed with a handgun using it for the security of our country? Or the drug gang member with his assault weapon terrorizing rival gangs and drive-by shootings, really going to take it with him in the unlikely event he joins the National Guard, which many regard as the successor to the Militia of the 18th century. Are people willy-nilly carrying guns necessary “for the security a free State?” Guns in restaurants, and play grounds, and college campuses for our nation’s security? (Having attempted to establish that the only permissible reason to possess a gun is for a national security purpose, she builds on her false premise by offering ridiculous scenarios. A typical Leftist rhetorical tactic.)

The Militia is cited three (Actually, five.) times in our Constitution, and always with other military forces. (No, it is clear from actually reading the constitution that it is not always with other military forces.) 

Congress shall have the Power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, ... To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Art 1, Sec. 8. Art. II, sec. 2 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy . . . and of the Militia.” (Notice that the writer is appealing the the language of the Constitution. Strangely, she names certain enumerated Constitutional powers of Congress, which Leftists never do. They are all about emanations and penumbras and the virtually unlimited powers of government via the misappropriation of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses. So it is odd that suddenly the Constitution is so important to a Leftist.

Unfortunately for the writer, that pesky Constitution ends up getting in the way of her narrative. Those who take the Constitution literally recognize that it enumerates a specific list of powers. If it isn't in the list, Congress can't do it. Here, Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution in Sec. 8 [aka the enumerated powers section] to CALL FORTH a militia, that is, the militia is an entity that needs to be assembled. It doesn't serve the government or exist as an agency of government until called forth, and then only for specific purposes. 

But even then, the writer deceptively quotes it. 

First, she quotes three separate enumerated powers and includes them together in an effort to imply they have to do with each other. The first enumerated power she quotes, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," is a separate enumerated power from "...to provide for calling forth the Militia...," which is separate from the next enumerated power, "...to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia..." From this she concludes that the militia is a government military entity. Clearly it is not. 

It is unknown why she did not combine the next enumerated power, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." Oh, yeah. Doing so would not further her deception...

The fourth time the militia is mentioned is in a completely different section, but the author deceptively combines it with the previous three enumerated powers clauses, and with a partial quote to boot. 

Interestingly, this clause reinforces the idea that the militia is an assemblage of the People. Here's the full quote: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." Notice the militia is called into service from the several States. It is not a federal entity, it is not a standing organization, it is not a military force.)

How the Supreme Court made the jump to allowing guns to be carried by individuals for their own purpose, is hard to fathom. (Um, yeah. How the author makes the jump from a constitutional restriction of government to become a restriction on the people is hard to fathom...)

What advocates also neglect to understand, is that the Court clearly said that the Second Amendment right, like all rights, are not unlimited. (Topic change. She goes from the militia to the limits on rights. But what about the right to abortion? Isn't it unlimited? 

You know, I don't recalling seeing any gun rights activist making a claim that the second amendment is unlimited, so the author seems to be offering a straw man.)

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” I conclude that many of the advocates who contact (and excoriate me) have not even read the opinion. (Having constructed her straw man, she uses it to prop up her own wounded ego by suggesting her critics are ignorant. Another typical Leftist rhetorical tactic.)

Over 30,000 people are killed by guns each year, two-third of them suicides. I keep a daily gun tally from newspapers. Mass killings are not even on the front page anymore. Nor are children who accidentally kill other children. Parents who accidentally kill children and children who accidentally kill parents. Or domestic violence gun deaths. (Does she also keep a tally of fatal clubbings, knife deaths, or pill suicides? I doubt it, because those things violate her narrative.)

So, how many children slaughtered, how many needless accidents, how many children left without parents, parents without children, husbands and wives lost? Police officers, firefighters, school teachers, killed? How many people walking down their street, children sitting on their front door stoop? How many candle light vigils, before we rise up as a nation and say, no more? (Is she talking about guns, or automobile deaths?)

We can’t count on our Supreme Court to protect us, so where do we go from here? (If she means we can't count on them to protect us from tyrants like her, that is probably true.)

Ellie Kinnaird is a former state senator and Carrboro mayor. You can reach her at ekinnaird2@gmail.com