Anon. was given a copy of each of the policies, one written by BB in Sept 06 and the other by JK in Feb 07. And now another RF pastor is also adding to them? It really scares me for the future of the many good people still in RF - because as the RF become more legalistic, the grace and the blessing of God will be removed from their church. Grace and legalism cannot be found together as legalism totally cancels out grace.
But we can all see this is inevitable. The chasm must divide wider between their organisation and the wider world of Christendom. The Revival churches have an identity that prides itself on separatism and non-compromise. It comes down to a factor that they are putting in the 'too hard' basket - the protection of an invented salvation doctrine, ie. "If you don't speak in tongues you are none of His" (a non-existent scripture that defies the message of the gospel). Deary deary me, the Revivalists have put themselves into a self-perpetuating rut that only takes them further down the funnel of segregation and further along the continuum of (dare I say it) cultism.
Their leaders know what they must do to keep their doctrine pure and undefiled. The unwritten laws of cult-controlling techniques demand that you exponentially cut off outside information to keep the scriptural convolutions believable and yourselves necessarily in-house where the wolves won't get at them. Unfortunately the wolves are simply sheep dogs trying desperately to herd the sheep away from the wolves within their own fences.
If it ain't Revival, it's gotta go. It's a type of genocide you might say, and it shows no sign of stopping because these glaringly dangerous policies will force out the 'thinking' Christians (who can see what's coming) and leave a stronger core of Yes-men among the flock. A flock who are mostly tied in too strongly to their church by friend and family networks. Along with this, a mess of carefully preached doctrines, rules, and fear of the outside 'worldlies' .
The 'tongues' you pivot everything on is a bastardisation of simple bible messages cross-stitched together by well-meaning and intelligent, but ultimately extraordinarily blind-sighted men, confused by what seemed like a good idea at the time. Many of the less hard-core leaders and members will admit that there 'may' be sprinkles of true tongue-speaking Christians in mainstream churches but are unfortunately 'damned' by affiliation and proliferation of a watered down gospel that just won't do for them.
I know where your fundamental allegiance lies. It's caught up in a belief-web of absolutism that this Revival doctrine is a cornerstone of Jesus' message to mankind and the only 'key' criterion that will open the door of the fire-proof Ark that's gonna sweep your version of true Christianity away to safety when the fire comes.But is it True Christianity? Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion? ... giving aid to the poorest people, as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. Revivalists are all for that... as long as the poor people are Revivalists. I'm not saying that every member of a church goes door to door with Happy Meals to hand out, but there was a deep message of a lifestyle that may work better if you put his community plans into action.
