Volume 6, No. 2, September 2000
How the Church Must Change (Or Fail)
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to direct personal criticism toward any distinguishable individual or institution.Author¦s Note: The generic use of male pronouns herein is intended for succinct writing, and is not intended to judge, limit, preclude, or diminish the role of women in Church leadership.
In a world that is dying for lack of guidance, today's Church is busy busy busy -- busy feathering its own nest, feeding the same old sheep to obesity, wasting resources on glitzy programs that bear little lasting fruit, and using obsolete methods that don't work. Lacking true vision, the Church that began as a Movement destined for cultural revolution has degenerated into a mere subculture with its own music, its own books, its own television and movies, its own celebrities, and its own jargon. Outside the subculture, the Church is losing ground to Satan every day. If revival comes, it must start with the repentance and rededication of Christians, starting with their pastors.
The term "Post" in this sense does not merely mean "after." When a movement is called "Post-," it means that that movement has at one time significantly affected a society and its institutions. But once changed, that society has then moved beyond the movement. The society has outgrown the previous change (or thinks it has) and has left it behind to pursue other directions. Though once characterized by the movement itself, the society now considers the movement passé, old-fashioned, irrelevant, or even wrong-headed. Sometimes the society even rebels against its past character and begins to personify its polar opposite. The pendulum swings.
This is the state of American society today. Lured by pleasure and prosperity and deceived by the pseudo-sophistication of "modern" thought, society is bored by the Christian message and jaded by the failures of its institutions.
No wonder, since the Church has a checkered past, and an all-too-checkered present. Drunk with prosperity, complacent, overridden with scandal, rife with factions, too prone to the extremes of immoral libertinism and uncompassionate ultra-conservatism, the Church itself is more like the woman caught in adultery or the holier-than-thou Pharisee than the compassionate Christ it claims to represent.
The Church has lost the heart of America. To win it back and initiate true national revival, or a least a true evangelistic movement on any scale, the Church must reform itself from the inside out and change its methodology. First, it must again become loving and sacrificial in nature, represent Christ by Christ-likeness, and become more spiritually motivated. Second, it must deliver its message in a way that those outside the subculture can comprehend. Finally, it must begin to win the moral and ideological arguments in American society, not through political or economic clout, but through true moral and spiritual authority.
But as long as the Church has feet of clay, it is weak and its message (on the whole) impotent.
In this series, I describe many of the ways in which I see the Church failing in its mission today, and how it must change in order to succeed.
Well-known preachers and evangelists gather their own adherents after themselves. The more followers and fans they have, hanging on their every word, the more their fame and power. Followers begin to consider themselves to be "of Paul" or "of Apollos" (1 Corinthians 3:4, etc.). However well-meaning, famous leaders, by virtue of the fame and power vested in them, can become a law unto themselves, and at grave risk of moral failure likened to that of Jimmy Swaggart and the Bakkers.
There are many Christians today who have more loyalty to a televangelist than to their local pastor or church, and give television ministries part or all of the tithe they rightfully owe to their local congregation.
Meanwhile, most God-called preachers and teachers of the Gospel labor in relative obscurity, often sacrificially and in poverty. They are to make way, step aside. While the famous leaders speak, you are to sit and listen. So-and-so is successful, with an abundant harvest -- he must be truly anointed. You have a meager harvest, hardly worth mentioning -- you should learn from him. If you were as worthy, you would have his fruit. If you really had faith, you would not be needy. Because you are not as worthy, we will honor him and ignore you; we will give to him and withhold from you; we will empower him even more, but marginalize and disenfranchise you. "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" (Acts 19:15). Those who most need help get the least. They have not proven themselves worthy.
Even apart from personal failure, those who have material power tend, in time, to rely upon it more than the Holy Spirit. Watchman Nee warned of the trap into which will fall those who, like most popular preachers, have great natural talent, if they allow themselves to begin to rely on "the arm of the flesh."
Common evidences of the Star Syndrome and reliance upon the flesh include:
Dare we put men's names on God's institutions? Intentional or not, this tends to glorify the person, not the Lord, and to further empower that leader above those whom that ministry is ostensibly designed to benefit.
The materially-empowered leader tends to branch out into new, tangential areas of ministry. Once empowered by having a following and the ready availability of funds, the leader no longer has to rely on the Lord for provision, or even guidance, but is able to perform whatever he envisions at his own choosing.
Having an audience and the means, the empowered leader tends to try to become the do-all and be-all to all believers, to have the authoritative word resident in himself, to be their instructor in all of life's questions, to be seen as the answer to all their problems. He writes books, sells ministry tapes and teaching series, goes into television and radio, produces his own Bible study curricula, produces his own music and films, conducts Holy Land tours, and maybe even develops his own retirement villages and resorts. He makes his ministry into a mini-denomination, planting other churches under his brand name, sending out his own missionaries. He becomes an authority and an institution in himself.
In spite of its wealth, a ministry of this character seldom gives to outside ministries not under its direct control. The leaders want their good works to be credited to them. Their good works are seldom done "in secret" (Matthew 6:3-4).
While I was attending seminary in Springfield, the church I attended donated $50,000 to help build a pioneer church in the lakes area to the south. To my knowledge, these funds had no strings attached. I have always considered this admirable, but unfortunately an occurrence that is all too rare.
While fundraising might at times be appropriate, an emphasis on money-raising schemes signals a desire to grow beyond the current means of the ministry, often rooted in the personal ambitions of the leaders. This desire can prompt the accumulation of debts, resulting in emergency pleas to adherents for new funding to "save the ministry." Thus indebtedness itself becomes a fundraising scheme. (There are several well-known examples of this ploy which come to mind.) As Richard Dortsch, former aide to Jim Bakker, now freely admits, the PTL ministry's reason for being ceased to be raising funds to minister, and became ministering in order to raise funds.
Leaders too often come to assume, first, that promoting their own personages is the same as promoting their ministry (indeed, that they are the ministry); and second, that their leadership is essential to the work of God, which will fail without them at the forefront. The "star"-type leader tends to seek the limelight, put himself center-stage at every important event, and be hesitant to share leadership and authority with even his chosen staff ministers. He becomes increasingly inaccessible to the average churchgoer, seldom associating with any but other church leaders, and recusing himself from the more mundane church activities. He is eager to associate with celebrities to share in their celebrity. Though perhaps making a show of humility in public, his humility is hypocritical. Seeking to promote himself, he uses people rather than serving them. He surrounds himself with sycophants: for to maintain his image and self-deception, he can neither brook disagreement nor abide independence of thought or action among his staff.
It is the leader who places his trust in the flesh who insists on dictatorial control over his ministry. Trusting in his own abilities and the authority of his personage, he comes to see himself as indispensable. He micromanages the ministry and his staff, becoming critical and untrusting of others and their abilities, convinced that no one can do a task correctly without his direction. Insecure in himself and his position, he becomes paranoid, seeing the abilities and appeal of others as a threat to his position. Therefore, he limits the authority and opportunities even of his chosen staff, often surrounding himself with family members, admirers, and those beholden to him. Anyone beyond this inner circle is marginalized and disempowered, for the leader as star must centralize power within himself.
Worse still, the dictator cannot abide dissent. Any independent thought or action is a threat; a complaint is opposing God; a disagreement is a betrayal; a criticism or contrary vote is "touching God's anointed." This leader is continually at odds with his board, seeing them as limiting his ability to perform God's will. The dictator hates having to answer to others, and will often "go independent" rather than conform to denominational rules or be disciplined by denominational authorities.
I knew a young man who had been on staff at an independent charismatic church. He had begun to see warning signs in his senior pastor that concerned him. To use my terminology, the pastor was exhibiting symptoms of the Star Syndrome. One day, the young man approached his pastor in private to warn him, as a friend, of these tendencies. The next day, he found himself called on the carpet before the pastor and all the elders to answer for "opposing the pastor." What to him was a private matter between friends was inflated by the pastor beyond all proportion, and the young man found himself without a position.
Nepotism and favoritism are part of human nature. In the small town I hail from, it is well said that local employers hire relatives first, friends second, and others last. I went through high school with the son of a local car dealer. The dealer hired and trained his son in the business. Then when the dealer expanded to a second dealership, he gave his son that business. In spite of many failures, the son remains in a powerful position. This propensity to play favorites seems perfectly reasonable to the person in charge, but patently unfair to the outsider. It is in fact discriminatory, since insiders are often neither the most qualified nor the most deserving. Favoritism tends to breed nonproductivity, subservience, and even corruption, since those employed owe their allegiance to the employer, have a secure position as long as they support him, and may be discredited and disempowered if they oppose him. Moreover, favoritism stifles and purges variety and creativity, imposing a "sameness" on the staff which makes it inflexible and prone to extremes.
Nepotism empowers family members who are not qualified or of like character to the patriarch, and excuses many failures which should not go overlooked or unpunished. Samuel was a great prophet, but his sons "walked not in his ways" (1 Samuel 8). Is it always nepotism to have a family member on staff? No. But if a pastor cannot truly say that those outside his family have the same opportunities in the church (to minister, teach, sing, be mentored, become paid staff, etc.) as his own family members, that is nepotism.
Elitism is manifested in all too many local congregations. There is typically an "in crowd" or "inner circle" which is granted more power and finds the top leaders more accessible. The "in crowd" tends to "circle the wagons" around the pastor in the face of a perceived threat from the "out crowd," regardless of whether criticism is justified.
I have personally observed several churches in which one group was made up of friends and relations of the pastor, while all others, the "outsiders," were naturally thrown into another group. In one instance (which I plan to relate more fully later in this series), the inner circle felt threatened by criticisms of "their" pastor and the status quo. They conspired to stage a surprise election, in violation of their bylaws, to elect the pastor to an irrevocable 5-year term. During this illegal business meeting, members of the other faction had to endure public and personal attacks calculated to discredit them. A number of families left the church as a result, while others were humiliated and cowed.
In the corporate world, nepotism, favoritism, and cronyism are well-recognized as breeding-places for corruption. Corporate charters and policies often specifically address nepotism, down to forbidding employees to date one another.
I strongly recommend an alternative to relying on church politics to provide leadership. Much of a pastor¦s time and energy should be spent in mentoring. Mentoring at the congregational level should be the primary source for future church leaders at all levels. While many pastors mentor friends and family as a matter of course, equal time and effort should be given to those from outside the inner circle. Moreover, mentoring should be open not only to young men called to pastor or preach, but to women and those of any age who sense a calling or feel a desire to serve the congregation, especially recent converts. I believe this is one of the keys to a strong congregation and a strong Church. If a pastor is to have trained leaders he can trust and to whom he can delegate authority, and the church is to have better leaders and better representation, they must be well and thoroughly mentored. True mentoring, however, requires the mentor to spend much time with each protégé, not just assigning them tasks and responsibilities to fulfill, but personally relating, sharing, instructing, demonstrating, observing, and praying with them. This logically implies that a pastor should have one or more protégés at his side during most of his activities. Unfortunately, many pastors are preoccupied with church operation, place too much emphasis on sermon preparation, are loathe to reveal themselves through close contact with non-family members, or for some other reason give too little attention to this crucial task.
Then there is the tendency to create another kind of congregational upper-class. When church leaders ascend the podium at the beginning of a service, their elevation is often more than literal. In many subtle and programmatic ways, a distinction and separation is enforced between "official" ministry and lay or congregant ministry.
I have long been a student of the verbal gifts of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12-14 portray a church in which, despite extremes, nevertheless each congregant has a voice to express the moving of the Spirit. In opposition to this principle, I have heard leaders describe their own justifications for limiting the opportunity to speak in the Spirit, requiring anyone so moved to first submit the message privately to a church leader. Then, if that leader finds the message appropriate, he allows the message to be given. In this way, "Let the prophets speak . . . and let the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29) becomes, "Let one judge, then maybe they will be allowed to speak." Many pastors fear losing control of a service by allowing congregants to speak. (How much more we should fear a Church in which "there is no open vision" and "the word of the Lord is rare"! [1 Samuel 3:1].)
The elevation of church leaders creates a congregational underclass. It imposes a leader/spectator dynamic which not only discourages true congregant participation, but tells them to sit down, shut up, pay their money, and applaud the show. Leaders orchestrate not only the proceedings but the reactions of the spectators. Too often, leaders are offended when their orchestrations do not elicit the (in their minds) appropriate response from the audience. Then congregants are chided and even shamed for not responding promptly and loudly, which leads to the final point:
Preachers often cultivate a style of address and delivery intended to lend an air of authority and spirituality to their person and their message. Typically, they pick up their style from an elder preacher whom they admire. They put on unnatural affectations, such as the oratorical but superfluous "-uh" at the end of every sentence. They adopt key words, phrases, and even whole messages from successful preachers they wish to emulate.
Pastors who at other times speak like normal human beings undergo a change when they ascend the pulpit. They cry, sob, and whine. One story told around Bible colleges is that of a renowned preacher who had just given a very moving and emotional message. After service, someone happened to see the preacher's notes left on the pulpit. In the margins, he had written cues to remind him which emotions to display.
My mother, a lifelong pentecostal, calls this emotionally evocative mode of preaching "unctuous" which, according to the dictionary, means "characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness" (American Heritage Dictionary).
While attending a recent neighborhood barbecue, I listened to a man tell about once being coaxed into a Baptist meeting by a girl he wanted to date. "I'll go and sit on the last seat by the door," he said, "but if the preacher starts to cry and carry on in the pulpit, I'll walk out." She assured him that her pastor wasn't like that. When they entered the church, however, she marched him right up front. She must have been used to it and didn't notice, the man suggested, but cry and carry on is exactly what the preacher did. So he got up from the front row and walked right out during the sermon. It was "insulting," to use his term. Others agreed. We in the church often do not realize how the world sees our actions. What is perfectly acceptable to the churchy subculture might well be offensive to those outside. We cannot change their reactions, but we can change our methods.
Then there are the shouting preachers. Shouting has become a preaching style. In the days before sound systems, preachers had to shout to be heard. Though no longer necessary, many preachers now do their shouting into a microphone. All extraneous noise is drowned out, any possibility of conversation in the audience is quashed, the entire auditorium is washed in a sea of ambient sound. The speaker is not content to be heard alone, but must overwhelm, envelop, purge any word or thought that is not his own. He likes his voice to resound, penetrate, overrule. (I am surprised there have not yet been any much-publicized lawsuits over hearing loss.)
While the original task of the preacher was to declare and persuade, too many succumb to the temptation to impose and manipulate. The audience is to sit very still and listen attentively to everything he says, and sometimes to acknowledge or "amen" the moral rectitude of each statement. There is no opportunity for questioning or dissent. (I have heard statements which should have caused dissent.) A fairly recent and pervasive fad, adopted from the Word of Faith people, is to have the audience repeat words or phrases. Officially designated a teaching tool, the dynamic of repetition is tantamount to a not-so-subtle form of mind control. The congregant is to parrot the words on cue, without question. There is no time or opportunity to examine the validity of the words. Personally, I choose not to repeat, on most occasions. But I have experienced the discomfort, many times, of being one of few who chose not to comply. I felt highly self-conscious, was made to feel rebellious, and was frowned upon by anyone who took note of my noncompliance. Anyone who does not cooperate must be in rebellion and a sinner.
The denouement of the sermon occurs in the altar call, in which the preacher targets various groups which are to come in submission to the altar. Typically, in the end, he calls everyone. Many is the time I have noticed the pockets of individuals who remain uncomfortably in their seats. Whatever their reasons, I positively maintain their right to do so. Like the man who walked out on the sermon, they probably objected to the methods more than the message, and rightly resented being manipulated. Better they should honestly rebel, because they did not feel moved to go to the altar, than to comply but neither mean it nor be changed by it.
Pressure to conform pervades many churches. While looking for a new church home after a relocation some years ago, I attended a particular assembly for a couple of months. At the end of every service, the pastor would call everyone to the front and instruct them to hold hands. While this might be appropriate at times, I as a single man and a stranger did not feel comfortable holding hands with strangers, especially teenage girls and other men's wives. In fact, I find it inappropriate, unacceptable to the general public, and a bald gimmick designed to give the semblance of unity and fellowship whether it exists or not. But to refuse would be construed as unfriendliness and rebellion, and an affront to any person who reached out his hand to mine. Families and friends should feel free to hold hands if they wish, but no one should be forced or pressured.
We should think: How does the visitor feel? Do visitors feel comfortable? Accepted? Are their persons, opinions, and rights respected? Or do they feel manipulated, patronized, or treated like children? Human beings are free moral agents in this world. Jesus gave them the opportunity to freely choose, and so should we.
The Church has become a subculture to which those in the world cannot relate, and to which they are not attracted. People recognize immediately that to join the Church, they must also join the subculture. Thus the subculture itself becomes a barrier to the message of the Gospel.
Visitors often find themselves being manipulated and coerced into submission to authorities whose message has not yet been proven to them. They are expected to submit to the methods, and thereby to the church authorities, while their minds remain unconvinced and their hearts unconverted. If, however, through the preaching of the Gospel, the love of the Church, and the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit they truly give their hearts to the Lord, then when they find true spiritual authority they will automatically submit to it. Leaders must resist the temptation to shame, manipulate, or coerce people to engage their compliance. Rather, they must use truth and persuasion, with love and true servanthood, to change hearts and minds. Once changed, those converts will be the most firm, committed, and lasting.
The Church is too affected by the Star Syndrome, which turns off the general public, is often corrupt, and focuses on persons more than the Lord. Many people are attracted to Jesus, but turned off by the Church. Moreover, when a Star falls, many of his sheep fall with him, while others wander off wounded or aimless.
The leader must resist the tendency of followers to admire them and set them on a pedestal. Just as Elisha "saw Elijah in his underwear" (as one wise teacher put it), the leader must allow his humanity to be seen, lest he become like a god to the people.
Many churches are full of favoritism and politics. Those not in the inner circle recognize that though they attend, they are not a true part. They are expected to support the church, but have no voice in it. Naturally, their commitment to it tends to be commensurate with their active involvement. Every member needs a sense of ownership.
Change is dependent on the pastors and other leaders. Personal agendas must be laid on the altar, and true sacrificial ministry re-instituted. In many cases, the busy details of church business must be laid aside for times of repentance, deep devotion, and self-examination. Most pastors are too busy.
Pastors and other leaders must learn to distinguish works of their flesh from the work of the Spirit. They might have energy to spare to work for the church, but cannot allow themselves to work toward visions of their own imagination, or put their hands to every task. Sometimes leaders must force themselves to be idle, physically speaking, and to wait on the Lord. They must resist the temptation of admirers to push them into new and greater endeavors, or to try to compete with other ministries. The most memorable line from the movie "Jurassic Park" went something along the lines, "The scientists found out they could do it [clone dinosaurs], but they never stopped to ask if they should!" When tempted to enter into some new ministry or building program because he has the resources and support to do so, the Christian leader must learn to wait upon the Lord until he knows His will. The easiest way to get out of the Lord's will is to go ahead and do what is within your own power, and to do what you think is appropriate. Those who have the most ability and resources should be most afraid they might do the wrong thing. Often, what seems to us a good thing to do is not the Lord's will at all.
Material authority is usually in direct opposition to spiritual authority. Those who have material power will use it instead of waiting for the other. He who has the greatest authority in the Kingdom is not the one with the most ability, but the greatest servant. The true pastor will seek to serve the needy and unpowerful first, not those whom he thinks will best support and advance his ministry.
We would do well to heed the examples of those known more for their faith than their abilities. George Mueller determined to build an orphanage without advertising or asking for money, trusting in God's provision. Likewise, Hudson Taylor labored in the mission field rather than taking fundraising tours, and Rees Howells built a Bible school through prayer alone. Both Taylor and Howells, in their youth, went through times of voluntary self-deprivation which they considered God¦s primer for future tasks -- and entered into lifestyles based on meager provision for the flesh so that they might give all the rest for the Gospel. Their experiences mirrored those of the Prophets and the Apostles. Looking at the big-name ministries and televangelists today, however, where do we find a comparison?
--Part 2, "The Bleating Sheep (The Carnal Church)," available at the Center for Biblical Spirituality site.
How does the Holy Spirit indwell and gift a believer? Read about it in Christ Within You! The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit
- The art of leadership . . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
- Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely . . . . Great men are almost always bad men.
-- Lord Acton, 1887
- Power is the great aphrodisiac.
-- Henry Kissinger, 1971
- Government by a tyrant is the worst form of rule.
-- St. Thomas Aquinas, On Princely Government
- A friend in power is a friend lost.
-- Henry Brooks Adams, The Education of Henry Adams
- Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.
-- G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
"Over these past 30 years, we have witnessed what sociologist Phillip Rieff calls the 'triumph of the therapeutic.' Psychotherapy, with its emphasis on individual fulfillment, crowds out concern for others. All that matters is that, through something like this, individuals 'find themselves.' It doesn't matter what's happened to God or to others. The president's words were steeped in this therapeutic language. If you didn't know that he was speaking to pastors, you could have mistaken the setting for the 'Oprah Winfrey Show.'"Winfrey has indeed become the high priestess of the therapeutic culture. The president's remarks stand in marked contrast to the words of another leader caught in sexual sin 3000 years ago. David wasn't thinking of himself when he wrote 'have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love. . . . Against you, you only, have I sinned.' David, you see, understood that true repentance leads to anguish over how God and others are affected by one's individual behavior.
"We don't know why the president chose to appear before the pastors at Willow Creek, but we do know what he accomplished: a graphic demonstration of the Oprah-izing of American values" ("Triumph of the therapeutic: the president at Willow Creek" by Charles Colson).
Descended from Polish Jews, Simon was born in New York City but moved to Detroit at age 10. Rebellious, Simon dropped out of school in 8th grade. At 15, he led other teens in a raucous protest against a leader of the America First movement. He caught the eye of a local socialist, and soon became a leader in the (Trotskyite) Socialist Workers Party. In the 1950's, he met influential intellectuals who helped him obtain a graduate degree at the University of Chicago, even without a high school diploma or bachelor's degree.
Simon's research at the Kinsey Institute was funded by federal grants. His conclusions and methods were at variance with the Institute's late founder, however, and he considered Kinsey's methods unscientific. While Kinsey viewed sex as "biologically driven," Simon saw it as learned behavior, "just another thing people learned how to do." In Postmodern Sexualities (1996), he wrote, "The most important truth about sexuality is that there may be no important truths that are permanent." Simon often wrote for Playboy in support of the acceptance of homosexuality, testified for the defense in obscenity trials, and authored a number of books and articles. While testifying for Gay Student Services against Texas A&M University, he was asked under oath if he had ever engaged in homosexual activity. "Not since early adolescence," he replied, quoting reports that many young boys experimented with same-sex conduct. When Allen Ginsberg and his lover visited Kinsey Institute, Simon reportedly participated in filming them performing a homosexual act.
"He was so highly skilled and adept verbally, and so very persuasive, that you knew what this man was saying came from the bottom of is heart," said sociologist Veronica Diehl Elias. Many of his students "worshiped" him, but amongst his UH colleagues he was considered a "pariah."
Asked why his "elitist tastes seemed so at variance with his plebian politics," Simon labeled himself a "Neiman Marxist."
(Source: Tom Curtis, "The Accidental Sexologist," Houston Press, August 24, 2000)
Sonny is a paradox, as is this movie, along with Robert Duvall¦s reasons for creating it. Sonny (Duvall), a successful pentecostal pastor, loses his church and his wife (Fawcett) to his youth pastor, beans him with a baseball bat (mortally), and goes on the run. Asking the Lord to use him yet again, he concludes that he is called to be an apostle. Sonny stumbles upon a closed rural church, and with great energy and charisma regathers a flock. Meanwhile, he meets a local woman and tries to talk her into bed. It is clear this is not his first time.
The police finally track him down and surround the church during a service. Inspired, Sonny preaches his heart out and bids his followers an inspirational farewell. As the movie closes, Sonny is seen energetically preaching the gospel to fellow inmates in prison.
Simultaneously, The Apostle exposes a seamy underside of pentecostalism, stirs empathy for a flawed character, and tells a story of redemption. It is hard to say which viewpoint is meant to leave a lasting impression, and what conclusions one is to draw.
A Jewish rabbi is just breaking the last of the purported Bible Codes predicting endtime events when he is murdered and the program disk stolen. A world leader (York) uses the Code to plan his takeover of the world. York is accidentally shot in the head by his henchman (Ironside) and dies, but rises again possessed by a demon and new vision. Van Dien, originally wooed by York to be his False Prophet, tries to stop him, but is betrayed by Oxenberg.
There are many Bible problems here. The existence of a Bible Code is, to say the least, debatable. The ending is ambiguous, as the world blows up and everything turns a bright white. There is no discernable Rapture, no Mark of the Beast, no Millennium, and precious little Tribulation. There is, however, an interesting and moving portrayal of the Two Witnesses. They look like ordinary men, appear out of nowhere on cue, speak with what sounds like European Jewish accents, and exhibit angel-like powers.
As a movie, Omega Code is entertaining, even inspirational -- but don¦t look here for Bible answers.
|
|
|
Newsletter Index |
Personal Page |
Page