John Lomacang : Saturday's Campmeeting Sermonette, "main points" transcript Options

[SoulEspresso]

I have never personally heard Christians besides JL address God like that except for one that I can recall a few years ago.

In my circles for five or ten years there was a praise song making the rounds ...

Father God, just for today
Help me walk the narrow way ...

As for Michel, I don't know about God's wrath, but she shre incurred David's. He in effect made a nun out of her. He put her in a convent.

How would you interpret 2 Sam 6:23, in context, then? Was that something David determined? What's this about putting her in a convent? I was unable to find it in the Bible.

On a side note, my experience with the use of the title "Father God" in public intercessory prayer is that it is often used in a highly repetitious way, more than most appellations for God. Often every sentence has the title used. I am not sure how this practice began. Would we address any other person in this way? They would probably think we were crazy or tell us to stop. Why then do we address God this way? Is it possible that this practice originated in a superstitious way? If Jesus enjoined us to address God as Father, then doing so more often than normal will be even more efficacious?

I don't know, Voktar, I talk to my friends, Voktar, like this all the time, Voktar, just to let them know, Voktar, how much I care, Voktar ...

Yeah drives me bananas too.

[watchbird]

Addressing God as a mother is unbiblical, except in a rare metaphorical sense. We are enjoined by Jesus Himself to address God as our Father.

What we need to remember when we read scripture is that God met people where they were. And most likely the reason for not making more of God's mothering of his children has to do with the prominence of female deities in scriptural times. But God does liken himself to a mother at times... as he also likens himself to a father. But in Bible times, the father was the protector of the family or clan, and females were mere possessions. This undoubtedly restrained God from picturing himself as mother equally much as father. But the facts are that it was male and female together which were created in his image.... suggesting, not that God was bi-sexual, but that his attributes were represented by both male and female together.

If God were directly meeting today's "neopagan" views of the earth as "Mother-god" He would no doubt emphasize that the earth was NOT a god, nor the Mother of all... but that it was only a created object and HE was both the Creator of it and the genuine Mother of all.

But that is, of course, mere speculation. What is not mere speculation is the fact that some women have been abused so much by their earthly fathers, that they simply cannot relate to a God who is presented as being Father. Thus it is useful in those cases to allow ... and even encourage... them to look for the non-gender specific descriptors of God in scripture, and to even think of God as their Mother rather than only as Father.

Does that mean that we can only address Him as "Our Father who art in Heaven?" Of course not. Does that mean that we cannot address Jesus or the Holy Spirit directly either? If we get caught up in pronouncing just the right name, or just the right formula, then we are no better than superstitious Catholics or Jehovah Witnesses. Is God our Father? Then there is nothing wrong with addressing Him as "Father God." Pagans have addressed their god in a fatherly way ever since Baal. Does that mean we should shun addressing the true God in a fatherly way. Of course not. Neo-pagans even address Jesus as 'the son.' Should we stop doing that? The use of the title 'Father God' is wide spread among African American Christians. Does that mean they are all unwittingly invoking the neo-pagan deity? Balderdash!

As I mentioned above, pagans have also invoked female goddesses. And just as with many acts of worship enjoined in scripture, the act itself was often similar to that of the "nations around". The significant difference was in WHOM the act of worship addressed. The commands were to "have no other gods before me" and "do not bow down to them nor serve them". There is no command to not bow down to God because pagans bow down to their gods.

As for using terms adopted by new agers....

When I first began researching new age philosophies some 25 years ago, I was dismayed at the "new content" that I found in standard Christian terms. My first reaction was as has been expressed here on BSDA... "We should avoid using that term!"

I soon found, though, that nearly every term we as Christians used had been pre-empted by these various new age groups. So my next exclamation was, "They have stolen my vocabulary, so how shall I speak?!" For even words like "atonement"... especially our way of "explaining" the concept by saying "at-one-ment"... were widespread in new age and neo-pagan groups... with mystical pagan meanings of becoming actually "one" with their god.

So I came to the conclusion that, yes, we should be aware of new age and neo-pagan uses of Christian terms.... but not for the purpose of eliminating them from our vocabulary. Rather, it should be for a two-fold purpose.... on the one hand to make sure that we understand what new converts mean when they say the terms so as to sufficiently instruct them on the difference where we find they have understandings different from Christian meanings. and on the other hand to be alert to the context of the terms when they are used in Christian settings, so as to be able to recognize when the one using them is putting non-Christian meanings into them.

On a side note, my experience with the use of the title "Father God" in public intercessory prayer is that it is often used in a highly repetitious way, more than most appellations for God. Often every sentence has the title used. I am not sure how this practice began. Would we address any other person in this way? They would probably think we were crazy or tell us to stop. Why then do we address God this way? Is it possible that this practice originated in a superstitious way? If Jesus enjoined us to address God as Father, then doing so more often than normal will be even more efficacious? Or, is it because sometimes public prayer is not only coveted for its heartfelt sincerity and theological relevance, but also for its poetic and musical quality? (Father/God rhymes)

This may be one that you have noticed... but it is certainly not the only one that is used in excessively repetitious ways. Any title or name for God that is habitual with the speaker will appear multiple times in prayers made by those with the annoying habit of repeating that title of name after, before, and sometimes in the middle of every sentence. They simply need a little kindly instruction on constructing public prayers... rather than burdening them with guilt over the name for God with which they are most comfortable.

[SoulEspresso]

I suppose we could make a few heads spin by pointing out that the Israelite sanctuary was identical in layout to pagan temples that had been around for hundreds of years before the Hebrews returned from Egypt and were established as a nation ...

I still remember in seminary when a guy from the archaeology department dropped that bomb in Sanctuary class ... there was dead silence for about 10 seconds.

[mozart]

yeppers i did. i can't say that i agree it is the same thing tho'. if a person gets the words wrong, of course i don't think our Lord has a problem with it. God doesn't hold us accountable if we do not know better right? but, isn't it a good thing to discover truth about things picked up unknowingly? i would want to know.

I went back and read it, yes, but I stand by my statement. "Father God" distinguishes Him from earthly fathers in the same way that "Heavenly Father" does, even if one appears in the Bible and one does not. Is anyone here willing to say that because a person gets the words wrong, God won't listen to their prayers? If so, what does that say about God?

I'm Caucasian, and I didn't know about the history of the phrase moving from black-to-white churches or Christians. All the people I know who use the phrase are white, and I've seen God answer prayers addressed to "Father God."

Mo ... did you look up my texts?

[SoulEspresso]

yeppers i did. i can't say that i agree it is the same thing tho'. if a person gets the words wrong, of course i don't think our Lord has a problem with it. God doesn't hold us accountable if we do not know better right? but, isn't it a good thing to discover truth about things picked up unknowingly? i would want to know.

I think I agree at least in principle. God--the real one--may deign to answer prayers offered in ignorance by pagans praying to a god that doesn't exist, but if they come to know better, well ... I just don't think calling the Father of Jesus Father God falls into the category of paganism even if some pagans hijacked the term.

Since we're it bears saying that while John Lomocang can be fairly criticized for his role in the 3ABN scandal, how he addresses the Almighty, at least to me, isn't an issue. I'm just one guy though.

[princessdi]

Skyhook, I believe by now you will ahve read Awsumtenor's short history of the phrase. The name Father God, used in prayer, predates New Age/NeoPagans, and Sylvia Brown. It has long been a way of addressing God, the Father in prayer in the black community. So if anyone has "borrowed" the term, it is the other groups. We all know that the enemy has acounterfeit for everything that is of God. this y et another one of his counterfeits.

Skyhook, that was God's wrath that Michal incurred. It was God who made her barren. No one would have known if it was a matter of David ceasing to have marital relations with her. But she more no children, in spite of ahving relations. That is how it is known she was barren. She was barren like Sarah.

princessdi, I have more information on that somewhere. Sylvia Brown the Medium psychic uses "Father God Mother God." the other version for neo-pagans is "Father God, Mother Earth."

I have never personally heard Christians besides JL address God like that except for one that I can recall a few years ago.
As for Michel, I don't know about God's wrath, but she shre incurred David's. He in effect made a nun out of her. He put her in a convent.

[joyce]

I suppose we could make a few heads spin by pointing out that the Israelite sanctuary was identical in layout to pagan temples that had been around for hundreds of years before the Hebrews returned from Egypt and were established as a nation ...

I still remember in seminary when a guy from the archaeology department dropped that bomb in Sanctuary class ... there was dead silence for about 10 seconds.

That info is fascinating for sure. I never heard about that before in my whole life. Where could I find out more about the pagan temples being like the sanctuary?

Goes to show that just because the pagans do something, it does not make it necessarily evil.

Joyce

[Skyhook]

Skyhook, I believe by now you will ahve read Awsumtenor's short history of the phrase. The name Father God, used in prayer, predates New Age/NeoPagans, and Sylvia Brown. It has long been a way of addressing God, the Father in prayer in the black community. So if anyone has "borrowed" the term, it is the other groups. We all know that the enemy has acounterfeit for everything that is of God. this y et another one of his counterfeits.

Skyhook, that was God's wrath that Michal incurred. It was God who made her barren. No one would have known if it was a matter of David ceasing to have marital relations with her. But she more no children, in spite of ahving relations. That is how it is known she was barren. She was barren like Sarah.

Well, I guess its almost unanymous that JL can just keep praying the way he wants to.
A couple of days ago one of our members showed me pictures of John and his wife taken when they were visiting at her home some years ago. One picture showed John riding a horse. He and his wife are very well thought of. I think the pictures were taken when he was pastoring at Weaverville.

I think 2 Samuel 6:23 can reasonably be interpreted to imply that David put Michal aside. The text says that she "had no child" not that she was barren. Barren, as in "Sarah was barren" Gen. 11:30 means sterile-an innability to conceive. It is possible to infer that David put Michal aside in the same way he did his 10 concubines after his son Absalom "went in to his father's concubines" 2:Sam. 16:22.
"And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of thier death, living in widowhood." 2 Samuel 20:3.
That's what I meant by the convent remark.

The history of David and Michal's relationship is interesting in that David took her as his wife when she was actually married to someone else. 2Sam. 3:14-16

This post has been edited by Skyhook: Jun 2 2007, 08:17 PM

[SoulEspresso]

That info is fascinating for sure. I never heard about that before in my whole life. Where could I find out more about the pagan temples being like the sanctuary?

Goes to show that just because the pagans do something, it does not make it necessarily evil.

Joyce

Well, God meets people where they are. People in those days were used to thinking of their temples as "models of the universe," so God directed one to be made that would lay out the plan of salvation--the prime activity of the cosmos. There were some major differences--the Most Holy Places of Canaanite temples had idols in them, and if I remember right it was a lot easier to go before the false gods than before the Real One.

I tried googling it but didn't have much luck--getting the right search terms is probably the trick. Perhaps a good local library? A book on Palestinian archaeology is where I ran across the material in print--Canaanite architecture in particular. I think Egyptian temples are very similar too.

[beartrap]

PBS recently aired a documentary on the history of God that showed footage of those pagan temples, and followed the parallels between the gods and worship of the "pagans" and the Hebrews. It was very interesting.

That info is fascinating for sure. I never heard about that before in my whole life. Where could I find out more about the pagan temples being like the sanctuary?

Goes to show that just because the pagans do something, it does not make it necessarily evil.

Joyce

[inga]

You might also want to consider several other possible options:

The pagan sacrifices were a counterfeit of the sacrifices that pointed forward to Christ. The sacrificial system was instituted at the gates of Eden. Thus all humanity would have this in their history.

It is even possible that there were earlier temples dedicated to the worship of the true God, though there's no evidence on which to base that assumption. I agree with SE that God meets people where they are. The Hebrew temple was not precisely like the pagan temples, but only so in approximate features. All archeology can discover is the physical ruins of the temples, not a lot about how they were used. If a thousand years from now, someone dug up the ruins of our house and yours and found the dimensions to be similar, it would likely be a wrong deductions that those who lived in these houses were very similar, had similar habits, beliefs, etc. They'd even be wrong about assuming the same architect.

Well, God meets people where they are. People in those days were used to thinking of their temples as "models of the universe," so God directed one to be made that would lay out the plan of salvation--the prime activity of the cosmos. There were some major differences--the Most Holy Places of Canaanite temples had idols in them, and if I remember right it was a lot easier to go before the false gods than before the Real One.

I tried googling it but didn't have much luck--getting the right search terms is probably the trick. Perhaps a good local library? A book on Palestinian archaeology is where I ran across the material in print--Canaanite architecture in particular. I think Egyptian temples are very similar too.

[PeacefulBe]

What we need to remember when we read scripture is that God met people where they were. And most likely the reason for not making more of God's mothering of his children has to do with the prominence of female deities in scriptural times. But God does liken himself to a mother at times... as he also likens himself to a father. But in Bible times, the father was the protector of the family or clan, and females were mere possessions. This undoubtedly restrained God from picturing himself as mother equally much as father. But the facts are that it was male and female together which were created in his image.... suggesting, not that God was bi-sexual, but that his attributes were represented by both male and female together.

If God were directly meeting today's "neopagan" views of the earth as "Mother-god" He would no doubt emphasize that the earth was NOT a god, nor the Mother of all... but that it was only a created object and HE was both the Creator of it and the genuine Mother of all.

But that is, of course, mere speculation. What is not mere speculation is the fact that some women have been abused so much by their earthly fathers, that they simply cannot relate to a God who is presented as being Father. Thus it is useful in those cases to allow ... and even encourage... them to look for the non-gender specific descriptors of God in scripture, and to even think of God as their Mother rather than only as Father.
As I mentioned above, pagans have also invoked female goddesses. And just as with many acts of worship enjoined in scripture, the act itself was often similar to that of the "nations around". The significant difference was in WHOM the act of worship addressed. The commands were to "have no other gods before me" and "do not bow down to them nor serve them". There is no command to not bow down to God because pagans bow down to their gods.

As for using terms adopted by new agers....

When I first began researching new age philosophies some 25 years ago, I was dismayed at the "new content" that I found in standard Christian terms. My first reaction was as has been expressed here on BSDA... "We should avoid using that term!"

I soon found, though, that nearly every term we as Christians used had been pre-empted by these various new age groups. So my next exclamation was, "They have stolen my vocabulary, so how shall I speak?!" For even words like "atonement"... especially our way of "explaining" the concept by saying "at-one-ment"... were widespread in new age and neo-pagan groups... with mystical pagan meanings of becoming actually "one" with their god.

So I came to the conclusion that, yes, we should be aware of new age and neo-pagan uses of Christian terms.... but not for the purpose of eliminating them from our vocabulary. Rather, it should be for a two-fold purpose.... on the one hand to make sure that we understand what new converts mean when they say the terms so as to sufficiently instruct them on the difference where we find they have understandings different from Christian meanings. and on the other hand to be alert to the context of the terms when they are used in Christian settings, so as to be able to recognize when the one using them is putting non-Christian meanings into them.
This may be one that you have noticed... but it is certainly not the only one that is used in excessively repetitious ways. Any title or name for God that is habitual with the speaker will appear multiple times in prayers made by those with the annoying habit of repeating that title of name after, before, and sometimes in the middle of every sentence. They simply need a little kindly instruction on constructing public prayers... rather than burdening them with guilt over the name for God with which they are most comfortable.

WB,
This is fascinating information! It seems that, perhaps, the gender of God issue falls into the same realm as the man's time vs. God's time issue - we measure ours in minutes, hours, days, etc. and God may not even have clocks.

[mozart]

good observation inga, as the world is always looking into the "which came first. the chicken or the egg" theory i suppose many think that the pagan temple came first.

You might also want to consider several other possible options:

The pagan sacrifices were a counterfeit of the sacrifices that pointed forward to Christ. The sacrificial system was instituted at the gates of Eden. Thus all humanity would have this in their history.

It is even possible that there were earlier temples dedicated to the worship of the true God, though there's no evidence on which to base that assumption. I agree with SE that God meets people where they are. The Hebrew temple was not precisely like the pagan temples, but only so in approximate features. All archeology can discover is the physical ruins of the temples, not a lot about how they were used. If a thousand years from now, someone dug up the ruins of our house and yours and found the dimensions to be similar, it would likely be a wrong deductions that those who lived in these houses were very similar, had similar habits, beliefs, etc. They'd even be wrong about assuming the same architect.

[PeacefulBe]

PBS recently aired a documentary on the history of God that showed footage of those pagan temples, and followed the parallels between the gods and worship of the "pagans" and the Hebrews. It was very interesting.

This was actually also airing in our area yesterday. I was amazed at the similarities between the two. It shouldn't come as a big surprise though, for the very reasons that Inga points out.


SE,

ITA! I doubt that the Egyptian high priests needed that rope around their ankles, LOL!

[SoulEspresso]

You might also want to consider several other possible options:

The pagan sacrifices were a counterfeit of the sacrifices that pointed forward to Christ. The sacrificial system was instituted at the gates of Eden. Thus all humanity would have this in their history.

It is even possible that there were earlier temples dedicated to the worship of the true God, though there's no evidence on which to base that assumption. I agree with SE that God meets people where they are. The Hebrew temple was not precisely like the pagan temples, but only so in approximate features. All archeology can discover is the physical ruins of the temples, not a lot about how they were used. If a thousand years from now, someone dug up the ruins of our house and yours and found the dimensions to be similar, it would likely be a wrong deductions that those who lived in these houses were very similar, had similar habits, beliefs, etc. They'd even be wrong about assuming the same architect.

Of course. All of these are possibilities. We don't have archaeological evidence of Eden, but the textual evidence of Genesis indicates some strong sanctuary resemblences.

As for the Canaanite/Egyptian temples, it all depends on how much you rely on archaeological dating techniques. Some of these can be fairly reliable. Which came first is theologically irrelevant to me. You can interpret similarities as Satan's attempt to deceive people, or as attempts by pagans at reaching truth, without the advantage of revelation that God's people have.

ITA! I doubt that the Egyptian high priests needed that rope around their ankles, LOL!

Ya know? Unlike the pagans' temples, in the Hebrew one Someone was actually in the Most Holy Place for a good many years!

Different subject, same general idea: If you want to make your head spin, think on this: how clearly would you get a picture of the Messiah's death and resurrection just by reading the Old Testament? Can you think of any clear prophecies that can't only be understood in retrospect?

You get a hint here, and a hint there, but the idea of a dying-and-resurrecting deity only comes through loud and clear in paganism. You can say that Satan originated the Osiris, Balder, etc myths to lead people away from the reality of Christ; or you can say that God permitted them to figure it out thus far so they could be prepared for hearing about the historical death and resurrection of the True God, God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Jun 3 2007, 02:49 PM