A New Brand Of Christianity Is Growing

Whenever one thinks we have seen every variation of Christianity possible, a new one comes along. Here is one that fits our changing culture.

The Independent Network Charismatic, (INC) is a loosely aliened group of “Christian Entrepreneurs”. They believe in super natural miracles and divine intervention. Their goal is to capture the “seven mountains of culture”, business, government, media, arts/entertainment, education, family and religion.

In a past time, accomplishing such a goal would have started by “planting churches”, growing one family at a time. The INC passed on the long slog of planting churches and has grown by holding stadium prayer events, conferences, training schools and media events. INC plans to have its members in leadership of business, politics and media. It is a top down effort.

INC believes when its advocates are in leadership positions across the country there will be biblical morality, harmony among people, peace instead of war and no poverty.  It wants to transform units like cities, ethnic groups and nations instead of individuals.

The link, written by two university professors who have been studying INC, says its growth has been amazing. While other branches of Christianity have been falling, this group, starting 1070 has gone steadily at 3.24% per year. One of its several websites receives 25 million hits per year.

Its contemporary media approach appeals to young people. They hold healing events in emergency rooms.

One of INC’s hallmarks is experimentation and change. There can be no better formula than changing with the times.

41 Responses

    1. Michael 9:39 “peace instead of war” What a novel idea. Do they know they are at odds with most of Christendom?

      Yes, mostly Christians (you are a fine exception) love war. I think Trump is itching to go into Syria–I read 1,000 troops are ready to go in.

    1. Jinx 1:08 BTW, this is all over the news.

      What a story. The church that was “handed down from St. Peter” was part of Rwanda’s genocide. So, all those Bishops and Priests, trained in the holy faith, taken holy vows and given holy communion/confession were (are) The Catholic Church. They were not rogue priest misbehaving as is claimed about the child abusers. They were the Church.

      Now, I know several Priests and the ones I know are wonderful people. I’m sure nearly all priests and diocese are helping people. But, when you get to the institution it is no better than your average run-of-the-mill corporation. It is there to serve the owners who are the clergy.

      Think of a parishioner in Rwanda saying to her/his priest, “I want to go to heaven, Father. What should I do?” The priest replies, “We are the church handed down from St. Peter. Go and kill. You will be rewarded.”

      1. nemo82

        this is a sweeping claim, so sweeping as to lack credibility. I don’t get your reference to Rwanda, but perhaps the clergymen in question were invoking the right of self-defense. For my part I would, if I could, take out an attacker that came at me with a machete. And I should, if I could, fight to protect others who were being unjustly attacked. Ever heard of the just war principle? Besides, I have no reason to think that Christians are any more warlike than Muslims, Hindus, or for that matter, modern secular states. If history teaches us anything it is this: we are a notably competitive species, we have been fighting with each other from the beginning and will probably continue to do so until the end. Dreams about perpetual peace are just that, the gossamer dreams of folks who like to quote Scripture out of context. We are, of course, told that we must not kill, kill the innocent that is. And even in war, we should avoid killing the innocent (e.g. an injunction that was ignored with impunity by just about all the belligerents in WWII).

        1. nemo82 10:24 I don’t get your reference to Rwanda,

          The Pope was just in Rowanda apologizing, asking for forgiveness, for the role the Catholic Church played in the genocide. He didn’t use any of the excuses you used, he just said it was wrong for Church officials to be involved.

          1. nemo82

            sorry, I didn’t get your point either. As I said, I am not familiar with the Rwandian mess, nor was I aware that Francis was there. Apparently, there is some reason to believe that the church helped/encouraged the bad guys. But my point still stands: I am not making excuses, just pointing out that there are times when we are obliged to take up arms against a sea of troubles. In other words, I am not a pacifist, nor am I inclined to single out the Christians as the chief warmongers in the world.

          2. entech

            @ 11:53
            Hi Nemo, while I am in a poetic mood after my little Omar response to Matt:

            To be, or not to be–that is the question:
            Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
            The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
            Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
            And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep–
            No more–and by a sleep to say we end
            The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
            That flesh is heir to. ‘Tis a consummation
            Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep–
            To sleep–perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub,
            For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
            When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
            Must give us pause. There’s the respect

            There is a rather delicious irony in your choice of
            But my point still stands: I am not making excuses, just pointing out that there are times when we are obliged to take up arms against a sea of troubles

            Hamlets soliloquy, a monologue on whether or not suicide is a viable option. Also known as the nunnery scene !

            From the article quoted @ 4:34 pm

            The thousands of Rwandan Tutsis who crammed into the convent at Sovu in fear of their lives during the genocide of 1994 thought they were in a place of sanctuary.

            Instead, in the words of the prosecutor in a trial that convicted two Rwandan nuns yesterday, the building deserved the inscription at the entrance to Dante’s Hell: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

            In a Belgian court, justice finally caught up with two Benedictine nuns who betrayed refugees sheltering in their convent to murderous gangs in one of the most savage massacres of the genocide.

            The irony ❓ Taking shelter and expecting sanctuary leading to a massacre.

          3. nemo82

            seems that we were both wrong on the Pope’s whereabouts (as Tech was quick to remind us). Be that as it may, I do appreciate your apology: one seldom gets an apology on this site (maybe that’s part of what makes it so much fun). And I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions in broaching the self-defense issue.

          1. nemo82

            as I tried to make quite clear, I know little about Rwanda. when the issue was first raised, I thought that maybe someone was using a self-defense argument. it is now clear that that was not the case. but a question, did the nuns do what was in their best interest (saving their skin) under the circumstances? or is “betrayal” of this sort wrong in all times and in all circumstances? ditto pederasty? BTW, I am well aware of Hamlet’s soliloquy and the context in which was spoken. I only hope that I’m not as unlettered as you obviously think that I am. In any case, I thought that the quote I used as proper in the context of the just war question (you may recall that the discussion quickly drifted off in that direction).

          2. entech

            @ 8:03 Fascinating ending Nemo, reminds a bit of Trump and the phone tapp saga.
            You did indeed make clear that you knew little about the Rwanda genocide. I must contend that you still don’t (and incidentally the Pope was not in Rwanda, The Rwandan President was visiting the Vatican. To be fair Jon made the same error). You say you thought that someone was using a self-defence argument but this did not stop you making a misguided apologetic apparently based on you assumption that an atheist like Jon must always be wrong (I may be wrong, if so I apologise. Just the general impression I get from your writing on the basis that without your God there can be no absolute morality). Without the benefit of a moral law giver I can state that in my opinion this kind of betrayal is always wrong.
            The main originators of the problem were Colonialism and Catholicism.

            I am sure you are familiar with Shakespeare, but I question the context and your statement that the discussion drifted towards the “Just War”, not actually you introduced it and it went no further. There can be no rules of war that would make a deliberate genocide anything other than what it is. The context for Hamlet is one of a conflicted person out to revenge the murder of his father – no war involved.

    1. unregenerate

      Juan Ruiz 03.21.2017 @ 6:29 am

      Pretty heady stuff this Dominion Christianity and its spawn INC:

      From “The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action” by George Grant

      “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. … But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. … Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land—of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

      From the Introduction to “Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountain Mandate” by Lance Wallnau, Bill Johnson:

      “Leaders around the world are discovering that lasting cultural transformation only occurs when the Gospel infiltrates every aspect of society.” This book “… offers a divine understanding of how to embrace (a) naturally supernatural lifestyle” by “equipping the body of Christ with the knowledge of how to invade the world with the Kingdom.”

      There seems to be some common objectives with the likes of ISIS (shudder). Namely establishing a theocracy with complete societal and cultural control. Of course prayer is the weapon of choice for these ‘naturally supernatural’ Christians. Ahem.

      1. unregenerate 2:21 “Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land—of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

        This is scary indeed. While there are Christians who deny this is the goal of political activists in the faith, we can see it IS true for at least this branch. It is my view that are pockets within the faith that have the same goal, they are just too cagey to say it.

        1. nemo82

          man the barricades, attach bayonets, load the 24 pounder, here come the Christians! Jon, I must say that you have a very interesting website. Lots of heat (people who enjoy insulting one another, myself probably included) but not much light. sometimes a little unintended humor, tho’. I say unintended because you seem to be a rather dour bunch. But good for a laugh anyway.

          1. nemo82 10:02 I say unintended because you seem to be a rather dour bunch. But good for a laugh anyway.

            I’m glad you can enjoy it–at least some of it and I’m glad to have you posting whenever you wish to. I meant to say to you a couple of pages back that I apologize for not realizing you did not know about the Rwanda thing–I jumped to a conclusion that was unwarranted. All the best.

          2. entech

            Jon @ 10:17 I do not see the cause for an apology, if anything I think Nemo should apologise for leaping in and spurkling on about something of which he admits total ignorance.

  1. Matt Noah

    Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not in to temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

    1. Juan Ruiz

      “And lead us not in to temptation”

      This has always been problematic. Temptation implies sin. Why would a deity who punishes sin, lead one into it? Perhaps stories in the Old Testament explain it.

    2. entech

      Oh, Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
      Beset the Road I was to wander in,
      Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round
      Enmesh, and then impute my Fall to Sin!

      Oh, Thou who Man of baser Earth didst make,
      And ev’n with Paradise devise the Snake:
      For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
      Is blacken’d–Man’s forgiveness give–and take!

      As under cover of departing Day
      Slunk hunger-stricken Ramazan away,
      Once more within the Potter’s house alone
      I stood, surrounded by the Shapes of Clay.

      Shapes of all Sorts and Sizes, great and small,
      That stood along the floor and by the wall;
      And some loquacious Vessels were; and some
      Listen’d perhaps, but never talk’d at all.

      Said one among them–“Surely not in vain
      My substance of the common Earth was ta’en
      And to this Figure moulded, to be broke,
      Or trampled back to shapeless Earth again.”

      Then said a Second–“Ne’er a peevish Boy
      Would break the Bowl from which he drank in joy,
      And He that with his hand the Vessel made
      Will surely not in after Wrath destroy.”

      After a momentary silence spake
      Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;
      “They sneer at me for leaning all awry:
      What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?”

      1. nemo82

        Tech, thanks for reminding me of my alleged misuse of the Hamlet line. Guess you are something of a literary literalist/purist. No fooling around with the pure text and its meaning. Anyway, upon reading Jon’s original post, the self-defense issue came immediately to mind: speculation, sure, but a rational line of thought nonetheless. BTW, Jon was gracious enough to apologize: more than I can say for you. In fact, you strike me as a rather ungracious person. But I do enjoy the way in which you invoke absolute moral principles while denying the existence of a transcendent lawgiver. I have, however, no desire to belabor the point: except to direct your attention to what folks like Plato and Aristotle had to say on the subject of ethics (that branch of philosophy that deals with the question of “how ought a rational moral being behave in this world”. Remember, I, too, can play your game.

        1. entech

          Sorry to be offensive, put it down to my tendency to get very pissed off at seeing a statement such as:
          this is a sweeping claim, so sweeping as to lack credibility. especially when followed by admittance that the statement was made in complete ignorance, even lack of interest in, the topic.
          Such statements so often are based on the assumption that “an atheist” can have no credibility under any circumstance with a slightly sub-surface desire to mount an attack whenever possible (this failing of mine is exacerbated by being constantly told that simple different opinion, lack of belief, and offering an alternative explanation is decried as lies, hatred and more recently denigration) .

          Not at all the purist regarding the original context, from the same play “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” has become a figure of speech widely understood and entire removed from context. My major objection to your quote was that it was from a suicide speech and was referred to the fact that so many seeking sanctuary were, in effect, committing suicide.
          Without Shakespeare and the King James Bible English would be a much poorer language.

          “how ought a rational moral being behave in this world”. This is Kantian rather than Aristotelian.
          One of many attempts to derive an absolute morality from reason alone, given that it impossible to know for certain whether or not there is an absolute and independent law giver.

          1. nemo82

            sorry to be offensive. that’s a hoot coming from you, offensive s/b your middle name. As to Kant, insofar as I understand him, he tried to base an ethic on the Golden Rule and a proof for existence of God by way of the moral law. Aristotle’s virtue ethic was based on man’s nature as a rational being (much more to be said but not here). was interested in your remark about your inability to construct an ethical system from reason alone (no intelligent lawgiver). That said, it seems that you have given considerable thought to the issue while leaving me quite unsure as to where you ultimately stake your ethical claims. and, please, if you choose to reply, skip the British hauteur . I know that we colonials don’t measure up, just don’t keep reminding us of our inferiority (it isn’t nice to do that). And while I’m at it, the Bruno affair. Burning at the stake is quite humane compared to the English practice of hanging, drawing, quartering, pressing, (favorites of your Great Queen). If you’re burned at he stake you’ re, under normal circumstances, probably dead in minutes. BTW, at least we frogs and our National Razor make a quick but messy end of things).

          2. entech

            offensive s/b your middle name. Oh dear!

            I do think you misunderstood me here
            was interested in your remark about your inability to construct an ethical system from reason alone (no intelligent lawgiver)
            What I said was my (or anyone’s) inability to be certain of the existence of said lawgiver.
            “given that it impossible to know for certain whether or not there is an absolute and independent law giver.”

            I must certainly agree that “Madame Guillotine” was fast efficient and, if you had to have capital punishment, the best available at the time. It was introduced by the anti-royalist anti-religious national assembly on the thesis that the purpose was to end life and not to inflict pain. The inflicting of pain seemed to be an essential ingredient in burning at the stake; England’s great Queen (Mary) insisted that protestant clergy should not be strangled first thus ensuring that the pain lasted as long as possible.
            I would also agree that the hung, drawn and quartered punishment was particularly barbaric: that it was mainly used for the offense of high treason and thus a public spectacle intended to be a deterrent is no defence.

            Burning at the stake was “quite humane” you say, I guess the extended period of torture preceding it did not count and any way it was intended to save the soul from eternal burning. Boiling in oil however was not so gentle it took Pomponio Algerio 15 minutes to die.

  2. nemo82

    seems simple to me. save us from situations in which we might be put to the test. in other words give us a peaceful, well ordered life. I think all of us that pray, pray for a happy life (tho” a happy life, at least as we envision it, can be a serious temptation all in itself). Here’s where you can enter the combat: in this world we seldom get what we pray for. where is God, then.

    1. I would suggest it means as I’ve posted in the link. “And lead us not into temptation”, i.e. give us the strength of faith to overcome temptation. But your assertion of ‘not having temptation’ is a valid, partial interpretation. Please excuse me if I misrepresent you.

  3. “yes, Mostly Christians love war”. That’s because wars are fought “over there”. Unless you or a loved one are directly involved war is a spectator sport. Curl up with some chips and beer and watch a little war coverage. Tiring of that you could flip threw the channels for the NHL, NBA, or March Madness. I voted for Trump, stupid me, only to see that he is sending troops ( as you noted) to Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait. The 6 drone wars Obama had going bombing has increased 472% since Jan 20. “Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss”. I’m so stupid I should be taken out and shot

    1. nemo82

      Ross as the man said, war is hell. and Robert Lee allegedly said, it’s good that war is so awful, otherwise we might get too fond of it. But fond of it we are. BTW, what would you go to war for? what principle? what cause? what interest? Is there such a thing as a good war? Was WWI a good war? Should we mount a preemptive strike against North Korea, considering their threat to drop a nuke in our backyard? (I don’t think that they will, it’s probably all bluff) These are questions I often ask myself, questions that you might well ask yourself before you go about making blanket statements like the ones that are often made on this site (and elsewhere).

    2. I voted for Trump and do not regret it at all. Hillary was the alternative. Instead of Judge Gorsuch being the nominee we could be facing someone far less qualified and far more like Rachel Maddow.

      1. entech

        Just been watching some of your late night elision shows on YouTube. I’ll say this for trump I never found any interest in this stuff before. Which leads to a question, is Trevor Noah a relative of yours?

        1. Jinx

          Ha ha ha aha ha……I wonder to Entech!!!! Bet the worm believes his family traces back to the folk tale of Noah and the ark!!

          1. entech

            Of course he does! Everybody does if they are a bible believing Christian they must, it is an article of faith. Remember God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family, in order to rid the world of evil people, a monumental fail as everyone is born to be a sinner – actually born in sin.

            Of course, you could deny this part and say it is a metaphor, or salutary tale. It follows that if you change this tale to something more palatable you have to decide each dubious story on its merits and where do you stop? Which bits are actually true and which poarts have lesson to teach.

        2. Everyone is a relative of mine. Remember, Adam and Eve were the FIRST couple that God chose to populate the earth. Then He wiped all but the Noahs off the face of the earth and started over. I’m pretty sure you are a 3rd cousin. Sorry to break the news to you.

          1. Godless

            Matt, just wanted to make sure you fully understand what needs to happen when only two people populate the earth. When Adam and Evening procreate it would require many different possibilities of inbreeding. That could be father with daughter or brother and sister doing the nasty. Does this not concern you?

          2. entech

            Godless, you have to realise that this was before the fall, when humans were perfect. The effects of inbreeding did not happen until later, neither did moral considerations.

            After the flood there was once again a very small gene pool but sufficient to survive and prosper, except for those named Noah with a very direct lineage.

Leave a Reply