KATHRYN KRICK AND THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

Why She is Symptomatic of All that is Wrong in This Movement

There is a cloud of controversy swirling around a young female preacher, Kathryn Krick, who presents herself as “Apostle Kathryn Krick.” My purpose in this article is not to pile on with more personal criticism, but to point out that she is symptomatic of all that is wrong in the modern charismatic movement. She is a product of what the charismatic movement has become in the last 30 years.

I come to this task as an insider who has been a part of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement my entire life. The three problem areas I will address in Krick and the charismatic movement are: (1) An Inordinate Love of Titles, (2) An Ungodly Celebrity Culture, and (3)  Merchandising the Gifts of God.

An Inordinate Love of Titles

If you go to Kathryn Krick’s website, it is obvious that she loves the title “Apostle” in front of her name. Throughout her story, it is always “Apostle Kathryn.” It is never “Kathryn” or “Ms. Krick” but always “Apostle Kathryn.”

Now, this is not unique to Kathryn. Beginning in the 1990s there was a so-called "Apostolic Reformation" among charismatics in which it was claimed that God was restoring the "office" of the apostle to the church. Suddenly, many self-made apostles  began appearing on the scene. Many pastors changed the name plate on their office door, putting "Apostle" in front of their name rather than "Pastor."

I recall being in a large metropolitan area on the east coast and picking up a Christian tabloid that carried advertising for many independent, charismatic churches and fellowships. As I turned the pages, I was astounded at all the bishops, archbishops, prelates, apostles, covering-apostles, presiding-apostles, jurisdictional-apostles, etc.

One person even had a full-page ad filled with a large photo of herself with a caption underneath that read, “Her Super Eminence Apostle so and so.” I thought to myself, “Can these people be followers of the One who humbled Himself and washed the feet of His disciples, a task reserved for servants and slaves in that culture?”

This love of titles, of course, has no basis in Scripture but is rooted in pride and the desire for status and importance. Words used to describe leaders in the New Testament, such as apostle, prophet, pastor, etc., were functional in nature describing the leaders’ task, rather than official describing their status. They were never used as titles.

This is obvious in the Book of Acts where Luke mentions Paul by name more than 120 times and not once does he say “Apostle Paul,” but merely “Paul.” In 2 Peter 3:14, Peter refers to Paul as “our beloved brother Paul.” In Rev. 1:9, John the apostle, in his letter to the seven churches, puts no title in front of his name but refers to himself as “your brother and companion in tribulation.”

This obvious avoidance of titles in the early church is understandable in light of the words of Jesus in Matt. 23:6-12 where He warned His disciples about adopting titles that would set themselves above other believers.

But you, do not be called “Rabbi”; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The love of titles, such as “Apostle,” is a symptom of pride and the desire for power and control. The well-known historian and Pentecostal statesman, the late Dr. Vinson Synan, expressed his concern about all the new charismatic “apostles” in his last book entitled, An Eyewitness Remembers the Century of the Holy Spirit. He wrote,

From the outset, I was concerned about any movement that claims to restore apostolic offices that exercise ultimate and unchecked authority in churches. The potential for abuse is enormous. Throughout church history, attempts to restore apostle as an office in the church have often ended up in heresy and caused incredible pain.

 Synan also tells of being invited to become a member of the new International Coalition of Apostles that had just formed. Only “apostles” were being invited, and Synan was told that he was being recognized as a “calling apostle.” Members would pay a monthly fee of $69.00.

Synan thanked them for their invitation but declined, explaining that he had concerns with their association of the apostolic with office and power. Interjecting a bit of wry humor, he then added, “Besides, at $69.00 per month I can’t afford to be an apostle” (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 95).

A person with a charismatic personality and boldly claiming to be an apostle or prophet will draw a cult-like following from among the immature and naïve. However, there is a very real inherent danger, for the love of titles is rooted in pride. And we must never forget that “pride is the stronghold of deception.”

An Ungodly Celebrity Culture

“Hero worship” has been a characteristic of mankind from ancient history. The ancient Greeks had Hercules, Ajax, Achilles, Ulysses and others whom they idolized. In the modern world we not only have Superman, Batman and Spiderman, but we have our heroes in Hollywood, sports and politics with devoted followers who continually share their videos and follow their every move.

Sadly, this celebrity culture has seeped into the charismatic movement. I read an article in a Christian magazine in which the writer referred to a Christian leader as a “celebrity worship leader.” I was stunned! There is no such thing as a “celebrity worship leader.” It is a contradiction of terms. The only celebrity is Jesus Christ and a true worship leader will do everything in their power to direct the people’s attention away from themselves to Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the most bizarre example I have seen was a pastor in Atlanta, Georgia who allowed himself to be hoisted on a throne-like seat, sitting on two long poles, which four men then carried and paraded around the church platform as the congregation clapped and cheered. It was idolatrous and sickening.

We see Paul addressing this celebrity issue in his first letter to the Corinthians. In I Corinthians 3:4 he rebukes them for forming cliques around different “celebrity” preachers and says it is a sign of their carnality. For when one says, “I am of Paul” and another “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

Paul then rhetorically asks, Who is Paul and who is Apollos but ministers through whom you believed. The word “ministers” in the KJV and NKJV is not the best translation. The Greek word is diakonoi and it referred to a household servant who had no status, importance or power. Interestingly, this is one of Paul’s favorite words for himself and his coworkers.

Jesus Himself directed his disciples away from visions of “celebrity” by emphasizing their role as diakonoi (servants}in His kingdom. When, for example, James and John requested the two most prominent seats in His kingdom, Jesus rebuked them for their preoccupation with “celebrity” and “power” and told them they were thinking like Gentiles, i.e., like people who did not know God.

They must have been shocked when He told these original apostles they were to function as diakonoi, or servants. Jesus made clear that the “apostolic” was to be characterized by “love” and “service” to others rather than “celebrity” and power over others.

This explains the response of Peter and John in Acts 3:12 to a crowd that was ready to idolize them and put them on a pedestal. It happened after they ministered healing to a man who had been a cripple from birth. This miracle happened in public at the gate of the temple.

When a crowd came running together ready to put them on a pedestal and shower them with accolades, Peter stopped them and exclaimed, Why are you looking so intently at us as though by our own power or godliness we had made this man to walk? Peter then directed the people’s attention away from him and John to Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, as the Source of this man’s healing.

Modern charismatics would have drawn attention to themselves, explaining this miracle as the result of the special apostolic anointing God had placed on them. They would then have exhorted the people that they can share in that new anointing by aligning with their ministry and sending in their seed faith offerings. Peter and John, of course, did nothing of the sort. They knew there is only One celebrity.

Modern television and video production have played a role in producing celebrity preachers. I have been on sets and noted that when the studio lights came on and the cameras began to roll, the demeanor of the host completely changes. There is suddenly a big smile, raised eyebrows and a charged tone in the sound of their voice. It is showtime!

When Sue and I pastored in eastern Canada in the 1980s, a couple from our congregation decided to attend a Christian conference in Florida from which a very popular TV show would be broadcast. When they returned, the wife told me about finding an opening to go up to the “celebrity” preacher and TV host and greet him.

She was so excited to meet this person whom she regularly watched on TV. She walked up to him and said, “Hi Jim, I’m Betty Hopey from New Brunswick, Canada.” He gave a very rude response and brushed her off. She was shocked, and later said to me, “He is nothing in real life like he is on TV.” That is what happens when a celebrity culture invades the church.

When I looked at Krick’s website and observed how she presents herself, it seemed obvious that she sees herself as a celebrity. Krick’s spiritual father, GeorDavie, from Tanzania, obviously sees himself as a celebrity. He loves titles and calls himself “the Landmark Senior Prophet of the Equator.” In and of itself, that sort of narcissistic self-promotion is a flashing red light.

But this is what happens when we allow a celebrity culture to invade the church. Preachers become performers, worship becomes theatrics and worship leaders become celebrities. The inhabitants of heaven, who continually fall on their faces and cast their crowns before the throne, must be stunned beyond words at the state of the modern charismatic church.

Merchandising God’s Free Gifts

There is a video of Krick on the internet that I found deeply disturbing. The video shows a young boy writhing on the ground, and whether it is demonic oppression or some neurological problem is not clear.

What is disturbing is that Krick tells the mother she is going to have to give more money for the boy to be delivered. “Now you need to sow specifically for his deliverance,” she tells the mother.  She even suggests that his deliverance will require more than a tithe, i.e., ten percent.

Again, this is not unique to Krick. I have heard charismatic preachers doing fundraisers in which they promised their audience everything from a new home to debt cancellation to the return of a prodigal son or daughter. But it was all conditioned on them sending a financial gift to that church or ministry. What a travesty!!

This flies in the face of the character of God and of Biblical truth. At no time does Jesus or the early church ever tie receiving healing or deliverance to money. In fact, one of the most stinging rebukes you will find in the New Testament is in Acts chapter 8 where an individual offers money in exchange for receiving God’s gifts.

It happened during a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit after Philip, the evangelist, began preaching in a certain city of Samaria. Miraculous healings occurred and many believed in Jesus and were baptized. One of those who believed and was baptized was Simon, who had been a well-known sorcerer in that city.

Peter and John heard about the revival and came down from Jerusalem to pray for those who had believed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Simon began following Peter and John around and was intrigued with their ability to lay their hands on people who would then be filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:18-19 says,

And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

To put it in charismatic terminology, that Krick and many others use, Simon offered to plant a financial seed for his need. In return for his “first-fruits offering,” Peter and John would impart the anointing that was upon them into his life. It seemed like a neat and tidy arrangement.

The Holy Spirit, however, was deeply grieved, and Peter’s response was harsh. He rebuked Simon, saying to him, Your money perish with you because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money.

God cannot be bought. His gifts are not for sale at any monetary price. Peter continued with his devastating rebuke, saying,

You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.  Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.

This clearly shows what God thinks of people who think they can manipulate Him with money. To Krick and other preachers in the charismatic movement, “Stop merchandising the gifts and blessings of God!”

Yes, teach people to be generous, but stop implying that they can buy God off by giving the right amount of money into your ministry. His blessings and gifts are not for sale. They are promised to those who love Him and obey Him.

Concluding Summary

If the charismatic movement is to be an instrument of God for Revival in the days ahead, there must be repentance and reformation. According to II Chronicles 7:14, we must humble ourselves before God, seek His face and turn from our wicked ways, if we are to see a national healing.

God is merciful and longsuffering but He will put up with idolatry and narcissistic behavior for only so long. He may already be raising up a new generation of revivalists who have no connection with the charismatic movement. They have a passion for revival but are not tainted with the sort of unbiblical teachings and practices discussed above. I document some of these revivalists in my latest book, America’s Reawakening.

This article is derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's books, particularly his latest book, America's Reawakening and in Apostolic Leadership. Both are available from Amazon and his website at https://eddiehyatt.com.

COULD AMERICA SUCCUMB TO ISLAM? A SOBERING WARNING FROM THE PAST

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

There are now over 5 million Muslims in America along with thousands of mosques. Numerous videos have surfaced of Muslim leaders calling for the takeover of America and the imposition of Sharia law. This is not something new for some years ago I went into a copy store in Tulsa, OK to made copies of a document and made a surprising discovery.

I went to a self-serve copier and noticed that the previous customer had inadvertently left behind a stack of flyers. I picked one up and was stunned to read the bold vision of the Muslims in that city. This very attractive flyer was probably created to be handed out in the several mosques in that city. It boldly stated that their goal was to make Tulsa a Muslim city and America a Muslim nation. 

Could such a thing happen in America? It could happen unless there is an Awakening across America--an Awakening of real Christian faith and an Awakening to our nation's Christian heritage. 

That such a thing could happen is illustrated by what happened to a great Christian empire. And, let's remember the words of Winston Churchill, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 

The Byzantine Empire

The thousand-year Byzantine Empire was one of the most powerful and vast empires the world has ever known, and it was Christian. During its lengthy reign, it produced a massive trove of Christian art, architecture, legal jurisprudence, theology and culture. It built, perhaps, the most magnificent church building ever built, the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, which is said to have changed the history of architecture.

Yet, the mighty Byzantine Empire fell to Islam in the 15^th century and serves as a reminder to us that we must not trust in our advanced technology, stock market wealth, or military might, but our trust must be in the Lord. As David said in Psalm 20:7, Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.

Why did the Byzantine Empire fall to Turkish Ottoman invaders in 1453? I will address three reasons in this article—three trends that weakened the church and Empire and made both vulnerable to the Islamic invaders. They are (1) The church’s prideful pursuit of power; (2) the loss of personal faith to outward ritual and liturgical formality; and (3) theological rigidity and strife.

Reason #1

The Prideful Pursuit of Power

The mighty Byzantine Empire began around a.d. 330 when Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to the small city of Byzantine near the eastern edge of the Empire. There may have been logistical reasons for making this major move, but ego was obviously involved for he renamed the city "Constantinople" after his own name and made it the capital of the Empire. Today, the city is known as Istanbul.

Constantine, though he had not been baptized, convened the famous Council of Nicaea in 325 in the nearby city of Nicaea. Not only did he convene the council but he intervened at certain points in this gathering of bishops. It was obviously a power move on his part. The late Hans Kung, the most widely read Catholic theologian in the world today, says;

Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. The church provinces were to correspond to the imperial provinces, each with a metropolitan and provincial synod. In other words, the empire now had its imperial church! (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 51).

In such a politicized setting, it is no wonder that the power of the simple message of Jesus was overlooked. The church and its leaders relied on the political power of the state to advance its cause rather than the power of the message itself, which Paul said, is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16).

This preoccupation with political power and the divisions it produced weakened the Church and the Empire and made both vulnerable to the Muslim invaders. At this critical moment in our history, let us remember that no politician can save us. There must be a turning to God Himself. Let us remember the words of Isaiah 33:22, For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.

Reason #2
Personal Faith Replaced with Religious Formality

With the politicization of the church there came a corresponding loss of the personal aspect of the Christian faith. Instead of a heart relationship with God through faith in Christ, Christianity became institutionalized and formalized. Like the church of Ephesus, the churches of Constantinople came to the place where it could be said that they too had "left their first love" (Rev. 2:4).

Constantine initiated the construction of church buildings to accommodate the religious gatherings of Christians, who had previously gathered in homes and public halls. The architecture of these new buildings, with their elevated throne-like seating at the front for the bishop and rows of seating for the congregation, made significant congregational involvement impractical. In addition, the liturgy and worship style, once plain and personal, were now adorned with the pomp and practice of the Imperial court.

How far the church had removed itself from Jesus! And the institutionalization continued resulting in the church becoming more and more a complex religious system with a multitude of offices, titles and regulations, all foreign to the New Testament.

Lacking a church with the strength and vitality of a personal, dynamic faith in Jesus, the Empire found itself weakened and vulnerable when Islam came with its armies. This is why we must have a fresh Awakening unto God and Biblical truth in churches across America today. 

Reason #3
Doctrinal Rigidity & Strife

The church’s rise to political affluence and power marked the beginning of many fierce doctrinal battles, producing sharp divisions in the church. Basil of Caesarea, bishop of Cappadocia (a.d. 370–379), likened it to a great naval battle being fought by men who “cherish a deadly hate against one another.” He wrote;

But what storm at sea was ever so wild and fierce as this tempest of the churches. In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken; everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down. We attack one another. If our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side (Eddie Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, 36).

Although there were already cultural and ecclesial differences, the churches of the East (Constantinople) and the West (Rome) eventually formally separated over a seemingly trivial doctrine about the Holy Spirit. The Roman church insisted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. The Constantinian church insisted that the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father. 

This seemingly trivial doctrinal difference became a major source of strife and division and eventually led (along with political strife) to a formal division of East and West when, in 1054, Rome and Constantinople formally excommunicated each other.

We must remember that "Satan divides in order to subtract but God adds in order to multiply." Both were drastically weakened by this division but Byzantine would suffer the most. When the Ottoman Turks began rattling their swords toward Constantinople in the fifteenth century, the city, in desperation, signed an agreement with Rome in which it agreed to recognize the authority of the pope in return for Rome’s help against the Turks.

But when the Muslim invaders attacked the city, Rome did not send help and after a long siege the great city of Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders. For three days the city was plundered and many of its inhabitants slaughtered. Priceless art and manuscripts were destroyed. Magnificent churches were turned into mosques and all Christians who were unwilling to convert to Islam were placed under a heavy tax known as the jizya. 

The great Byzantine Empire came to an end after a thousand years of existence. The region--now present day Turkey—is under Islamic control to this day.

How We Must Respond

I do not write this to create fear, but to inculcate a seriousness and soberness about the time in which we live. I write that we might learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes and suffer a similar fate. I write this to emphasize that larger buildings and more beautiful liturgies will not save us. 

Byzantine had magnificent church buildings and beautiful liturgies, but these things did not suffice in the day of trouble. We must have a genuine Spiritual awakening that restores sanity and truth to the churches and the nations. We must have another Jesus Revolution,

Only the truth will set us free and only the truth presented in the power of the Holy Spirit will change the hearts of Muslims all over the world for whom Christ died and rose again. Join with me and others in praying for such an Awakening in America and around the world.

Dr. Eddie Hyatt's latest book, America's Reawakening, is a must read at this critical moment in history. It is available from Amazon and his website at https://www.eddiehyatt.com. 

     
      Drs. Eddie & Susan Hyatt







Drs. Eddie & Susan Hyatt

   

     

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE U.S.-IRAN DEAL?

Why We Must Continue to Pray for Iran

If your chief concern is the economy and gas prices, you probably like the deal. If you are a Republican and concerned about the mid-term elections, you probably like the deal. If you are an Israeli living in Israel, you probably have concern because your archenemy, dedicated to your destruction, is still there with the opportunity to accumulate wealth and rebuild. If you are a Democrat, you will have issues with the deal no matter what because it was orchestrated by Donald Trump.

My Message to the Iranian People

IF YOU ARE AN IRANIAN LONGING FOR FREEDOM FOR YOUR PEOPLE, YOU ARE PROBABLY DISAPPONTED AND MAYBE DESPONDENT. I understand for I saw your demonstrations and the placards with Trump's picture and heralding him as your liberator. I am a supporter of Donald Trump but he is human and we must remember that there is only One great Liberator and his name is JESUS!

So, an important lesson to learn from this is, "Do not put your trust in man." Jeremiah 17:5-7 says, Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord . . . but blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him."

I will continue to pray for regime change in Iran and even as I write the thought comes to mind, perhaps from the Holy Spirit, that deliverance for the Iranian people will arise from within. So, turn your eyes on Jesus and remember the words of David in Psalm 20:7, Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. Trust God's deliverance to come His way and when it comes, He will get all the glory.

Dr.  Eddie Hyatt is an ordained minister, Bible teacher and a historian specializing in Spiritual Awakenings in church history. His latest book, America's Reawakening, was especially written for America's 250th birthday and is available from Amazon and his website at http://eddiehyatt.com.

NARCISSISM IN THE CHURCH & THE BIBLICAL ANSWER

A narcissistic church may be Catholic or Protestant, but the characteristics will be, to one degree or another, the same. For example, a narcissistic church will be in love with itself. A narcissistic church will be in love with its order, liturgy, tradition and ceremony. A narcissistic church will consider it institutional apparatus and program to be Divine and unchangeable. A narcissistic church will judge a person’s relationship with God by their loyalty to the church itself.  Instead of functioning as a means of drawing people to Christ, a narcissistic church becomes an end and seeks to draw people to itself.

The truth is that there is no Divine church order laid down in the New Testament. The church of the New Testament was a messianic movement that relied on the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for its life, community and mission, rather than organizational structure. Leadership was functional in nature and leaders saw themselves as called by the risen Christ to “serve” His people.

Organizational structure in the New Testament tended to be practical, temporal and task oriented. In the first century, organizational order and structure were means for advancing the gospel and facilitating the work of the Spirit, not ends in themselves to be sought and guarded. Church organization changed from place to place and in the same place at different times. In his classic work, The Primitive Church, Oxford Professor, Burnett Streeter, wrote,

Whatever else is disputable, there is, I submit, one result from which there is no escape. In the primitive church there was no single system of church order laid down by the apostles. During the first hundred years of Christianity, the Church was an organism alive and growing—changing its organization to meet changing needs. Uniformity was a later development (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 36).

It is obvious that the New Testament writers show little or no interest in order and structure for their own sake. When they do comment on structure it is to describe rather than prescribe, and what they describe varies from church to church. Commenting on this diversity, New Testament scholar, the late Dr. Gordon Fee, wrote, “This is hardly the stuff from which one can argue with confidence as to how the early church was organized—or whether it was! (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 38).

Instead of being obsessed with a certain ritual or order, the New Testament Church was centered on a Message—the Message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, risen and ascended on high. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul reminded them of this focus when he first arrived in their pagan, idolatrous city. He wrote,

And I, brethren, when I came to you did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified
(I Corinthians 2:1-2).

The Church today, both Catholic and Protestant, needs a Jesus Revolution in which the emphasis and focus is shifted from ourselves and back to Jesus. C. S. Lewis summed it up well when he wrote,

The Church exists for nothing else but to draw men to Christ, to make them little christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 112).

This article was derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's book, Apostolic Leadership, available from Amazon and his website at http://eddiehyatt.com. 

POPE LEO, SAINT PETER AND DONALD TRUMP

Many Catholics were upset with President Trump when he criticized Pope Leo XIV as being “weak on crime and terrible on foreign policy.” Trump’s remarks were in response to the pope’s criticism of the war in Iran. Many expressed their belief that the pope is owed a level of respect not due to normal human beings or other religious leaders.

For example, Archbishop James R. Golka of Denver stated that Trump’s language toward the pope, “Fails to reflect the respect owed to the Successor of Peter.” We must point out, however, that this phrase about the pope being “the successor of Peter” is Catholic dogma and nowhere to be found in Scripture.

Now, I believe we should show respect to all human beings and treat one another with a certain dignity and respect. That is called “civilization.” The one thing I want to address--and challenge--in this article is the idea that the pope is owed a unique respect above all others as the “Successor of Peter.”

Peter is Not the Foundation of the Church

Matthew 16:18-19 is used by papal advocates to claim that Jesus said He would build His church on Peter and that He gave Peter the keys of authority over the Church. Add to this the doctrine that the bishop of Rome (the pope) is the successor of Peter and inherits his authority and you have the basis for the authority and preeminence of modern popes.

It is clear, however, from even a cursory examination of Matthew 16:18-19, that the Church is not built on Peter, but on Peter’s revelation of who Jesus is, i.e., on Jesus Himself. This is clearly borne out in Jesus’ response to Peter’s revelation of Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus commends Peter for his revelation, saying,

Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The Greek word for “Peter” in this passage is petros, which referred to a little rock or pebble. The Greek word for “rock” in this passage is petra and it was used to refer to a large, massive stone. With a play on these words, Matthew records Jesus as saying, “You are petros (a little rock), and on this petra (a massive rock) I will build my Church.

The foundation on which Jesus said he would build His Church is not a little rock like Peter, but the massive rock—the petra--which is the revelation of who He is, i.e., Himself. 

That the church is built on Christ Himself is affirmed by Paul in I Corinthians 3:11. Commenting on his founding of the church in Corinth, Paul makes it clear that he did not found that church on either Peter or himself. He wrote, For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

This was the belief of the Church throughout the early centuries. For example, Saint Augustine (354-430), often acclaimed as the greatest of the church fathers, understood the rock to be, not Peter, but Christ. Commenting on this passage, he wrote,

“Therefore,” He saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, I will build My Church;” that is upon Myself, “the Son of the living God, will I build My Church” (Hyatt, Infallible Pope, 14).

Interestingly, this was the view of Pope Benedict XVI, who as the young Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in his doctoral dissertation, “If the church is founded on Peter, it is not founded on his person, but on his faith . . . the foundation of the church is Christ.” 

Did Jesus Give the Keys to Peter Alone?

Jesus also said to Peter at this time, And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Remember, however, that this was said within the larger context of a discussion with the Twelve. It is obvious from the context and later passages of Scripture that Jesus did not here give Peter authority over the other apostles. Just a few verses down in 16:22-23, Jesus sharply rebukes Peter and says to him, Get behind Me Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.

In Galatians 2:11, Paul tells of publicly rebuking Peter to his face when Peter waffled concerning the equal acceptance of the Gentiles through faith in Christ. Peter obviously accepted this rebuke for in his second epistle he commends Paul to his readers and refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture (II Peter 3:15-16). Indeed, the late Dr. Hans Kung, the most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world, described Peter as,

A man passionately committed to Jesus but changeable and wavering. He is errant and fallible; he is no hero or genius. His failure to understand, his lack of courage, his unreliability and his flight are unsparingly reported, as is the flight of the other disciples.[1]

So, the words of Jesus concerning the keys were obviously meant for the whole church, not Peter alone. Peter confirms this himself, for he never claimed any special prominence among the apostles or other church leaders. 

No Exaltation of Peter in the New Testament

The other apostles never offered any special exultation or respect to Peter, nor did Peter ever claim any such respect and honor.  In fact, his humility and self-deprecation stand in stunning contrast to the grandiose titles that modern popes have adopted, such as “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” and “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.”

Jesus, in fact, warned Peter and the other apostles against adopting special titles that would set themselves apart from the rest of the people. In Matt. 23:6-12 He exhorted them,

But you, do not be called “Rabbi”; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

In his letter we know as I Peter, Peter addresses the elders in the churches that will receive his letter and refers to himself as a “fellow-elder.” In other words, instead of exalting himself above all others, he places himself alongside all the other elders in the various churches.

In the New Testament, none of the apostles present themselves with titles in front of their names. In his Second Epistle, Peter refers to Paul as “our beloved brother Paul.” And in his letter to the Seven Churches of Revelation, John, who was one of the Twelves, refers to himself as “your brother in tribulation” (Revelation 1:9).

Someone has said "the ground is level at the Cross" and this was certainly reflected in the words and actions of those earliest Christians, including the Apostles.

In Summary

It is clear that the present authority and preeminence of the pope is a product of Catholic tradition and dogma, not Scripture. They are from the era when Constantine began merging the church with the empire, which led to the “Romanizing” of Christianity and the development of the modern Roman Catholic Church with its pomp, pageantry and hierarchy. Commenting on the dark and sordid history of the papacy in its pursuit of power, the noted Roman Catholic theologian, the late Dr. Hans Kung, wrote,

 The road [to preeminence] was built with an unflagging Roman concern for power, which did not hesitate even over the use of forgeries (Hyatt, Infallible Pope, 8).

I hope that Pope Leo and President Trump can have a productive conversation that is grounded in mutual respect. For this to happen Trump will need to tone down his combative tendencies, and the pope will need to lay aside this erroneous idea that he is owed a special respect and honor above all other human beings. 

[1] Hans King, Christianity: Essence, History and Future ( New York City: Continuum, 1996),  83.

This article was derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's two books, Apostolic Leadership and Infallible Pope?, both available from Amazon and his website at http://eddiehyatt.com.

RELENTLESS FAITH

 

This is no time to back off and become docile and passive in our faith. This is the time to press on, press in and trust God to the very end. This is the time to be relentless in our faith.

Everyone thought blind Bartimaeus was too insignificant, blind and poor for anyone to notice, especially the renowned prophet from Galilee who was passing by on the Jericho road where he sat begging, But Bartimaeus began crying out at the top of his voice, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me." 

The crowd tried to shut him down and warned him to be quiet. But Bartimaeus was relentless in his faith and cried out all the more, "Son of David have mercy on me." Jesus finally stopped, called for him, healed him and the world is still talking about his miracle and his relentless faith (Mark 10:46-52). 

There is a similar story with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:22-28. She was rebuffed by the disciples who wanted to send her away and was initially ignored by Jesus who "answered her not a word." But she was relentless in her faith and would not quit and Jesus finally said to her, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done to you as you desire." Her relentless faith brought healing to her young daughter who was at home demon possessed. 

There are so many similar examples in Scripture where relentless faith carried an individual into the presence of the Lord and to the victory they desired. So, if you have hit some bumps in the road of life, I implore you today to not lose heart and hope. Press on with your eyes fixed on Jesus and His covenant promises. Be relentless in your faith!

Dr. Eddie Hyatt has over 50 years of ministerial experience as a pastor, Bible teacher, revivalist, missionary and professor of theology. His numerous books are available on Amazon and his website at http://eddiehyatt.com.

GOOD THINGS HAPPEN ON HALLOWEEN WHEN COURAGEOUS PEOPLE STAND FOR TRUTH

3 Invaluable Treats  from Martin Luther's Bold Act on October 31

For the Christian, good things do happen on Halloween. 506 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door, an act comparable to a Facebook or X post today. In it he challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and its selling of indulgences, which offered forgiveness of sins apart from repentance and faith, but for the right price. 

The post went viral and ignited the Protestant Reformation, which changed both church and world history. In fact, at the dawn of the year 2000, the editors of Life magazine listed Luther’s act as the second most momentous event of the past millennia, after the invention of the printing press in 1440, and before the discovery of America by Columbus in 1492, which was listed at number three.

Luther, despite his weaknesses, was a man uniquely prepared for a very unique moment in time. I have listed below three treats that we inherit from his bold act of faith on that Halloween day.

Treat #1

Courage to Stand for Truth

We live in a time when Christian values are under attack. Christian morality is mocked in the media and Christian students are subjected to ridicule in the classrooms of America. It is a time for courage, and in this Luther has left us a living legacy and example.

If Luther was anything, he was bold and courageous, so much so that his friends sometimes thought he was too bold. In giving a report to Spalatin about Luther’s bold stand befoe the Emperor and Catholic authorities at the Diet of Worms, Frederick the Wise said, “How excellently did Father Martin speak before the Emperor and Estates. He was bold enough, if not too much so (Hyatt, TheCharismatic Luther, 67).

It was, however, no time for timidity or reticence. The church was in shambles. God’s people were enslaved to an oppressive religious system that was obsessed with power. The times called for a courageous voice that would not flinch in the face of the greatest powers on earth. Luther became that voice that God used to change the course of history. 

Such bold voices are in great need in the church today. There is so much hedging, evading and ducking by Christian leaders today when it comes to making a clear sound for truth.

For example, this author was astounded to hear a well-known evangelical pastor and leader, dance in circles when asked by a popular TV icon if Jesus is the only way to God. Instead of giving a simple straightforward answer, he ducked, swerved and feinted, but never gave a clear answer to such a simple, straightforward question.

Contrast Luther, who in a letter to Pope Leo X, dated September 6, 1520, and while still a Catholic priest, spoke with such clearness and boldness. He spoke with respect, even addressing Leo as “Holy Father,” but he did not mince words. He wrote,

I have truly despised your see (office), the Roman curia, which, however, neither you nor anyone else can deny is more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom ever was, and which, as far as I can see, is characterized by a completely depraved, hopeless, and notorious godlessness.

We can all be thankful that Luther did not duck, feint and dance around the issues of his day. He obviously made mistakes, but no one could ever complain of not knowing where he stood. He changed history by being clear, concise, courageous and bold.

May God raise up a generation to proclaim His truth with that same spirit of courage and boldness.

Treat #2

Individual Freedom and Religious Liberty

Luther struck an incredible blow for individual freedom of conscience and religious liberty when at his trial for heresy he boldly resisted demands that he retract his teachings, declaring that “it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience.” He went on to say, “My conscience is bound by the word of God, and I cannot and will not recant anything” (Hyatt, The Charismatic Luther, 27).

Freedom of individual conscience was practically unheard of in the medieval world into which Luther was born. Individualism was suppressed. Conformity to the religious and social norms, determined by those in authority, was demanded and enforced.

Those who veered from the established religious norms were punished, imprisoned and even put to death. Individual freedom was sacrificed for what was considered the good of the whole by those in power. Most often, however, it was not for the good of the whole, but for the good of those holding the reins of power.

By his bold stand at Worms, Luther unleashed a powerful ideal of individual freedom. Others took that ideal and brought it to America—the land of the free--where it was further developed on American soil. Freedom of conscience and individual religious liberty then became hallmarks of freedom-loving people and nations throughout the Western world. We have Luther to thank for this.

Treat #3

The Power and Priority of God’s Word

When you hear a public figure quoting the Bible or hear how the Bible continues to be the perennial all-time best seller, you can thank Martin Luther. Luther directed the attention of the church back to the Bible as the ultimate guide and source of authority for morality, life and faith.

In Luther’s own personal life, the Bible was supreme. His boldness came from his conviction that Scripture is the highest authority to which one can appeal. When, therefore, he stood before the tribunal at Worms, his appeal was to Scripture. “My conscience is captive to the word of God,” he declared (Hyatt, The Charismatic Luther, 27).

Luther’s high esteem for the Scriptures is expressed again and again in his writings. In his book, To the German Nobility of the Christian Nation, he wrote,

I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God’s word becomes corrupt (Hyatt, TheCharismatic Luther, 70).

In later life, when asked how he, a simple monk and teacher, had been able to have such an impact when opposed by both the pope and the emperor, Luther replied,

I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. The Word so weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing. The Word did it all (Hyatt, The Charismatic Luther, 29).

Luther’s priority of Scripture for the individual believer, was something new and radical to the world of medieval Europe, which placed ultimate authority with the pope and church tradition. Luther’s placement of Scripture as the final authority above church tradition and hierarchy was momentous for the history of the church and Western society.

Will You Courageously Stand for Truth Today?

Yes, good things do happen on Halloween. The above treats, or blessings, have come down to us because one man chose to stand against the corrupt cultural and religious tide of his day with God’s truth. Luther’s faith and courage were deeply rooted in his belief that God’s truth would ultimately prevail. This is clearly expressed in the following excerpt from his great hymn, “A Might Fortress is Our God.”

And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us.
We will not fear, for God hath willed,
His truth to triumph through us.

This article is derived from Dr. Eddie Hyatt's books, The Charismatic Luther, and Apostolic Leadership, both available from Amazon and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.