Review of YouTube video re: Guile & Other Forms of Deception
Posted: November 23rd, 2013, 7:42 pm
Earlier this week, Pastor “Chick” sent us a link to a video, which may be found below:
Adrian Ebens at the 2013 Tabernacles Camp Meeting
He has asked the members to watch it and share their thoughts, as it could become a sanctifying discussion, and one beneficial to us in terms of our discernment and growth.
Giselle and I both saw it on the afternoon of the day it was sent, and shortly thereafter we began to talk about it. It turns out that our initial impressions were essentially the same, and we will share them here, indicating where one of us has something specific to add from our individual impressions.
In an overall sense, we believe that the video is a beneficial one. The speaker had an impressive and earnest presentation style. He seemed to be sincere, and committed to his convictions. Many of the principles were quite useful, and in fact I (David) had to confess to Giselle that I saw the need for some refinement in my own speech in a particular area, which I immediately forsook and put away. We believe that there are things in this video that may speak to many of us, and therefore we would recommend it for viewing as a basis for discussion. There were a few issues, however, that we both identified individually and immediately, and therefore we would not suggest that a new CSDA member, or a non-member, view it without some conversation afterwards, or with the impression that the concepts are wholeheartedly embraced by the Church.
First, here are some specific benefits and right-principles that we believe were present:
1) There is certainly a need for enlightened sensitivity to the influences that exist around us. No matter how “advanced” we may consider ourselves spiritually, we can be affected in gradual ways by what we see and hear, and therefore, as the Spirit of Prophecy indicates, we are not safe for the space of even an hour without prayer. This was very powerfully, and effectively, brought to the forefront, and it is something that our members should consider very carefully.
2) Giselle was impressed by the concept that there is no true fellowship without vulnerability, which is the ability to share oneself with another, to be open, to reveal. Guile is an obstacle to this intimacy, and there is a connection between the lack of guile in the 144,000 and their being “as one.” This is also related to the idea that when we engage in a spirit of deception, portraying ourselves as something we are not, we invite deception rather than intimacy, and this was also well explained. It is certainly necessary that we share ourselves with one another, because when we know we are loved, despite where we have come from, or what we have learned in our pasts, we would not hesitate to engage with others, and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable (honest, open, intimate, etc.) with them.
3) With regard to how we speak, we must always be sure that we mean what we say. Even words spoken in “jest” have an influence on both the speaker and the hearers, and we agree with the speaker’s application of the term “guile” to much of what the world considers ordinary ways of speaking, which include exaggeration, misdirection, and subtle attempts to manipulate the emotions of those who hear us in potentially improper ways. The fact that the flesh finds satisfaction in confusing others, or enjoying their gullibility, is something for which the saints do need to watch. There is more on the issue of guile a little later, however.
4) As Giselle pointed out, the presenter seems to have a reasonable grasp of the concept of headship, as expressed in the idea that if Satan has access to or influence over the head of the family and takes him captive, he then has access to the entire family. The responsibility that Yah gives to the head of a household is very important, and to be guarded very carefully.
5) David appreciated the speaker’s mention near the end of a “different spirit” that attends Trinitarian worship as opposed to that found among those who have a more Biblical understanding of the Godhead. In fact, we have said similar things in our own approach to the issue – we do not consider it a test of fellowship (I am not sure if the speaker or his group would) – but we recognize that it is something worth discussing at appropriate times, because a lack of a clear “vision” of the Godhead (an issue that we actually talked about during last night’s Sabbath study) can make it more difficult for an individual to really grasp the concept of righteousness by faith, and the abiding of Christ in the converted heart BY His Spirit.
With regard to the problematic areas, we both came to the same conclusions with regard to the following:
1) The speaker does confess to a lack of victory in several places during the presentation, such as in one place where he said, “I can’t promise I won’t slip.” He also said something about needing a lot of “amplification” before Yahweh can get his attention (such as feeling a physical tap on the shoulder as an incentive to pray). While this does not discredit the true things he says, as Giselle worded it, there seems to be a lack of “balance” with regard to the speaker’s approach to a few things. She noted that he is learning to be careful about his surroundings, and those things that influence him, which is good... but where he does not find balance he goes to extremes, becoming fearful and speculating in order to cover up a feeling of vulnerability. Satan can also use this, and she said that when listening to him speak she got the impression that he had a lack of rest, and demonstrated some fear which led him to excessive caution.
2) With regard to the definition of “guile,” David pointed out that the speaker’s understanding of the term does not include a very important element; that is, the “intent” to deceive, the motive of the speaker. While we agreed with many of his applications of the term, we as a Church have often affirmed that the motive for an action is one of the factors in determining its righteousness. We believe that the presenter took things a step too far by considering even dramatic re-enactments to be guileful, even comparing those who participate in them to Lucifer, since this involves one individual pretending to be another. With regard to historical portrayals, there is no intent to deceive; rather, there is an attempt to demonstrate a principle, to teach a lesson, which sometimes cannot easily be communicated by the written word. In essence, they are parables in motion.
Just last night, we watched a short film on YouTube in which two families of Jews that had converted to Christianity saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and fled according to the teachings of Christ a few years earlier. I (David) was powerfully affected by how closely their experiences paralleled that of early Adventists after the “great disappointment” when Christ’s anticipated return was not fulfilled in a visible way. Similarly, the Christians who fled Jerusalem at the first sign of trouble were initially very tempted by the fact that the city was not immediately destroyed upon their departure. It was clear, though, that (like Adam) the city had in fact “died” spiritually, and became very unsafe. The actual, physical destruction was only the natural result of what took place during that time period. Those who believed the warnings of Christ, remaining out of Jerusalem even when things seemed to be returning to normal, were spared the destruction when it DID come. The message was clear – even if Yah’s promises seem to delay, we must hold firm to what we know, remember always what He has told us, and walk by faith, not by sight.
This is just one example of how we may be blessed by spiritually edifying presentations, and we could not possibly accuse the actors of demonstrating “guile” (although, as Giselle correctly pointed out, actors who habitually portray worldly, evil characters tend to have chaotic, unhappy lives, so there is some cause-and-effect there). CSDAs have even shown some dramatizations, and documentaries that involve recreations of historical events, in the sanctuary of the Church during camp meetings, and used them to good effect. If the issue of “intent” is left out of our understanding of guile, then taking the argument to its logical conclusion, even allegories, even parables, would HAVE to be discarded. Parables do NOT actually represent facts in many cases. Allegories deliberately use one thing to represent another. While this is (by a broad definition) mis-representation, it is absolutely not an example of guile.
The speaker might stop short of including these, because “Christ did it,” and “They may be found in the Bible,” but this is a (typically Adventist) error of reading for specifics rather than principles. Is the use of non-deceptive allegories and parables okay when Christ does it, or does Christ (and prophets, and preachers, and authors like John Bunyan) do it because it is a useful and spiritually approved way of demonstrating a point?
We as a Church have also had a couple of discussions about Rahab’s “lie” to the soldiers of Jericho, when she protected the Hebrew spies. There is also the example of Michal, David’s wife, telling her father Saul that she did not know where he was, saving his life. These were clearly misrepresentations – and in fact there was even a deliberate attempt to deceive – but Rahab in particular is listed among the faithful figures of the Old Testament in the writings of not one, but two witnesses. (Heb 11:31, James 2:24)
I (David) have actually had to struggle with this idea at times, considering that I might have attempted to find a better way to save the spies, but I cannot truly put myself in the place of a woman who lived at that period of time, under very unique circumstances. In any case, any attempt I made in her place would have undoubtedly involved SOME form of misdirection (even if it were a lie of omission, such as, “I don’t know where they are.”). What is clear, though, is that the issue of guile is not something that we can afford to consider too simplistically, and therefore (without supporting any excuses for deception or falsehood) I find several differences between the definition used by the presenter, and what we have come to understand as a Church.
By the way, we later found out that the film mentioned above about the families leaving Jerusalem was actually published by Jehovah’s Witnesses through the Watchtower Society. Even though the message had a clear and powerful application to both early Adventist and we who live in the last days, these applications are there because the principles presented were true, not because of the religious views of the individuals who put the film together. Now, this is a fact that would no doubt trouble the presenter, due to the third issue we identified:
3) While we appreciated the spiritual connections that the speaker made between visible actions and invisible things, we believe that here again his lack of balance caused him to take things a step too far. For example, he describes one place where he was listening to some worship music, and this caused a number of misfortunes in his life, including misunderstandings with his wife, and – at one point – his jacket catching on fire.
Certainly, there are causes and effects, and we cannot always see the connections immediately, but his description at this point came across more as superstition than actual spiritual discernment. This was made particularly clear when he identified the “problem” as the fact that the music that appeared to bless him at first was actually written and performed by non-Adventists.
There are two issues here that identify this as superstition. First, Yahweh can (and has) used even the things of the world to bless His people. We do not drive cars built only by Adventists (or CSDAs), or eat food prepared only by other Christians. Some might say that there should be different rules when speaking about media as opposed to physical products, but each of us can think of a ready example of non-Adventist works that have blessed us or given us useful insights... and it is certain that Satan can take even “good” things and turn them to evil. The speaker apparently attempted to deal with objections like this by stating his ideas in the context of conservatism vs. liberalism, but we believe that this misses the point, and should really be stated in terms of the true conflict, that between balance and imbalance, since there are dangers on both sides of any given doctrinal “road.”
Second, and this is something that CSDAs in particular can appreciate... why is it that Conference-produced SDA music would have any special protection from evil influence, or blessings from Heaven? The speaker heavily implies, if not outright states, that if the music he had been listening to was produced and sung by Seventh-day Adventists, the “bad things” in his life would not have taken place. This is not an argument that anyone who understands the true state of the SDA Church could ever give any credibility. If the spiritual state of the musicians had a direct influence on how easily Satan could use the music we hear to disrupt our communications and set fire to our clothing (?), then we had best surrender the blessing of spiritual music altogether until we arrive in Heaven. We know that Pastor “Chick” has written a few songs, but we also sing hymns written by members of a variety of different religious traditions, and while the Spirit has instructed us to change a few lyrics here and there, we cannot accept that this practice is inviting any kind of a curse.
Giselle added a couple further thoughts about this point:
a) With regard to the speaker’s example of Zimri and the pagan woman whose name meant falsehood, she understood this to be referring to singing lyrics with false concepts and teachings, rather than the nature of the musicians themselves. She said that she agrees that certain rhythms in music are not inspired by Yah, and should be avoided, but that we can also appreciate a melodious voice given by the Father despite the singer’s background.
b) Even if it was a true principle that an Adventist singer and writer somehow made a song “safe,” the hearers would still not know the spiritual state of any one particular Adventist individual. The SDA Church, with no clear concept of victory, concedes that among its baptized members may remain “weeds,” terrible sinners, and so there would need to be some way to distinguish the “good” Adventists from the “bad” ones if we were to be as cautious as suggested. In a more general sense, accepting this just as it is presented could lead to people blaming “Satan” for the bad things that happen to them, rather than seeking to correct their own lack of responsibility regarding (for example) clearer and better communication.
These are our current thoughts on the material presented in the video link, and we look forward to seeing further discussion among the brethren.
Adrian Ebens at the 2013 Tabernacles Camp Meeting
He has asked the members to watch it and share their thoughts, as it could become a sanctifying discussion, and one beneficial to us in terms of our discernment and growth.
Giselle and I both saw it on the afternoon of the day it was sent, and shortly thereafter we began to talk about it. It turns out that our initial impressions were essentially the same, and we will share them here, indicating where one of us has something specific to add from our individual impressions.
In an overall sense, we believe that the video is a beneficial one. The speaker had an impressive and earnest presentation style. He seemed to be sincere, and committed to his convictions. Many of the principles were quite useful, and in fact I (David) had to confess to Giselle that I saw the need for some refinement in my own speech in a particular area, which I immediately forsook and put away. We believe that there are things in this video that may speak to many of us, and therefore we would recommend it for viewing as a basis for discussion. There were a few issues, however, that we both identified individually and immediately, and therefore we would not suggest that a new CSDA member, or a non-member, view it without some conversation afterwards, or with the impression that the concepts are wholeheartedly embraced by the Church.
First, here are some specific benefits and right-principles that we believe were present:
1) There is certainly a need for enlightened sensitivity to the influences that exist around us. No matter how “advanced” we may consider ourselves spiritually, we can be affected in gradual ways by what we see and hear, and therefore, as the Spirit of Prophecy indicates, we are not safe for the space of even an hour without prayer. This was very powerfully, and effectively, brought to the forefront, and it is something that our members should consider very carefully.
2) Giselle was impressed by the concept that there is no true fellowship without vulnerability, which is the ability to share oneself with another, to be open, to reveal. Guile is an obstacle to this intimacy, and there is a connection between the lack of guile in the 144,000 and their being “as one.” This is also related to the idea that when we engage in a spirit of deception, portraying ourselves as something we are not, we invite deception rather than intimacy, and this was also well explained. It is certainly necessary that we share ourselves with one another, because when we know we are loved, despite where we have come from, or what we have learned in our pasts, we would not hesitate to engage with others, and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable (honest, open, intimate, etc.) with them.
3) With regard to how we speak, we must always be sure that we mean what we say. Even words spoken in “jest” have an influence on both the speaker and the hearers, and we agree with the speaker’s application of the term “guile” to much of what the world considers ordinary ways of speaking, which include exaggeration, misdirection, and subtle attempts to manipulate the emotions of those who hear us in potentially improper ways. The fact that the flesh finds satisfaction in confusing others, or enjoying their gullibility, is something for which the saints do need to watch. There is more on the issue of guile a little later, however.
4) As Giselle pointed out, the presenter seems to have a reasonable grasp of the concept of headship, as expressed in the idea that if Satan has access to or influence over the head of the family and takes him captive, he then has access to the entire family. The responsibility that Yah gives to the head of a household is very important, and to be guarded very carefully.
5) David appreciated the speaker’s mention near the end of a “different spirit” that attends Trinitarian worship as opposed to that found among those who have a more Biblical understanding of the Godhead. In fact, we have said similar things in our own approach to the issue – we do not consider it a test of fellowship (I am not sure if the speaker or his group would) – but we recognize that it is something worth discussing at appropriate times, because a lack of a clear “vision” of the Godhead (an issue that we actually talked about during last night’s Sabbath study) can make it more difficult for an individual to really grasp the concept of righteousness by faith, and the abiding of Christ in the converted heart BY His Spirit.
With regard to the problematic areas, we both came to the same conclusions with regard to the following:
1) The speaker does confess to a lack of victory in several places during the presentation, such as in one place where he said, “I can’t promise I won’t slip.” He also said something about needing a lot of “amplification” before Yahweh can get his attention (such as feeling a physical tap on the shoulder as an incentive to pray). While this does not discredit the true things he says, as Giselle worded it, there seems to be a lack of “balance” with regard to the speaker’s approach to a few things. She noted that he is learning to be careful about his surroundings, and those things that influence him, which is good... but where he does not find balance he goes to extremes, becoming fearful and speculating in order to cover up a feeling of vulnerability. Satan can also use this, and she said that when listening to him speak she got the impression that he had a lack of rest, and demonstrated some fear which led him to excessive caution.
2) With regard to the definition of “guile,” David pointed out that the speaker’s understanding of the term does not include a very important element; that is, the “intent” to deceive, the motive of the speaker. While we agreed with many of his applications of the term, we as a Church have often affirmed that the motive for an action is one of the factors in determining its righteousness. We believe that the presenter took things a step too far by considering even dramatic re-enactments to be guileful, even comparing those who participate in them to Lucifer, since this involves one individual pretending to be another. With regard to historical portrayals, there is no intent to deceive; rather, there is an attempt to demonstrate a principle, to teach a lesson, which sometimes cannot easily be communicated by the written word. In essence, they are parables in motion.
Just last night, we watched a short film on YouTube in which two families of Jews that had converted to Christianity saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and fled according to the teachings of Christ a few years earlier. I (David) was powerfully affected by how closely their experiences paralleled that of early Adventists after the “great disappointment” when Christ’s anticipated return was not fulfilled in a visible way. Similarly, the Christians who fled Jerusalem at the first sign of trouble were initially very tempted by the fact that the city was not immediately destroyed upon their departure. It was clear, though, that (like Adam) the city had in fact “died” spiritually, and became very unsafe. The actual, physical destruction was only the natural result of what took place during that time period. Those who believed the warnings of Christ, remaining out of Jerusalem even when things seemed to be returning to normal, were spared the destruction when it DID come. The message was clear – even if Yah’s promises seem to delay, we must hold firm to what we know, remember always what He has told us, and walk by faith, not by sight.
This is just one example of how we may be blessed by spiritually edifying presentations, and we could not possibly accuse the actors of demonstrating “guile” (although, as Giselle correctly pointed out, actors who habitually portray worldly, evil characters tend to have chaotic, unhappy lives, so there is some cause-and-effect there). CSDAs have even shown some dramatizations, and documentaries that involve recreations of historical events, in the sanctuary of the Church during camp meetings, and used them to good effect. If the issue of “intent” is left out of our understanding of guile, then taking the argument to its logical conclusion, even allegories, even parables, would HAVE to be discarded. Parables do NOT actually represent facts in many cases. Allegories deliberately use one thing to represent another. While this is (by a broad definition) mis-representation, it is absolutely not an example of guile.
The speaker might stop short of including these, because “Christ did it,” and “They may be found in the Bible,” but this is a (typically Adventist) error of reading for specifics rather than principles. Is the use of non-deceptive allegories and parables okay when Christ does it, or does Christ (and prophets, and preachers, and authors like John Bunyan) do it because it is a useful and spiritually approved way of demonstrating a point?
We as a Church have also had a couple of discussions about Rahab’s “lie” to the soldiers of Jericho, when she protected the Hebrew spies. There is also the example of Michal, David’s wife, telling her father Saul that she did not know where he was, saving his life. These were clearly misrepresentations – and in fact there was even a deliberate attempt to deceive – but Rahab in particular is listed among the faithful figures of the Old Testament in the writings of not one, but two witnesses. (Heb 11:31, James 2:24)
I (David) have actually had to struggle with this idea at times, considering that I might have attempted to find a better way to save the spies, but I cannot truly put myself in the place of a woman who lived at that period of time, under very unique circumstances. In any case, any attempt I made in her place would have undoubtedly involved SOME form of misdirection (even if it were a lie of omission, such as, “I don’t know where they are.”). What is clear, though, is that the issue of guile is not something that we can afford to consider too simplistically, and therefore (without supporting any excuses for deception or falsehood) I find several differences between the definition used by the presenter, and what we have come to understand as a Church.
By the way, we later found out that the film mentioned above about the families leaving Jerusalem was actually published by Jehovah’s Witnesses through the Watchtower Society. Even though the message had a clear and powerful application to both early Adventist and we who live in the last days, these applications are there because the principles presented were true, not because of the religious views of the individuals who put the film together. Now, this is a fact that would no doubt trouble the presenter, due to the third issue we identified:
3) While we appreciated the spiritual connections that the speaker made between visible actions and invisible things, we believe that here again his lack of balance caused him to take things a step too far. For example, he describes one place where he was listening to some worship music, and this caused a number of misfortunes in his life, including misunderstandings with his wife, and – at one point – his jacket catching on fire.
Certainly, there are causes and effects, and we cannot always see the connections immediately, but his description at this point came across more as superstition than actual spiritual discernment. This was made particularly clear when he identified the “problem” as the fact that the music that appeared to bless him at first was actually written and performed by non-Adventists.
There are two issues here that identify this as superstition. First, Yahweh can (and has) used even the things of the world to bless His people. We do not drive cars built only by Adventists (or CSDAs), or eat food prepared only by other Christians. Some might say that there should be different rules when speaking about media as opposed to physical products, but each of us can think of a ready example of non-Adventist works that have blessed us or given us useful insights... and it is certain that Satan can take even “good” things and turn them to evil. The speaker apparently attempted to deal with objections like this by stating his ideas in the context of conservatism vs. liberalism, but we believe that this misses the point, and should really be stated in terms of the true conflict, that between balance and imbalance, since there are dangers on both sides of any given doctrinal “road.”
Second, and this is something that CSDAs in particular can appreciate... why is it that Conference-produced SDA music would have any special protection from evil influence, or blessings from Heaven? The speaker heavily implies, if not outright states, that if the music he had been listening to was produced and sung by Seventh-day Adventists, the “bad things” in his life would not have taken place. This is not an argument that anyone who understands the true state of the SDA Church could ever give any credibility. If the spiritual state of the musicians had a direct influence on how easily Satan could use the music we hear to disrupt our communications and set fire to our clothing (?), then we had best surrender the blessing of spiritual music altogether until we arrive in Heaven. We know that Pastor “Chick” has written a few songs, but we also sing hymns written by members of a variety of different religious traditions, and while the Spirit has instructed us to change a few lyrics here and there, we cannot accept that this practice is inviting any kind of a curse.
Giselle added a couple further thoughts about this point:
a) With regard to the speaker’s example of Zimri and the pagan woman whose name meant falsehood, she understood this to be referring to singing lyrics with false concepts and teachings, rather than the nature of the musicians themselves. She said that she agrees that certain rhythms in music are not inspired by Yah, and should be avoided, but that we can also appreciate a melodious voice given by the Father despite the singer’s background.
b) Even if it was a true principle that an Adventist singer and writer somehow made a song “safe,” the hearers would still not know the spiritual state of any one particular Adventist individual. The SDA Church, with no clear concept of victory, concedes that among its baptized members may remain “weeds,” terrible sinners, and so there would need to be some way to distinguish the “good” Adventists from the “bad” ones if we were to be as cautious as suggested. In a more general sense, accepting this just as it is presented could lead to people blaming “Satan” for the bad things that happen to them, rather than seeking to correct their own lack of responsibility regarding (for example) clearer and better communication.
These are our current thoughts on the material presented in the video link, and we look forward to seeing further discussion among the brethren.