Watch Out for Watchmen!

I left a comment on someone else’ blog once. Several months later I experimented by entering a search on my name and found a few things—including the comment. Surprised me, but that event isn’t of interest in itself—it’s background for what I want to share today.

More background: about the time I began writing on spiritual armor for the Red, Red Berries blog, I thought it wise to regularly search spiritual armor and spiritual warfare—to get a feel for the territory.

After Sarah Palin’s nomination, many bloggers went ballistic about the dangers of spiritual warfare. That settled down after the election. Currently, some blogs are positive on the subject and some are negative. They’re fairly straightforward and entitled to their opinion. As for spiritual armor, entries are usually brief, often a list with an admonition to put it on.

But I’m disturbed by a group that refer to themselves as watchmen. They watch for doctrinal error so they can alert the Body of Christ to dangers.

Reasonable, except it appears they watch in order to create division. I stumbled on one such site yesterday morning and couldn’t believe their take on various ministries—ministries I like and ministries I more or less ignore. In one case, they highlighted possible problems between a father and son. I’m sure there’s something wrong with both men because there’s something wrong with all of us. But my point is that the watchman accused them vehemently, predicting future trouble—in a family no less. No compassion; no suggestion of hope for reconciliation.

They also criticized the ministry of Heidi and Rolland Baker, a unique couple who operate on the edge of—what should I say—the edge of spiritual expression. Rolland Baker is a descendant—I think the grandson—of the gentleman who wrote the classic Visions Beyond the Veil. The book is a story of children in a Chinese orphanage before Communism who received multiple supernatural visions of heaven and hell. Their lives were transformed; Rolland Baker has a heritage of supernatural visitation.

Over the years the Bakers have planted thousands of churches in or near Mozambique. I wondered how that was possible until I learned how it’s done. A team goes into an unchurched area. After several weeks of evangelistic meetings they meet with people who’ve made professions of faith and ask for volunteers to attend Bible College for a number of months where they will receive training. Two volunteers are selected and when done the volunteers come back to the village and start a church. Sounds like something straight out of Acts. Supernatural occurrences are common—but not predictable. Some are martyred.

The Bakers also run orphanages for orphaned and abandoned children. The stories are too much to cover in this blog.

Heidi usually acts as spokesperson for the ministry and she is prone to soak in God’s presence. It’s the soaking that became the target of the watchmen. The term refers to basking in God’s presence, letting Him minister rest, peace, healing, whatever a Christian needs. The watchmen said it was unbiblical and cited other ministries involved in unbiblical activity. Then they accused the Bakers of soaking people by charging money for conferences, etc.—money used to fund the Bible colleges and orphanages.

I confess outrage. The Bakers have laid their lives on the line. Should they receive compensation for their contributions at conferences? Money that’s channeled into the ministry?

Do I advocating soaking as the Baker’s soak? I think it can be abused, but I understand the practice. It’s based on the concept that Jesus is the Living Water. From Him flows a stream of life that renews all who come to Him. Very Biblical. I have basked in His Presence several times, primarily when ill and confined to bed. It was incredibly healing—and totally within the Biblical context of Jesus as Living Water.

Well, I offered a comment, and the rest of this story is funny but disturbing. I wrote in a box below the article on the Bakers—but when it came up on their screen it was located under their most recent writing; it made no sense. Soon after they provided a comment of their own saying I needed reading glasses!

Funny. I replied to let them in on my mistake and to say I stood by my comment.

In response I received a putdown.

Not funny.

I commented again. This time I included my theological understanding of Jesus as Living Water, mentioned that the practice of Christian Churches today includes non-Biblical practices, and reminded them that the Pharisees began as a positive group with an emphasis on core values—but that they became obsessed with legalism and didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Oh, I also said a watchman doesn’t search for doctrinal errors—everyone has them—but looks for heart issues—and the purpose of watching is not division but restoration. (I might revise this a bit today.)

I closed the site and went about my business with no intention of pursuing anything further—didn’t know how to find the site again. But I remembered the exchange before I shut down the computer for the night and I wanted to see if they answered. Then I remembered the search that revealed the comment so long ago, so I did another search—and there they were. The first one from 191 days ago (number of days cited on the entry!) and the second being the recent one.

The watchman had responded by removing my comment while leaving his putdown in place. He had the right; I understand he didn’t want anyone to undermined his position. Did he have a right to remove mine while leaving his? Legally, but not ethically. I suspect he was looking for another target.

I couldn’t resist commenting again before shutting down—don’t even remember what I said. Today that comment is gone as well—and again, his skewed comments remain. I can’t ignore the humor in all of this. I also decided that if a watchman is willing to exalt himself by attacking ministries, he’d surely be willing to attack another obscure blogger.

Lessons learned: Be careful when making comments, and watch out for watchmen!