WHY I OPPOSE THE 'CIVIL WAR'

by Andrew Strom.
(Andrew is a tongue speaking Charismatic from New Zealand)

Rick  Joyner has assured me that he did not mean what I  thought he  meant in his article on the coming Civil War in  the  church. However,  despite my respect for Rick, I believe that this  issue surely has to be the most critical that has faced the church  in recent  decades.  Does God really want  the  prophetic  movement "taking  sides"  in the coming conflict? And is this  Civil  War really  a good thing, or will it be the most colossal  disaster that  has befallen the church in centuries? In New Zealand,  God has given us very strong prophetic warnings regarding this whole issue, and this is what will be discussed in this article.
For at least ten years now, particularly in the American prophetic movement, God has been warning of the great 'Civil War'  that would  soon split and shake His church. A  number  of  prophetic ministries  have  been given dreams and  visions  likening  this coming great conflict in the church to the American Civil War of last century, which was fought between the Union in the  North (the Blues) and the Confederacy in the South (the  Grays).  In these  dreams and visions of the coming war in the  church,  God has also likened one side to the 'Grays' and one side to  the Blues.  Many  prophets have interpreted this to mean  a  conflict between  those who are distinctly 'head-knowledge'-  oriented Christians,  and  those who  are  distinctly  'Spirit'-oriented. (This certainly seems a logical conclusion). No doubt there  have always been tensions between these two extremes in the  church, but this time it will be all-out war. However,  God  has also warned very strongly  that  those  who take part in this conflict will be excluded from the great Revival that is to follow immediately after this colossal 'shaking'.
One  very well-known vision, which was quoted by Rick  Joyner  in his article, was given to Philip Elston several years ago. In it, he  saw  Jesus standing with arms outstretched.  Soldiers  in blue and gray uniforms were marching past Him on either side, and were laying their bloody swords on His arms. The Lord resolutely looked into the eyes of each one, saying, "NO-ONE WHO HAS THEIR BROTHER'S BLOOD ON THEIR SWORD WILL BE USED TO BUILD MY HOUSE."

It  is  well-known around the world that civil wars  are  usually the most bitter, destructive and ugly conflicts that it is possible  to have. Brother against brother, fathers,  cousins  and countrymen  consumed  with murderous enmity one  against  the other. What a nightmare! (As we have seen recently in  Rwanda and Bosnia). One thing I certainly do agree with in Rick Joyner's article is his statement that: "This will, in fact, be one of  the most cruel battles the church has ever faced. Like  every civil war, it will cause brother to turn against brother  like we  may  have  never witnessed in the church  before...  What  is coming will be dark. At times Christians almost universal ly  will be loath to even call themselves Christians.  Believers and  unbelievers alike will think that it is the end  of Chris tianity as we know it, and it will be."
He  then goes on to say that: "Through this the  very  definition of Christianity will be changed, for the better." I am  afraid that,  due to the strong prophetic warnings God has given  us  in New Zealand, I simply cannot go along with that last statement.
However,  I  certainly  do believe that we are  headed  for  a great splitting  and shaking of the church (in fact,  I  believe that  this  will be a form of JUDGMENT upon  today's  Laodicean church).  But I just cannot go along with the idea that the  prophetic  movement is to actively participate or "take sides"  in this  conflict,  or that this Civil War is some  marvelous  thing that we should all be looking forward to in the church. The idea  that we should join in with this war, to try and drive  the "Accuser of the brethren" out of other Christian groups in  this way,  frankly strikes me as being one of the most disastrous  and ill-advised courses of action that I have ever heard.

But  what  are we to think when we read things like:  "...it  was time to straightforwardly warn the church, and to begin  preparing for this great war with the resolve to fight until  there was a complete victory. The definition of a complete victory  in this war would be the complete overthrow of the Accuser of the Brethren's  strongholds  in  the church... This  battle  must  be fought. It is an opportunity to drive the accuser out of the church..." (From 'Civil War in the Church', published May, 1996).
I am afraid I simply cannot agree with any of this.  Surely it  is  obvious  that all that would be accomplished  by  such  a brutal,  all-out conflict is that the church would  literally tear  itself  apart? And aside from a whole raft of  crushed  and damaged  Christians,  what would be the real fruit of  such  a War? Before I go on to discuss what God has been showing us  here in NZ..
Significantly,  [an] intercessor was given the strong  impression that  the  catalyst for this great rift was to be  the  'Toronto blessing'  movement...  Certainly,  I have  noticed  a  far  more "militant"  mood  amongst  the  'Spirit'-  oriented  believers since  Toronto has swept through the church. There seems to be  a lot  more  talk of aggressive mobilization  and  aggressive defense of the movement against those who oppose it. This hardening of attitude has also coincided with a similar hardening on the  other side. Many of the  'conservative',  evangelical-type Christians  seem to have been particularly appalled  by  Toronto, and have become quite bitter in their opposition.
So  we  can see that conditions for a Civil War  in  the  church have indeed been greatly advanced by 'Toronto' (and I guess  by 'Pensacola' also,  which  is closely related). For  to  have  a civil  war,  it  is ecessary for BOTH  SIDES  to  become  quite "militant" in their stance, one against the other...

If there is a Civil War in the church, I am convinced that  those who participate  in  it will have no part  whatsoever  in  the coming move of God. Surely it makes sense that God would give all these  visions  of the coming Civil War as a WARNING,  not  as some kind of invitation to participate in it!?

Frankly,  I have to say that I have been very  disappointed  that the  American prophetic movement has seemingly advocated  "taking sides"  in the coming conflict. To me, this seems the  height  of irresponsibility,  and it alarms me greatly. I have to say  also, that there are a number of factors associated with the prophetic movement  in  America that have disturbed me for  some  years now. I don't know how well my words will be taken over there, but I do believe that these issues are important enough to risk raising them at this time. Sometimes an outsider's view can be of value,  but I do apologize in advance for any offense  caused  by what I am about to say.

It  seems  to me that there are some  very  profound  differences between the way the prophetic movement is set up in America, and  the  way it functions in other parts of  the  world.  In America,  there  seems to be a very  strong  perception  amongst friend  and foe alike, that the prophetic movement there is  so closely aligned with one particular denomination that they might almost  be considered to be one movement. Surely this would  have to  be  seen as a very unhealthy state of  affairs  for  any truly 'prophetic' group. How  on  earth can your words be taken as "impartial"  when  you are  seen to be so closely aligned with the views and  teachings of one particular stream or denomination? Is this what God really wants?  I am by no means part of the "Anti-Vineyard"  brigade, but  is it really desirable to have a prophetic movement that  is seen by many to be more of a mouthpiece for the Vineyard movement than  an  impartial  mouthpiece for God? I am sorry  if  I  am offending  you,  but  I frankly find it incredible  that  such  a movement could see this as an acceptable state of  affairs.
And I also believe that, as always, there will be subtle pressure in such a situation, not to be too critical or too  analytical about some of the teachings or practices that are associated with the 'related body'.

It  is my belief that this unhealthy association with one  particular  stream has already affected the way that some  issues have  been examined by the American prophetic movement  over  the last  few years or so. Elsewhere in the world, this is not  the case,  and other prophetic movements are free to  analyze  such issues without any perceived bias one way or the other. But how can  the same be said of the American prophetic movement? As  I said before, this apparent partiality surely has to be seen  as a most debilitating weakness in any movement of this kind. Prophets are supposed to be beyond reproach in the area of impartiali
ty.  They  are supposed to be the "eyes", the  watchmen  of  the church. Surely this can only be harmed when there is a  perceived bias  in  favour  of one particular  (controversial)  stream  of teaching?
One  thing  that  has struck me  repeatedly  about  the  American prophetic  scene is the seemingly never-ending talk about  the problem of 'legalism' and Pharisee-type religion in the church... Surely  we  would have to be kidding ourselves if  we  thought that this was the major problem facing the 'Laodicean' church? I just  cannot  go  along with the idea that it  is  "the  control spirit,  the political spirit and the religious spirit" that  are largely  responsible  for the sick and tepid state  of  today's lukewarm Christianity. This is certainly not what the Bible says.
The Scriptures are very clear as to what the major problems of  the Laodicean church are: "... because you are lukewarm,  and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.  Because you say, 'I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need  of nothing'... BE ZEALOUS THEREFORE, AND REPENT" (Rev 3:16-19).

To  get back to our original theme of 'Civil War' once  again, a  friend of mine who is a well-known prophet in  Australia,  was given  a  very significant vision in 1995. In it,  he  saw  a giant  army snaking through the jungle. At it's head  was  the banner, "Joel's Army". Meanwhile, off in the jungle by itself was a battalion. It stood, waiting. This battalion was in the  shape of  a  great  square, and at it's head was  a  banner:  "Gideon's Army".  It was much smaller than the first. It seemed  evident that Joel's Army was going to war, but that Gideon's Army had yet to receive it's marching orders..
I  have  to  say that I have been astonished  that  the  American prophetic  movement  has  allowed itself to  become  so  closely identified in the minds of many Christians around the world, with the  'Toronto' movement. I myself put this down to the fact  that their close association with the Vineyard clouded their  judgment,  and  meant that they did not look at this  movement  as objectively  or as analytically as they should  have. Speaking personally,  having  witnessed the 'Toronto'  manifestations  for myself, and also as a Revival historian, I have to say  that this movement surely has to be the most dubious that has  arisen in  the church for well over a century. Why on earth would  the American  prophetic movement allow itself to become  so  strongly identified  with such a movement? The only explanation is  their close  association with the Vineyard. And so here we are, in  the last  days (the days of great deception amongst Christians, of seducing  spirits  and "lying signs  and  wonders"  in  the church), with the most well-known prophetic movement in the world actually  supporting a 'revival' that is surely one of the  most suspect and dubious spiritual movements in history. Alarming, isn't it?..

Like  the  children  of Israel, I am  convinced  that  today's church has been passing through it's own wilderness of testing in recent times (just before the 'promised land' of true  Revival). And  like  the Israelites, I am convinced that only  a  "remnant" will eventually make it through into the coming move  of  God. (This principle is all the way through Scripture). It will be  a "Gideon's Army" (a remnant army), rather than a "Joel's  Army" that  will bring in the great last-days harvest. This is  clearly what God has been speaking in the dreams and visions that  we have discussed. And it seems obvious from the Scriptures also.
I  would just like to conclude this article by saying  that  it has not been my intention here at all, to 'attack' the  American prophetic movement, but rather to warn and plead with them, to at least consider the possibility that what I am saying is true.  It is my belief that the U.S. prophetic movement is now in far greater danger than it is probably aware of, just like the  many previous  movements  that have found themselves in  a similar

position down through history... For again, let me repeat what Jesus Himself said in the  vision:
"NOONE  WHO  HAS THEIR BROTHER'S BLOOD ON THEIR SWORD  WILL  BE USED TO BUILD MY HOUSE." Amen.
______________________
[Please note that it was never stated in the above article  that I  believed the U.S. prophetic movement to be  officially  joined with the Vineyard. I was merely making the point that there  were strong  ties generally between the Vineyard and the most  wellknown and widely recognized of the American prophetic movements.
This  is absolutely common knowledge, and even the  most  cursory look at the relationship between many prophetic ministries  and the Vineyard in the U.S. will confirm what I am saying. -A.S.]

BACK