August 28, 2013

Brannon Howse's show 8-20-2013

I was forcing myself to listen to several shows by Brannon Howse lately simply because the train wreck is too irresistible.  Brannon Howse, Aug 20, 2013, on his radio show before he talked to "veteran broadcaster" Vic Eliason, read his article "Slander, Satan, and Counting it all Joy"

The article complains about a blogger who Brannon asserts is an anti-semite because they believe the star of David is a pagan symbol (kind of a stretch there, Brannon - just because someone believes the Star of David came from a pagan source does not make them an anti semite, but maybe that little bit of logic is too much for Brannon.  That would be EXACTLY like saying Brannon and Chris P are Anti-American because they keep making the case that there are pagan symbols used in the flag, the US Seal, the currency, and founding documents and architecture of this country.)

The same blogger makes the case that Brannon is a Jesuit because he often wears "Masonic" blue ties and because he has a Fleur de Lis decorated lamp. Well who knows.  Everyone important is a Mason these days.  Chris Pinto said everyone important was a mason in those days.  What's the difference?  I doubt Brannon is one, but stranger things have happened.  He's certainly not a very good one.  Masons are much more charitable and friendly (at least outwardly) than Brannon, on the whole.  My godparents were Masons. In fact my godfather was a Shriner.  His wife was a daughter of the Eastern Star.  None of us knew anything was wrong with that until later.  They were very nice upstanding people who didn't turn and publicly savage their friends. It's part of their code, putting forth a good image for the world.   Brannon doesn't fit the upstanding, well-disposed and benevolent image. But I digress.

As far as the fleur de lis lamp, Brannon wastes no time in the article in blaming his wife for that lamp, (just in case...?) and then goes on to explain away the fact that many pagan organizations have used that symbol.  It has also been associated with the Virgin Mary (Says so somewhere on that page).  So I guess that makes Brannon a Jesuit / Roman Catholic / Marian idolater for sure now!  I wonder if he decorates for Christmas... hmmmm.....

(NOTE: That is what is known as 'tongue in cheek,' or maybe 'satire' - just to be clear.  I don't want another humorous statement to go right over Brannon's and/or his supporters' heads.)

I found the following line in the article amusing, but I found that I was mysteriously unable to comment on the page anymore.  tsk tsk:

Dissent will not be tolerated (I had posted something the day before, as I recall, about "you who teach do not lie, DO YOU LIE?" as an allusion to Romans 2:21.  I guess he didn't like it.)

After reading the article, he went on to say:
10:20 "Now let me also say that we also know that some of this has been going on for more than a year. That one individual has taken issue with my pointing out the masonic statue that Kirk Cameron built his film around, over a year ago, and this person took issue with that and wanted to be in social media criticizing us for pointing out. But the Bible says not to mix the profane and the holy. In 1 Kings we see Elichah coming down on the children of Israel for kissing the statue of Baal.
Ok I'm not sure why he said "Elijah" that way, unless it was that he couldn't off the top of his head remember whether it was Elijah or Elisha and decided to just go with something in between for plausible deniability.  Or else he was talking too fast again.
The Bible talks about tearing down your idols and your statues that have pagan symbols and we don't want a Christianize the profane any more than we would try to use a Christian symbol of something like an Ouija board. So there's nothing wrong. Can some people go too far and extreme, yes, but there's nothing wrong from saying hey folks let's not gather around a monument that was not built by men who served Jesus but by men who serve a false god.
Here's just another example of Brannon engaging his mouth before his brain. From what he says here I'm left wondering if it WOULD be ok for us to gather around a monument that was made by Christians? He can't possibly mean that. And yet that's what his hasty words seem to imply.  And does he mean "gather" in the literal sense or spiritual sense?  Because frankly, the ambiguity doesn't do anything to bolster his case here either.  Kirk was not claiming we should worship such a monument.  However, the problems with his movie were the fact that he was resorting to redeeming America rather than redeeming souls, and his focus was more on American Reconstructionism than on his first love, preaching the gospel, no matter what happens to America.
And that's what we did and this person had a problem with this over a year ago. This person who claims to have a discernment website continued to be involved in this kind of thing for over a year.
As far as it going on for more than a year, well, that's when Kirk's movie came out. Yes, I remember being troubled by Brannon an Chris Pinto's focus back then too. Several people wrote articles about it. And then they moved on.

I too had major issues with Kirk's shift in focus. But since Kirk had already, sadly, gone soft on the danger of associating spiritually with Mormons, it wasn't even worth really researching. I thought Pastorboy's review of the movie seemed well reasoned and consistent with what I gleaned from Kirk's promotion of the movie itself, but (disclaimer) I have not seen the movie and I intend to see the movie myself sometime.  It was just too long of a drive at the time to see it.

Pastorboy's article doesn't even mention Jesuits or Masons as a part of his critique, and that's entirely appropriate.  They are beside the point.  Jesuits and Masons have no power over the church.  Acknowledge they exist, they leave their mark, and move on to show how Kirk's focusing on moral transformation is a focus on trying to win God's blessing by obedience to the law, (in contradiction of Scripture which says we cannot do that).

But it seems like Brannon's replaced his fear of  all the immorality in America with a fear of demons and an unhealthy focus on demonology, including the symbols they have if the symbols themselves are imbued with power.  (Come to think of it, you know, I bet they sometimes have used the English alphabet in their writings, and we still do use the names of pagan gods in our names for months and days of the week!  We are DOOOMED!)

But still, the sin that Howse and Pinto are focused on is still primarily in "those idolatrous people out there."  And not the idol factory of one's own heart.  And the gospel is still waiting on the sidelines.
"And many people, many women, reached out to this person and said knock it off, stop it, quit criticizing these people, watch their DVD's."
Many many people stoned the prophets, gleefully watched martyrs beheaded,  burned and ransacked churches just recently in Egypt.  So what?  If you stand with God you're always in the majority.

But ok, let's just grant that "many people" telling you what you should do is an actual indication of what you should do.  So, when a lot of people tried to get Brannon to reconcile with Ingrid, to not throw away all her years of writing without providing her a copy of her own writings, and stop trashing her, did he listen?  No.... Or, for example, on an issue on which I actually sympathized with him - did he listen to those who told him to stop trashing David Barton and Kirk Cameron for hooking up with Glenn Beck? No?  How very odd...  it's almost like the only deciding criteria whether someone should stop arguing is if Brannon thinks they should.
Some of this was going on even before they watched the DVD's of people like Chris Pinto. 
Yes, Funny Brannon should mention that, because it was something she was pretty open about,  and when she did actually add more information to her mind about this, from a source sympathetic to Brannon, it actually reinforced her case against him.  She saw enough wrong in what Brannon was doing with Pinto first, and then watching a DVD full of Pinto and Schnoebelen only made matters worse.  What is Brannon's point here?
"And in fact it came out in social media, one of these people, one of their goals was ultimately was to try to get Worldview Weekend to separate from Chris Pinto"
I'm thinking Brannon should provide some screen shots here because most of the time when Christians call one another to correct an error it's actually because their goal is to separate their friends from ERROR, not each other.   So perhaps Brannon is here tacitly admitting Pinto is in error.  If one friend wants to separate from error and the other doesn't, well then I guess then people will separate.  But that is certainly not the primary motive.
"because of their personal concerns over talking about the Masons or the Jesuits, well Macarthur as we've said has spoken extensively about the Masons and the Jesuits. 
Yes, he has... wait a minute....Oh noes!  He has a Sun-God logo for his ministry! (see examples)

Is Brannon or ChrisP going to tell John Macarthur he needs to redesign his logo?  In order to be consistent, they better.

btw, listening to Macarthur talking about Jesuits.  He does actually talk alot about them being a part of the Roman Catholic church. He doesn't talk about the conspiracy aspect of it.  He just delineates the history of the Catholic church and how they have opposed the gospel and the difference between the Biblical way of salvation vs the Catholic way.  Nope, no obsession on the power of Jesuit symbolism or conspiracies.
And if this person wants to talk about some of the architecture and the meanings of it that's his ministry and that's his business, and I think Biblically there's a place for that. But this isn't something that's cropped up in the last two weeks, it's actually been going on for over a year and what I thank the Lord for is the many women, the many godly women that listen to this broadcast that are committed to our ministry that have been watching this, because I don't have time to do it and I'm not going to do it. But they are watching it, they are printing off these social sites, these face books, and they've kept a file. And they've caught some of these people in outright myth… outright untruth over and over and over again.
So, would this not be Brannon's definition of... talebearing/gossip/slander?
And now to throw the kitchen sink at us, they find a guy who is odd in what he believes and in some ways I believe WRONG, and seriously wrong, that was interviewed by Mr Pinto over five years ago. On one topic, freemasonry. And since that time the guy's written some very odd and strange things and produced some very odd videos.
SINCE that time?

You know, the more I listen to Brannon the more I wonder just how thoroughly he researches ANYTHING.  Even when he is digging in his heels so hard as to engage in a systematic character assassination of a lady he has had on his show before, he doesn't really actually check himself to be SURE what he is saying is accurate.

Lucifer Dethroned, published in 1993, by William Schnoebelen Chapter 18 Also seen here on Google books

The very cornerstone of the Satanic cult's existence and survival lay in the central ritual of Orthodoxy and Catholicism --- the Eucharist (Mass) or “Divine Liturgy”. I soon learned for myself the vital link between the doctrine of Transubstantiation (that the bread and wine is LITERALLY turned into the Body and Blood of Christ) and the Nosferatu.

I eagerly allowed my body to be gradually transformed through injections of special herbs and drugs, thinking I was following in the footsteps of John the Beloved. Gradually, my appetite for food began to diminish, and my sensitivity to sunlight increased markedly.
Please read the whole chapter.  This guy has been saying this for a LONG time.  Not just in the last 5 years as Brannon claims.  Claiming ignorance is one thing, in which case you issue a retraction.  Claiming ignorance while savaging those who would give you better information and correct you is another thing entirely, and covering ignorance with the self righteous and indignant display of more ignorance is of course, self defeating.

Now in the interest of fairness, at the end of the chapter Bill says this:
"I'm not saying for certain whether the vampirism I experienced was a form of psychosis, or whether it had a supernatural (Satanic) origins. Some of the symptoms (aversion to sunlight, etc.) could have been psychogenic (caused by my mind). However, much of my case is atypical in the psychiatric literature."

(I guess the world will never know!  cue: Twilight Zone theme)

Brannon goes on:
12:40 But Mr Pinto came to know who this man was through Walter Martin, I'm told. Through Ed Decker. Through Ron Carlson. Through Dave Hunt. These men all used this guy who is a former mason, and involved in witchcraft and the occult, in their documentaries and conferences and took the platform with him. So Mr Pinto, trusting those men, interviewed him briefly about one topic. Since then, the man has come out and said all kinds of very odd things.
Oh what kind of odd things Brannon?  Perhaps he should talk about those things, so that his readers and listeners and especially his subscribers know what you think is 'odd.'  Claiming to be a vampire who sucked people's blood is 'odd' but pointing out his bizarre store is somehow satanic talebearing?  But women saving a file on someone pointing out the 'oddity' of Schnoebelen's claims is not the same kind of 'talebearing?'  I'm totally confused as to what kind of a constantly moving target Brannon expects us to shoot at here.
But you're going to hang that around Mr Pinto's neck and thus then try to use Mr Pinto to discredit our organization?
I have to wonder then why Brannon is so adamant that he WILL NOT endorse Bill Schnoebelen:
"One discernment diva is posting on her FB page that I am endorsing Bill Schnoebelen which I have never done and I will not do."

Why not? 

"I don't know him and I don't know enough about him to speak about him one way or the other."

But he WILL NOT endorse him, because....?   "Will not" implies that he is pretty dog tootin sure he never will.  That seems like he knows quite a bit more than his next statement "not knowing enough to say one way or another" communicates.  He is ok with promoting a friend who uses someone he doesn't want to look into.  He's OK with Pinto, who he DOES promote using this guy who Brannon doesn't have time to look into.  What else doesn't Brannon have time to look into?  How do we know his sources are valid at all then?
And that's the kind of thing going on folks. And we won't tolerate it. Why are they not attacking Walter Martin? Why are they not attacking Ron Carlson? Why are they not attacking Dave Hunt? These men have gone on to glory, but they are not attacking these men.
Probably because they've gone on to glory and aren't hocking new DVD's that feature Bill Schnoebelen?  Jack Chick uses him too, and lots of people do think Jack Chick is nuts.  Dave Hunt also stood by the fraud Ergun Caner till the end as far as we all know.  He got a lot of flack for that too. (and surprise surprise, in spite of all these people communicating their concerns to him, he just kept on promoting a fraud.) His organization may even still be standing by him.  Lots of people were used by Mike Warnke too.  How does Brannon suppose these frauds get exposed in the first place?  One person notices the emperor's new clothes and instead of the church leaders being grateful for the truth, they turn and tar and feather the little kid (or woman, as the case may be) who was naive enough to speak out.
 They could go after T A McMahon who's still running the ministry of Dave Hunt today.
I suppose I could try and send them a note and see what they have to say about Schnoebelen, but this isn't looking promising for Brannon:

The blue smurf line is nice touch, especially in this context.
But they haven't because it's not about really being concerned about anything, it's really I believe about trying to destroy one person. Mr Pinto. 
Really. I think Mr Pinto is doing a good job of that himself.  Actually it's about trying to help Brannon from going down with the ship, but self righteous people who think they're always right don't want any help, and only see help as a hindrance and "spiritual attack."
"Because of personal pettiness."
Ok, wait, I thought it was all about spiritual attack?  I thought it was motivated by these people being upset because the pagan gods were being exposed, as is the case Pinto made, OVER AND OVER again, thus making Christine and Jackie a part of the vast Jesuit conspiracy?
"They can disagree,"
Apparently not!  Chris White is apparently not allowed to disagree either, especially if he uses a little too much of Brannon's material according to Brannon's tastes (not the law's definition) to refute it.
"they're not called to monitor his ministry, they're not called to oversee his ministry, they're not his pastor."
Are you Christine or Jackie's or this "Jesus Fanatic" person's pastor?  Or her husband?  As I recall, her husband supported her and provided explanations refuting some of the lies against her and Brannon simply deleted that information.  It would appear he doesn't want the truth to come out that HE is the one engaging in all the things of which she (and other valid critics) are being accused.  Because not as many people would be willing to send in money to a blatant hypocrite.
"And now they want to try to, as they've said on blogs according to many witnesses, divide Mr Pinto and Worldview Weekend? We will have nothing to do with this kind of slander, gossip, and talebearing."
Yeah.... except the when they will.

This whole thing reeks of the tactics used by the homosexual agenda.  You cannot publicly 'half' agree with them.  You will be *made* to agree and support everything they say.  Or you will be publicly humiliated, accused, called a bigot, hater, etc.  In like manner, if you don't support everything Brannon and Pinto are saying, you are automatically labeled a pagan, idolater, part of the vast Jesuit/Masonic conspiracy just (as Pinto said) like those people in Ephesus who didn't want their goddess Diana to be dishonored by the apostle Paul.  Dissent is not tolerated.   Welcome to the Purpose Driven parachurch.

"And we will continue to count it all joy, and we are moving on. (14:09)"

Yes, always nice to smugly have the last word isnt' it?  Especially when you're dead wrong.

(And just for kicks, fair use notice: I transcribed 230 seconds out of a podcast totaling 3692 seconds in length, which is 6.2%)