Today I looked at an image and listened to a recording of Ole for the first time since I left the Block four months ago. I did with that recording of Ole what I used to do with recordings from TBN: I transcribed and analyzed it. This is from the old [i:4a55db9f11]Prime Time Live[/i:4a55db9f11] piece. I remember watching this when I was a teenager, when it originally aired, and remember how mystified I was by this man Ole Anthony. He was impressive.
I remember how exited I was when he hired me. This segment was hard for me to watch.

[b:4a55db9f11]Ole: The longing of a man's heart is for community, for a sense of being able to lay down his life for something important. That can't happen with a television tube.

Diane Sawyer: But there are people who come forward and say, "I got a miracle because of, what, because of of the money I gave, because I watched, I [i:4a55db9f11]did[/i:4a55db9f11] get a miracle."

Ole: Did you ever see [i:4a55db9f11]The Wizard of Oz?[/i:4a55db9f11] Dorothy got her heart's desire, the tin man recieved his heart's desire, the lion recieved his heart's sdesire, and the Tin Man, recieved his heart's desire, even though the Wizard was a charlatan. [i:4a55db9f11]Why?[/i:4a55db9f11] The God of the Universe was already resident within them, he just had to be let out.

Diane Sawyer: So, what do you say to the person sitting at home, watching?

Ole: Let's open your eyes, and look at the need around you. Give to that need instead of to some faraway evangelist that's talking you into playing a heavenly lottery, or a heavenly slot machine.

Diane Sawyer: And they'll get those miracles they want-

Ole (interrupting): -They'll get all the miracles that are promised. They'll get a hundredfold blessing returned unto them.
[/b:4a55db9f11]

I cannot express right now how totally ironic it all is to me, now that I know what was going on in TFI at the time of this broadcast. Here's Ole talking about community and servanthood. You can't have community through a television tube, huh? You also can't have community via an E-church, right, Ole? Good Lord...

Once Ole told me that people like Tilton, the Crouches, Hinn, and all the rest of the WOF crowd are completely Scripturally illiterate, except for the Scriptures that they can twist to make themselves a buck. It just occured to me (duhh!) that Ole is completely Scripturally illiterate, except for the Scriptures that he can twist for the sake of his own power and control. MyGod!

Well, a mark of being led by the spirit is being controversial. This means that people cannot sit the fence in regard to what you are saying. I would say most of the scriptures warn against being "lukewarm" as we call it. I don't think it is trying to be God, so much as it is a mark of being born-of God.

One of the worst experiences in my life was when I realized I had been HAD (to use Beth Moore's phrase). I had been deceived by a purported Christian leader. I was taken in by the person's words and doctrine. I was seduced.

And I felt betrayed by this "Christian" leader. By God. I was hurt. How could it happen? I am an intelligent, educated person. I should have known better.

But I was Had. I wanted to run away. Pretend it hadn't happened. I didn't want anyone to know I had been had. But I was. And so have many other believers.

Sometimes we get so far into something that we can't afford for it to be wrong. But we must learn to say, "I made a mistake. This is not right. I've been had."

God can use these experiences.

May I never judge a fellow believer for being had. If I err, let me err on the side of grace.

Quote
NathanA
Well, a mark of being led by the spirit is being controversial. This means that people cannot sit the fence in regard to what you are saying. I would say most of the scriptures warn against being "lukewarm" as we call it. I don't think it is trying to be God, so much as it is a mark of being born-of God.

Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 ¶ [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Gal 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

[b:bb755c5cec]
Where does it say in the Word that being contraversial is one of the fruits of the spirit, Nathan? Quit playing Devil's Advocate (literally) all the time. You contribute nothing to this discussion but annoyance. Quit trolling and try and learn something here.[/b:bb755c5cec]

I should clarify what I said. Controversey for its own sake is not useful. I am not saying that being controversial is at all of itself good. What I mean is that observing the life of Jesus and the apostles, you see that they were often surrounded by a firestorm of controversey. The things they were saying were very challenging to the religious communities of their time. My point, whether it is really a good one, is that it was very difficult to remain neutral to these men. Jesus, claiming to be the Son of God? Gentiles allowed to inherit the blessings of Israel? These were concepts that many found very hard to accept. I am just considering the idea that Ole Anthony is controversial in a similar manner. I may well be wrong. It is only a perspective I consider, and I put it out there partly in response to cultaware's post.

NathanA:

Do you see Ole Anthony as "Jesus" or as an apostle?

Are you sure that is a meaningful analogy?

Ole himself refers to himself as an apostle--or at least he used to. I do not know if he is still doing it. I have heard him say that his role is the same as Paul's (yes, Paul the Apostle).

I am not entirely sure what I think. I have seen Ole as a prophetic voice in the past. Certainly he has ruffled feathers on talk shows and the like, I am not sure if it is for good reasons all the time. Do I see him as "Jesus"? I don't think so. I do though have strong inclinations to believe the spirit of Christ has been revealed in him in a rare way. I think he has been a chastising voice to the church and has seen some very serious problems that have arisen in North American christendom. I think he has been falsely accused of alot of things, including garnering media attention to satisfy his narcississm. I think he is doing what he does because there are teachers and prophets who have risen within the church that are hurting many people.(ie. Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton) I think he believes what he does with integrity, and has been misunderstood.

Having said that, I wonder if he has crossed lines that are not good. I wonder if he has reacted so strongly to happenings within the church that he has lost some balance. I wonder if the radical views at Trinity have sometimes fed a sense of uniqueness that is not healthy. Ole has always said that he comes down very hard on anyone who believes Trinity is "special." So I don't necessarily know. I think some of the men Ole is accountable to have maybe provided some of that needed balance. They have certainly rejected some of his ideas. I have also heard him say in the Bible Studies that not everyone must accept all his doctrines , but that for TFI, they must be faithful to what they've been given. So I think there is more to the equation than TFI just being an outright destructive cult. That in my view is too strong an assertion. There are some elements that make them seem a little cultish, but I think you can see those things too in a group of Benedictine monks. Maybe my perspective will change after reading Wendy Duncan's book.