What's Wrong With Oprah?

Frequently in my public and private speaking, I am prone to refer to those who are so outrageously wrong that they not only don't know the answer, but don't understand the question, as "Oprah."

I am also prone to refer to everything that is wrong with modern American culture as the "Oprahization of society," or to speak in term of "our Oprahized society."

Guys get it.

But women, and especially teenage women, are prone to look at me as if I am the proud possessor of three heads. After all, isn't Oprah Winfrey the epitome of everything that is good about America? A minority that "made it"? A progenitor of homespun common sense? Someone who is generous with her goods and who seems to be on the cutting edge of every significant issue?

All of that couldn't possibly be further from the truth, though admittedly, that is the carefully crafted image of Oprah that has been pushed upon an unwitting (witless?) public.

A host of articles, stretching back for years, has begun to ask the question, "What is wrong with Oprah Winfrey?" And various writers have stumbled upon the truth that she has far more affinity with a New Age cult leader than with a journalist or the modern Harriet Tubman.

A WAPT-TV16 (ABC, Jackson, MS) story touches several angles of this story: Oprah is often accused of starting her own religious movement, she is not a monotheist, she tends toward pantheism, and she even has promoted the idea that man made God. Oprah even went into business to promote the books of one Echart Tolle, a man said to have a "shady, uncheckable past" who writes books filled with "gobbledygook." She has also promoted the works of New Age gurus Marianne Williamson (author of the occult A Course in Miracles) and Rhonda Byrne (author of The Secret, based, knowingly or not, on the teachings of the Rosicrucian Order).





Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler summed it up best when he said that "Oprah has become a high priestess and icon of the psychologization of American society. When she features prominent New Age figures on her television show, she helps to mainstream New Age influences and philosophies among millions of Americans. Her substitution of spirituality for biblical Christianity, her promotion of forgiveness without atonement, and her references to a god 'without labels' puts her at the epicenter of a seismic cultural earthquake."

And that seismic cultural earthquake has essentially three prongs:

New Age Spirituality - Oprah Winfrey denies that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. She states plainly, "there are diverse ways of being in the world" and "many ways of going toward God." "There couldn't possibly be just one way. What about Jesus?" Oprah favorite Marianne Williamson denies the reality of sin and calls clinging to the "old rugged cross" a "pathetic error."

Oprah Winfrey is consumed in complete moral and spiritual blindness. If she cannot master the basic point that there is one way to salvation, she is not qualified to lecture anybody on any moral point whatsoever. The Bible is clear: spiritual blindness always has moral and ethical implications (Eph. 4:18-19).

Beyond denial of Christ, Oprah pushes every newfangled spiritual fad that comes along - each newer than the last and each doomed to fail just as the last did. She promises fulfillment, success, wholeness with her New Age, quasi-occult philosophies, but if ever once she had stumbled onto the truth there would be no need for the continued introduction of new spiritualities. Like all false teachers, she is a "cloud without water, a tree without roots, a wandering star" (Jude 1:12-13).

Feminism Lite - Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the most devious and evil personality of modern American culture precisely because she dresses up America's most destructive and neurotic error in a cloak of respectability. Oprah is the primary peddler of feminism to the unthinking masses, who do not even recognize her as a feminist, and her daily doses of domestic violence mythology, cheating husbands, you-go-girl cheer sessions, new morality, and goddess exaltation makes the spurious claims and psychological orientation of feminism so familiar that the culture now accepts feminism implicitly - as unthinkingly as if it were part of the cultural furniture.

Yet it is undeniably true that every single assertion of modern feminism is 100% provably false - from the sexual violence mythology to the wage gap to the essential sameness of the sexes. And it is undeniably true that those who willingly accept error into their thinking - both Oprah and her audience - forsake the common grace of God for doing so (Jonah 2:8, KJV).

And do not think that Oprah is benignly mistaken. She is pushing an agenda that is occasionally revealed. A recent rhubarb exploded when Oprah began touting the idea that there is a new phenomenon involving women leaving their husbands for lesbian relationships. Based on the immorality of a few Hollyweirdos, Oprah declares that there is a trend "in the air" which will necessarily make men even more irrelevant than they are today (is that possible?). The only problem is that there is not only no evidence of such a trend, but there is a disclaimer contained within the article itself stating that statistics of this "trend" are "hard to come by."

But of course, given the so-called "Oprah effect," it is certain that the incidence of such behavior will now begin to increase among the witless wonders that read, believe, and do anything that Oprah requires. And that is the beauty of Oprah - she is no longer a commentator on the culture, she is a molder of the culture itself. The story of women leaving their husbands for lesbian relationships was an obvious attempt to move behavior in that direction. And she is quite effective in moving those witless wonders, as her endorsement of another empty suit, Barack Obama, is estimated to have benefited him to the tune of over 1 million votes.

Oprahmorality - Finally, Oprah Winfrey is dangerous because she furnishes a substitute ethical framework for the unthinking and immoral to strive to achieve in place of genuine morality. While she is implicitly encouraging women to mentally and emotionally divorce themselves from their husbands, she is assuring them that the "real" problem in the world is "sweat shop labor," American-ranched beef, vaccines, or something equally as banal. While she speaks of "God" and "spirituality," she flaunts and openly immoral lifestyle in her personal life.

A daily diet of fear-mongering, false doctrine, and implicit devaluation of the male and the family cannot but influence easily-led, hormonal women to forsake the hard work of faithfulness and responsibility in favor of some Neverland of "empowerment," "spirituality," and "self-esteem."

It is nor merely the denial of morality that defines the web of false doctrine that is Oprah; it is also the substitution of a false morality for the true. Oprah's constant irrational appeals, fear-mongering, and tweaking of the lowest-common-neurosis among the androids that make up her regular audience actually makes her listenership believe that they are, in fact, abused, and that the most important problems in the world today are racism, sexism, human trafficking, and self-esteem. Genuine morality, of course, is primarily concerned with transforming self, not society (Matt. 7:3-5, Rom. 12:1-3). But to insist that this is so would have the unfortunate effect of infringing upon the self-esteem of Oprah's audience....

When morality is reduced to wearing a ribbon or "raising awareness" or "taking a stand against human trafficking" (a dubious "problem" in the first place, and certainly not something that is solvable by Oprah's audience), then morality and ethics has indeed reached its nadir.

And of course, the wreckage is easily seen by those who are not blind: 67% of divorces each year are filed by women, the members of Oprah's flock, as they indulge themselves in the immoral pursuit of self.

Long ago, the Biblical prophets warned that the last days would be typified by false prophets who would "lead captive foolish women, laden with sins, and led away with diverse lusts" (II Tim. 3:6).

Those who love Christ cannot indulge themselves in the false prophet that is Oprah Winfrey.

Movie: A Haunting In Connecticut (2009)

The Campbell family thinks that their world is nearly falling apart when their teenage son is diagnosed with cancer. What with the emotional impact, the financial strain, the attendant sorrow and strain on the marriage, and the fact that Dad is a recovering alcoholic, they can't imagine things can get any worse.

To facilitate the cancer-stricken Campbell's treatment, the family rents a second home closer to the cancer hospital where he receives his radiation and/or chemotherapy. The house is suspiciously cheap. This is your first clue something is up - sorta like hearing anybody on the Scooby Doo cartoon say, "Let's split up! Shaggy and Scoob, you go THAT way, and we'll go THIS way!"

The house not only once was a mortuary, but was owned by a mortician who loved to conduct both seances and experiments with the dead which he thought would intensify the effectiveness of his paranormal work.

And by the time the Campbells arrive, let's just say things have gotten out of hand.

I confess to being jaded by horror flicks. I remember the first Jason Vorhees movie and saw the first Freddie Krueger movie in theaters. I grew up watching late-night horror movie marathons on Friday nights when I was a kid in rural North Carolina, and continued with watching Joe Bob Briggs' Monster Vision as an adult. I've seen it all, and when it comes to horror movies, done it all. I used to put in a copy of The Exorcist to watch as I was going to sleep. It calmed me.



Having said that, The Haunting in Connecticut weirded me out. It is pretty rare for that to happen, and I think the last time it happened was when I saw An American Haunting.

For some reason, it seems that first, PG and PG-13 rated movies tend to be a bit scarier than do R rated movies; probably because most of the Rs get their ratings for blood and gore, and I personally don't find slasher movies all that frightening. In order to obtain the same scare, the PG rated movies simply have to have more suspense and better writing than do the R rated movies, and I think that theory is borne out by The Haunting in Connecticut.

Exquisitely well-written, as I left the theater I had the impression I had been inside for only 15 minutes, not the 100+ minutes listed for the movie by Lionsgate. Admittedly, the film had a couple of themes that should have been lame (the whole concept of ectoplasm, the Eastern European priest who spent more time talking about ghosts than Jesus), but somehow it all came off as, if not believeable, at least entertaining. Riveting, even. And I have to say that the positive portrayal of the priest, and religion generally, was refreshing even if religion was not the central tenet of the film.

But the movie was nerve-wracking enough that it sparked a conversation between me and my wife afterwards about what exactly does the Bible teach about ghosts. So we sat down and began to turn pages.

The primary passage that has any significance as to the "ghostly" is the Old Testament passage I Samuel 28:3-21. In this passage, King Saul, informed that he has been rejected because of his disobedience in I Samuel 15:17-28, particularly v. 26, is now preparing for war against the Philistines (I Sam. 28:1). Samuel the Prophet was dead, David had (necessarily) abandoned Saul, and God was not on speaking terms with Saul because of his rebellion (I Sam. 28:5-6). Saul had repeatedly consulted the Urim and Thummim to find out how he should prepare for battle against the amassing Philistine forces with no results (I Sam. 28:6). Earlier in his career, Saul had run all of the psychics, wizards, witches, and mediums out of the land of Israel (I Sam. 28:3). But in a decision revelatory of his true character, Saul decided that in a pinch, hearing from Satan was preferable to hearing nothing at all and demanded that a medium be found so that he could consult with the dead (I Sam. 28:7).

Upon arrival and a few initial niceties, the medium asked whom Saul would like for her to conjure up. He replied, "Samuel the Prophet" (I Sam. 28:8-11). When Samuel actually arrives, the response of the medium is quite instructive, as she...

"...cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, 'Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!' The king said to her, 'Do not be afraid. What do you see?' And the woman said to Saul, 'I see a god coming up out of the earth.' He said to her, 'What is his appearance?' And she said, 'An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.' And Saul knew that it was Samuel..." (I Sam. 28:11-14, ESV).

In his study Bible on this passage, Charles Ryrie states:

"The medium shrieked with fear when Samuel actually appeared, rather than some spirit that would impersonate him. On this occasion God miraculously permitted the actual spirit of Samuel to speak and announce Saul's imminent death (I Sam. 28:19). The medium's cry of astonishment shows that this appearance was not the result of her usual tricks."

A couple of points need to be made about this passage to this point:

1) The "medium" was able to discern between a real ghost, or departed spirit if you will (Samuel as he came up before her), and what she was accustomed to dealing with. She was very surprised when an actual spirit of a dead man appeared before her. This leads to the obvious question, what had she been doing for the entirety of her "mediumship" prior to this point?

2) Ryrie seems to exhaust the reality of her "mediumship" in his note - either she was a fraud, who had been representing that she was involved with "ghosts," which representation she knew to be a lie, or she was in contact with other spirits (demons) that were somehow familiar to her, but were only impersonating the spirits of the dead. When the spirit that appeared was not "familiar," she understood a qualitative difference between what she normally saw and what she was seeing now.

The story continues in I Samuel 28:15-19:

"Then Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?' Saul answered, 'I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore, I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.' And Samuel said, 'Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me, for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand.... Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD.... Moreover, the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me...."

Note what happens here:

1) Samuel himself finds it disturbing - literally - that he has been brought before Saul. He is not "haunting" anything, he is not in some intermediate state.

2) Saul requests a specific piece of knowledge: What should I do? Samuel replies with no advice as to what he should do, he merely responds with the same message that he had given Saul during his life: God has rejected you because of your disobedience.

Apparently, "ghosts" are not at the beck and call of man, and are under no compulsion, nor perhaps any inclination, to answer man's questions.

In the New Testament, in the Hall of Fame of Faith of chapter 11, the writer of Hebrews lists numerous departed heroes who, though dead, are examples of Christian faith. Abel, Moses, Abraham, Joseph, David, and Samuel all are listed. And in the transition between this "Hall of Fame" and the practical application of our faith, the writer says,

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and the sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us" (Hebrews 12:1).

The imagery is that of an athletic competition in a coliseum. Certain people are on the track running a race. Others, a great multitude, are seated in the stands watching the race, separated from the competition but nevertheless cheering and closely observing those who are running.

Those departed spirits who are in heaven are certainly witnesses to what is going on here on earth, but they are no longer participants. Those same personages, Abel, Joseph, Moses, and all (for we are "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" as are recounted in Hebrews 11) are witnesses - spectators, no longer participants. And those departed spirits who are not in heaven do not seem cognizant of those who are still in the race: the lost rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus says that he has five brothers, not that he sees his five brothers (Luke 16:28, cf. Luke 16:19-31).

So the common conception of "ghosts" as tormented spirits who cannot be released from this realm, or the spirits of dead humans somehow attached to some earthly place or person because of some trauma or evil, finds no Biblical evidence whatsoever. What we have come to appreciate as the common ghost story is either simply myth, or the intervention of some spirit that is not that of a human (Zech. 3:1).

Reportings of "ghosts," if the Bible is to be considered authoritative, actually points to a malignant, non-human presence that cannot be trusted and should not be sought out. Either that, or complete fraud on the part of so-called "mediums."

The movie, The Haunting in Connecticut, is great fun, well-written, and, as my wife said, a festival of goose pimples. While probably too intense for kids, I recommend the movie as both great entertainment and as a teachable moment to discuss Biblical principles with the older members of your family.

On a scale of five stars, I give the movie five stars.

Susan Boyle: Substance Over Style

The Bible says that believers are to "approve what is excellent" (Phil. 1:10).

This is one of the major arguments for believers engaging and enjoying secular culture. Even if culture is secular, man can see God in it, so long as that culture strives to mimic the greatness of God. Unfortunately, Western culture since the 1960s - and more pronouncedly since the 1990s - has (largely) forsaken any attempt to strive for greatness and has begun to engage in a cynical indulgence in childish incompetence. Singers can no longer sing, musicians are no longer maestros, and Hollywood ran out of ideas years ago and has busied itself for the last 10 years simply reproducing the successes of its past.

This has given rise to a culture dominated by talentless nonentities who are promoted to quasi-greatness because of their politics (as Oprah Winfrey) or because of their image (as Britney Spears). That such vacuous posers can be considered "stars" in any sense of the word bespeaks of the potential decline of an entire civilization.

I look back with great longing on the days when people became famous because they actually had done, or could do, something worthwhile. I remember when people could actually play the guitar, and that was the key to being a rock star (Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhodes). I remember when men built companies (Ross Perot) rather than inherited money (Donald Trump). I remember when women became famous because they were beautiful and talented actresses (Lynda Carter) rather than simply cheesy, young, rich, train wrecks (Paris Hilton). I remember when politicians built careers and showed leadership for decades (Ronald Reagan) rather than simply being a worthless empty suit, a political flavor-of-the-month (Barack Obama).

The one person that sort of functions in my own mind as the watershed for when fame was disjoined from substance, and style began to predominate, is a singer named Christopher Cross. An ugly guy, overweight, and not particularly socially adept - he wasn't the kind of musician that would likely be found on a typical teenage girl's bedroom wall. But boy could Christopher Cross sing. He had talent. Nothing to look at, mind you, but he oozed talent.

It is not without some coincidence that, with the advent of the "grunge" rebellion against musicality in the 1990s, there was also a rebellion against accomplishment in the wider culture. Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency, not because he was an accomplished politician, but precisely because he lacked a cogent record, and because he embodied the image thought "hip" and "cool" by aging adolescent Baby Boomers who never bothered to learn history, or philosophy, or religion, or politics. Nirvana bore the same relation to music and Clinton bore the same relation to politics as anti-matter bears to matter.

As art became more artistically deficient, the rest of culture became deficient as well. Christopher Cross, who made a name and career for himself in the 1970s based on talent alone (lacking anything that could be considered sex appeal or image), gave rise to a generation of famesters who were famous merely because the paparazzi followed them around hyping them.

Jump ahead 40 years from Christopher Cross to a time when A Messiah is anointed based on his ability to move men with his great swelling words. A Messiah is promised who has spiritual depth and a wisdom beyond his years. And of course these false hopes are only maintained during The Messiah's campaign by controlling his appearances more than a person stricken with OCD controls their bathroom's tap.

Naturally, the style falls away and reveals the stunning lack of substance when the election is over: a bungling idiot incapable of forming an English sentence without a teleprompter, a fool incapable of forming a cabinet, a liar incapable of telling the truth, and a socialist incapable of masking his naked thirst for power.

And in the midst of this Romper Room of incompetence, how refreshing to find, in a world corrupted by style, that substance still lives. There may be hope for society yet....

Susan Boyle for president.

How wonderful to learn that there is still something within man - some men - that is full, genuine, and real. I'll gladly place my HOPE for CHANGE in the 48-year old virgin....