By now I’m sure everyone is familiar with Mel Gibson’s “blockbuster” movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. It has become an instant hit, grossing $121 million in its first week. Such Christian “notables” as Billy Graham and James Dobson have hailed it as a wonderful evangelism tool, while others have proclaimed it “the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years”. One church even bought up 18,000 tickets to pass out to believers and hopefuls in the overwhelming hope that within the graphic bloodshed of Hollywood’s special effects would be the “magic” that would spark the beginning of the much prophesied flood of the “Great End-Time Revival”.
Various stories have emerged about the filming in which one person even survived two direct hits from a lightening bolt. The religious atmosphere was so intense that many of the crew felt a stirring of religious passion, and joined the Catholic Church as a result.
Meanwhile, many Christians, who have seen the film, report an interesting response to its overwhelming depiction of the carnage. Instead of feeling a conviction or a great presence of God drawing them to Himself, they report an overwhelming heaviness which left them unable to speak, much less cry out to God. They were left with an intense awareness of all the details involved in crucifixion, but were never really made aware of why He died, or what He accomplished through that death. If believers are left with a heaviness and emptiness – and they know its significance – of what value does it serve to unbelievers? In contrast, I can remember the final scenes of the largely fictitious “Ben Hur” left me weeping over the awesomeness of God’s gift, which was rendered before our eyes. Why the difference? And is there any valid benefit to be gained from watching such make-believe carnage?
I always become uncomfortable when I see that which is purportedly “of God” become wildly popular among those who want little to do with His real walk of discipleship. That which the world loves is seldom the object of God’s affection and vice versa. The fact that the Bible is the best selling book of all time has nothing to do with its appeal to the masses – only that its appeal has remained constant over the years, unlike the fleeting works of popular fashion that fade almost as quickly as they burst upon the scene.
So I began to examine the facts behind the popular hype. Many spoke glowingly about the star, Jim Caviezel, who played Christ, and what a great devoted Christian he was. Yet their naive affirmation of his “true faith” totally ignores the interview he granted on Radio “Mir”, in Medjugorje, Bosnia. The occasion of the interview was a private screening of the almost finished version of the film for those he most wanted to impress: the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Medjugorje, for those who may not know or remember, was the site of numerous “Marian apparitions”, when the sun became a flaming dish before the eyes of the “faithful”, and spiraled to the ground as a testimony of “God’s approval” of what was being revealed by “Mary”. It should not come as surprise that her two major concerns centered around the need for more vain repetitious reciting of the Rosary, and more adoration of the idolatrous Eucharist, which is the only way a Catholic may experience Christ.
So Hollywood’s “Jesus” began his interview, alongside his wife, reaffirming their belief and spiritual hope in these Marian “visions”. He tells us the real “anointing” that he carried, which enabled him to be what millions of people will visually associate with the real Jesus in the days ahead: “In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I wouldn’t go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist.”
Did he prepare for his role through fasting and prayer? Or by shutting himself away with the Lord until he truly knew how He acted and felt? Not even close. Instead, according to Caviezel, “Ivan Dragicevic (one of the Medjugorje visionaries) and his wife Lorraine gave me a piece of the true cross. [There are probably enough “pieces of the true cross” circulating about to completely rebuild Noah’s Ark, if one were of a mind to. – Ed.] I kept this on me all the time. They made a special pocket in my clothes for it. I also had relics of Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padous, Ste. Maria Goretti, and Saint Denisius, the Patron Saint of actors. …Everyday everyone could see me with the Rosary in my hands.”
So let’s pause for a moment and consider this man who has just been raised up to be everyone’s visual image of Jesus, as they contemplate His sufferings. His “anointing” consisted of a special pocket filled with dead men’s bones and a string of rosary beads. Yet Christians are enthusiastically promoting his faith and the message he wants to present, without even considering from whence it came.
What was his vision and purpose in starring in this film? Again, the answer would – or at least should – surprise most Christians: “I ask Mary to guide me and my career. You can convert people only by living your life. This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”
So all of these evangelical churches, who are anxiously herding people out to watch this depiction of the “Gospel message” are, in reality, sending them to something inspired by “Mary”, with the goal of encouraging people to convert – not to Christianity – but to Catholicism. Every tool he used, in preparation for depicting the Son of Him who commanded us that we neither make idolic representations of anything on earth, or in heaven above, nor that we worship any god but Yahweh and His Son, was derived from Roman idolatrous practices. How can you present that which is the antipathy of all foolish idolatry, while depending upon it for your strength and anointing? Clearly there is something amiss.
There was much attention paid to the objections made by a Jewish delegation who visited the Vatican with their concerns about the accuracy of how Jews were portrayed in the film. The real message of their opposition, however, was never really published. What disturbed them most is that the script was not written around the Gospel accounts, which would have been at least historically accurate, in their eyes. Gibson’s script was derived from a 19th century vision described by “mystic, visionary, stigmatist, prophet…. greatest visionary in the history of the church, Anne Catherine Emmerich”.
In an interview on the Roman Catholic television network, EWTN, Gibson stated that reading Emmerich’s book entitled “The Dolorous Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ” was his primary inspiration for making the movie. The purpose of what he did was to firmly establish in the public’s imagination the link between “the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar [the perpetual sacrifice of the transubstantiated Eucharist] – which is the same thing”, in Gibson’s own words.
This woman’s graphic and lengthy description of what she “saw” happen to Jesus is the substance of the annual passion plays and Lenten readings within the Roman Church for almost two centuries. But how reliable are her accounts? She supposedly lived the last 12 years of her sickly life subsisting solely upon Eucharistic wafers and water. In her many visions, she saw the supposed “proof” of such Catholic dogmas as “Purgatory, the Blessed Mother, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist”. She also saw how, through “the various indulgences we actually remit specific punishments…” We do this by “approaching the Sacraments in true repentance.” What she is saying, lest we overlook it, is that we can receive a license to sin by adopting a sincere attitude of respect as we partake of a specific religious ritual. Yes, we can repent of our sins, and receive his total forgiveness but this was not the focus of her belief. Rather our repentance still results in suffering in Purgatory, which only these indulgences, purchased in advance, can prevent.
She also “saw a false church and wicked men scheming against the Catholic Church… in her time and in the future …[These] enemies of the Church tearing it down and trying to build a new one;…” But in the end, she saw “the revival of the priesthood and the religious orders after a period of great decadence.” All of which led her to believe that “it is more holy to pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory than for sinners who are still alive.”
With her primary focus centered around praying for the souls of the dead, while ignoring the plight of the living, how reliable is her vision of Jesus’ suffering? Are the many flashbacks to Mary, and her all-encompassing importance real; or were they the fruit of the same deceiving spirit that has deceived so many through her “messages” at Fatima and Medjugorje? Gibson and his crew have no interest in making that discernment. They’re content solely with implanting a profound seed of association, in the public mind, between what they witnessed on the screen, and the perpetual offering of the Mass, which is so central to Catholicism. Apparently, many of our Protestant leaders are as reluctant as he to search out the truth, and to preserve the essential message of our faith.
There is no question that what Jesus suffered was brutal and inhuman. The Gospel account, as well as historical records of the crucifixion process, bear this out; but how much of what was filmed was based on actual experience? Just as an illustration of how unreliable the film depiction is, consider that it, like all of the crucifixes down through the ages, shows the nails driven through the palms of his hand. Yet medical researchers, in studying cadavers, discovered that nails driven through the palm of one’s hand cannot support the weight of a man suspended by them. They will tear through the flesh and tendons of the hand, and he will quickly fall. No doubt the Romans would have discovered that very quickly in real life, since this was a favorite form of execution.
Instead, the nails were driven between the two bones of the wrist, which in Greek would still be termed the “hand”. Not only does this technique work on the cadavers that were studied, but the evidence, clearly portrayed on the Shroud of Turin, shows wounds on His wrist, not His palms, which was where her stigmata, of which she was quite proud, were located. The devil, in his lying signs and wonders, can’t even get that detail right. – (Either that, or he gets great delight in making obvious errors, which people still blindly accept.)
Such being the case, how many of the other actions depicted, particularly those of the crowd, which are not mentioned in Scripture, are also figments of her imagination – whether or not they were endorsed by the papal “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”?
If the actual depiction of His suffering was distorted by some form of spiritual deception, is it not also possible that the whole concept of focusing on His torment and death is likewise corrupt? Paul did speak of how he “preached Christ and Him crucified;” but is a continual replay of His torment, such as has become the focus of the Catholic Mass, what he was referring to? If we read through all of the sermons and teachings of the early Apostles, we do see mention of how Jesus suffered, died, and rose again; but nowhere do we see the painstakingly detailed accounts of His every bruise that we see exemplified in the “stations of the cross”. Could it be that the Catholic Church has grossly misunderstood Paul’s meaning when he talked about “preaching Christ crucified”?
Much of our church tradition, all of which originated in Rome, focuses solely on the New Testament, as though the first 2/3 of the Bible never existed. The early church so thoroughly rejected “Judaizers” that all of the foundational teaching and symbology, presented under the Old Covenant, were largely foreign to those who defined the doctrines of the church. Yet the whole idea of the blood atonement is almost ludicrous when divorced from the careful foreshadowing of Passover and the temple sacrifices.
So what we have inherited, instead of the consistent physical foreshadowing and then the spiritual fulfillment of God’s many lessons, first illustrated under the Old Covenant, is man’s manipulative demonstration of punishment and suffering instead. It is from this basic idea of God lashing out against Jesus that all of the imagery of the “Passion” is derived. But was God responsible for the brutality His Son endured at the hands of those whose sins He bore? Or is their entire focus misdirected and misplaced?
We know from Heb. 9:22, that “by the law almost all things are purged with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” God required the shedding of blood as the price for our sin – but not just a few drops. The price for our sin was the life of the man – or some other perfectly innocent substitute. This was the foundation of all of the various sacrifices and offerings under the Old Covenant – life for life. There was no “proportionality” to it: Sin resulted in death – period.
But since God is also a God of mercy, love and compassion, as well as a God of justice, He provided for a propitiatory sacrifice in which one life might be taken in exchange for another. The key to all of this being that whatever was being sacrificed must, of itself, be sinless. Otherwise its death would be meaningless, because it deserved to die for its own sins. He instituted the Passover and temple sacrifices with the full realization that they could not be anything more than symbolic of the perfect sacrifice, which was yet to come. The life of a bull or a lamb, no matter how perfect and costly, was still not the same as that of a man, who was made in God’s image, not in that of a beast.
Thus Jesus’ whole purpose in coming to earth was to provide that perfect sacrifice, made in God’s image, which would atone for the sins of man – as an equal, not merely as a symbol. This is why Paul’s focus was on His crucifixion, not on His sinless life. We see this misdirection among many Messianic believers today, who exalt their Messiah as a perfect keeper of Torah. His life was indeed sinless, and it serves as a model of how we should live; but if that were all He had done, it would have been useless, because rather than delivering us from our sin, His perfect life actually condemns us all, because we fail to measure up to that which He did flawlessly.
So it wasn’t His perfect life that was His gift to mankind. It was His death; and because of His willingness to obey His Father, even unto death, He earned His authority over all of creation, as well as the right to live forever. We, likewise, if we will obey His commandments, as we surrender and die to our own selfishness, can be transformed into the likeness of His brethren – not through our good deeds, but through our identification with His death and resurrection.
But is that the message being presented in “The Passion of The Christ”? In the movie, there is no intimation as to why He was even there, never mind what He accomplished, if anything, by His death. All that we do know – in incredible detail – are the real and imagined wounds He suffered. But to what purpose? Could a person, totally unfamiliar with the biblical story, derive any meaning from what is taking place? Emmerich’s vision was entitled “The Dolorous Passion of Christ”. The word “dolorous” means, “full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; and dismal.” These were precisely the feelings described by those who witnessed the atrocities depicted on the film.
Where is the conviction, hope, joy, and victory exemplified by the real crucifixion and resurrection? Passover, which was a foreshadowing celebration of His sacrifice is a joyous feast, filled with life and hope. There is none of that evident after witnessing “The Passion”. Why?
(By the way, the religious holiday, which most closely resembles that which is being portrayed in the film, was derived from paganism. It was the time in which the sun god, Tammuz, was put to death, and the people would mourn his death for 40 days, until he would be “resurrected” after the Vernal Equinox, on a festival called the Feast of Ishtar, from which we get the name and customs of our “Easter”. Reprobate Judah began to keep this time of mourning and weeping over the dead Tammuz, and God caused them to go into captivity in Babylon for their idolatry. Just for the record, folks, there is no 40-day mourning period associated with Jesus’ sacrifice. That which the church calls “Lent” was a “christianization” of the pagan “weeping over Tammuz”. Do you suppose He is any more tolerant today of assimilating paganism into the church, than He was in the days of Judah?)
God insisted upon a blood sacrifice, the death of the substitutionary victim, but not its torment and mistreatment. The Passover lamb, of which Jesus was the perfect fulfillment, was to be taken into the homes of those who would later sacrifice it, on the 10th day, to be coddled and treated as one of the family. When he was to be offered, the patriarch, or later the priest, was to slit its carotid artery in its neck with a sharp knife. It was considered wrong if the lamb felt any pain during the process. One pastor, who had once raised sheep, recounts killing one of his lambs this way, who, while it was bleeding to death, licked its own blood from off of his fingers in loving trust and affection. Do we see that depicted anywhere in the Catholic portrayal of Christ’s death?
The law also contained a curse, which applied to all of those who were called to walk under it, but who refused. They then became accursed of God, because of their self-willed disobedience. God also needed a way to remove this curse from His people. As Paul tells us, “Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. …Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangeth on a tree.’)” (Gal. 3:10, 13)
Jesus couldn’t die a simple death, lying upon an altar like the tens of thousands of cattle and sheep who had gone before Him. He had to die as an object of contempt – not God’s contempt, but that of the people whose curse He was bearing. Thus His mode of death was prescribed long before any such torture had ever been devised by man’s warped imagination. But even crucifixion didn’t involve the brutality that He suffered. God’s purposes would have been fulfilled if He had died a relatively placid death like the two thieves who surrounded Him.
But there was one other requirement for a proper sin offering. There had to be an act of identification with the sacrificial victim, and a symbolic transference of the person’s sin and guilt to the otherwise blameless creature: “If any man of you bring an offering to Yahweh… he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” (Lev. 1:2, 4) When the priests were making an offering for the sins of the nation, or when they were sending forth the scapegoat into the wilderness, they would likewise lay their hands upon its head, pronouncing their sins upon it. Before Jesus could bear the sins of the world, whether those of the religious establishment, the governing authorities, the military, or the common people, they all must representatively lay their hands upon Him, transferring their sin to Him who would atone for them.
All that this required was a gentle touch; but man’s nature is far from the calculated maneuverings of a priest. Natural man despises God. The testimony of that contempt is portrayed in Ps. 2:1-3: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people devise a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'”
Considering the wickedness and contempt for God that was stored up over 4000 years of life on earth, one couldn’t expect that their touch would be all that gentle. What Jesus did suffer at the hands of man, was the very fruit of that wickedness, which He was bearing on their behalf as He suffered His own unmerited death. This was not God’s symbolic punishment; this was the ungrateful rage of those, for whom He died to free them from their guilt. Thus when we meditate unendingly on the suffering He endured, as the Catholics insist we must, we are, in effect, glorifying man’s contempt for God, and his ingratitude for the sacrifice He Himself made on their behalf.
Are they rejoicing in His mercy, forgiveness, or the victory over death, and the freedom from sin that He wrought? Or are they testifying of man’s inherent contempt for God? Could this be why the movie leaves even believers with an empty, dead feeling?
God’s Passover Lamb brought with Him life out of death, hope out of despair, victory out of defeat, and joy out of suffering. But these gifts lie not in the wickedness with which selfish man received them, but in the person of the one who bestowed them on us. It is He alone who must be the focus of our communion – not what was done to Him.
Are our eyes and hearts drawn to the person of Jesus portrayed dripping with blood on the silver screen, like so many of the horror films these same special-effects people have “adorned” over the years? Is one’s response to what is being shown any more than that of great pity? Do we feast upon the Lamb that was slain, as we celebrate our Paschal offering of symbolic bread and blood? Or do we wallow in the cruelty of man, until its perversion creeps into our own souls? Isn’t it curious that the very same religious system, which has focused so obsessively on man’s cruel response to Christ’s innocence, has so often resorted to the precise same wrath against those people who sought to walk in humble obedience to His Commandments, rather than the emptiness of religious ritual? Could it be that a steady diet of this violence breeds the very same response within the hearts of those who profess to be serving Him?
What is the spiritual message portrayed by this misguided focus? Is it the hope and promise of a sinless eternal life, if we will just surrender our self-will as He did, and allow God to crucify our old Adamic nature? Or is the entire message directed toward reminding people of God’s awesome wrath towards sinners? God was so enraged over the sin that Jesus bore that He had Him brutally beaten and torn as a demonstration of what lies in store for those who break His commandments. Isn’t that the message presented within the lifeless walls of their “faith”? Isn’t this same theme carried over into the concept of Purgatory, where everyone is destined to suffer for all they’ve done, irrespective of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice?
Where is the victory of the cross? Or the power of His shed blood? It isn’t there, which is why they must endlessly repeat this image of torment, until the people become too shell-shocked to even think of sinning. Is this the message of salvation we wish to present to unbelievers? It’s wonderful to present Jesus to those who have never heard of Him; but let’s present the REAL Jesus, the One who emerged from the grave victorious, not the one who hangs pathetically, forever rejected and defeated, in front of the lost souls who frequent this cult.
Was God “punishing” Jesus? Was His horrible abuse the result of God’s contempt? Again, the Old Covenant law offers interesting insight, regarding where God’s expectation of justice left off, and man’s contempt took over: According to Lev. 22:24, “Ye shall not offer unto Yahweh that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut, neither shall ye make an offering thereof in your land.” If the high priest had presented such a brutally mistreated sacrifice to God as a sin offering, it would have been instantly rejected. God wasn’t interested in causing the sacrifice to suffer; He was merely interested in someone, or something, that would pay the sin debt.
The endless meditating on His torment, both real and imagined, is not something that God requires, or condones, to “frighten” us into obeying. That is man’s warped fleshly manipulation, which thinks that continually making a person afraid of retribution will bring about loving obedience. It doesn’t work that way!!
The Catholic Church makes a great effort in stressing the details about “eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood”, as described in the 6th chapter of John. The issue He presents is central to our faith; but their warped emphasis is on His torment, rather than His victory, which hopelessly distorts whatever good they could offer. For example, they readily quote verse 56, which tells us, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him.” Absolutely true! But you lose the whole point of what He was trying to convey as soon as you get hung up with the obsession that the bread and wine must be LITERAL flesh and blood.
Consider, if you will, the meaning of the next verse, if one insists that communion must involve the consumption of literal flesh and blood: “As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so that he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.” (vs. 57) He is drawing a direct comparison with the spiritual relationship He had with His Father, whereby He drew strength and empowerment directly from His Spirit. Thus we are to enjoy the same type of spiritual communion with Him that He enjoyed with the Father.
He makes no reference to the foolish idea of eating the literal flesh of God’s body, which the Roman Church can’t seem to get away from. Instead, He tells us, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (vs. 63) Almost in anticipation of the foolishness that has surrounded the whole issue of “literal flesh”, He tells those who will take the time to read the whole passage, that His actual flesh means nothing. It offers no benefit, nor must the spiritual act of communion involve any form of physical “transubstantiation”.
It is His words that impart the life of the Spirit; and one purposefully can’t understand any of them as presented in the Latin Mass, and then repeated in the Latin and Aramaic of Gibson’s movie. He has purposefully removed the real source of His spiritual life, substituting a false emphasis on the brutality of man’s contempt for God. How can one derive life from that? It is all death, which is why the fruit that it bears in the lives of its adherents is also death. Yet for 500 years, they have stubbornly insisted on this dogma of transubstantiation, condemning all who see past this error to eternal damnation, as well as an often quite literal death of their own. Now our great Evangelical leaders are telling everyone they must follow this same deceived path. Is it not the blind leading the blind?
Mel Gibson hasn’t expressed any hesitancy about the implied association between the suffering graphically presented in his movie, and the perpetual, and ineffectual, sacrifice of the Eucharist during the daily Mass. Why this sudden surge of interest in something that people are fleeing the Catholic Church in droves to avoid? If it were as life-giving and spiritually genuine as they pretend, it wouldn’t take a movie to draw people to it.
How, also, will the Evangelical Community resist the morphing of their communion back into a Eucharistic Feast, now that they’ve told people that meditating on death and violence is the same as eating of His Tree of Life? Will all of the professing church soon devolve into Eucharistic services, seeing that many ecumenically-minded churches already use the two words interchangeably, as though they were coequal?
New Age witch, Barbara Marx Hubbard, (heiress to the Marx toy fortune), wrote a book purporting to be a “true” explanation of the Bible, revealed to her by a familiar spirit whom she calls “Jesus”. In it, she speaks of a “Great Cosmic Moment”, in which all who are spiritually open and prepared will be ushered into “Christ-Consciousness” – (a state, which curiously bears a striking resemblance to that proposed by certain of the Manifested Sons).
Central to this transformation is the universal adoption of the Eucharist, because, as she correctly concludes, “The Sacrament serves as a direct source of guidance.” The Eucharist feast is a spiritual communion, in which sincere participants, as well as the unwary, begin to receive spiritual power and instruction by the act of taking this substance into their bodies. But are these instructions from God; or is it demonic? As Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruit.” Is there an impartation of the genuine life of Christ? Or does it leave the receiver “desolate” – despite his sincere zeal and belief that he is serving God?
This demonic entity revealed the true essence of this universal Eucharist, (which the pope has been urging Catholics to legislate as compulsory in their respective nations): “The bread and wine hold within them the substance of my new body. …[D]o the communion and experience my body transforming yours. Do this in preparation for the Planetary Birth which will be induced through this experience given to the new disciples of Christ who choose to work together for the Planetary Pentecost, when the Spirit of God is poured out upon all people.
“…[Y]our actions will be aligned by the substance of the Eucharist. By entering into your body, my body can orient your actions from the source… [This is referred to as an “initiation” among occultists, or more familiarly as “demon possession” among Christians. – Ed.] Do not abandon my church …transform my church into a new vehicle for the new beginnings, for the Planetary Birth.
“…It is the sacrament given to the founders of a New Order. …[T]he bread and the wine was experienced as a new substance. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people have since incorporated the spiritual substance of the Christ, thus establishing a powerful field of consciousness.”
I want us to pause a moment and consider a strange detail about Gibson’s choice of a title for his movie. He called it “The Passion of The Christ”, rather than “The Passion of Jesus Christ”. The New Age has its own coded vocabulary, much as churchianity does. They never speak of Jesus as being Christ, or God’s Anointed; but they always refer to “The Christ” as though it were a title open for anyone to claim, which in their mind, it is. The demon told Barbara Marx Hubbard that the Eucharist contained the spiritual substance of “The Christ”, while Gibson has provided a valuable tool in opening people’s hearts into receiving of this false spirit, through this widely accepted practice.
This process is already taking place everywhere you look, and Mr. Gibson, along with a host of willing-but-naive Christian leaders have provided a great advertising vehicle for this process of deceiving all of mankind. Isn’t it curious that many of those who are providing the greatest push of this deceptive “outreach” are also the same ones who have been deceiving their followers that they have nothing to fear from any of this, because they’ll all be “raptured”, before they’ll need to worry?
Paul warns us, “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of devils.” (1 Cor. 10:31) Let he who has ears to hear respond to what the Spirit is saying.