Decree and Declare Favor of the Lord?

[Muzhik]

I just finished reading this article (‘Pastors’ Lay Hands on ‘President-to-Be Clinton’ to ‘Decree and Declare Favor of the Lord’) which included this quote of the blessing that was given to Secretary Clinton:

“Until He comes again, Secretary Clinton and President-to-be Clinton, we decree and declare from the crown of your head to the soles of your feet that the favor of the Lord will surround you like a shield, in Jesus’ name,” the clergy said, repeating after Kirbyjon Caldwell, who leads Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.

My question has to do with the “decree and declare” part of the blessing (not sure what else to call it but a blessing). I know what Scripture says will happen to a prophet who says, “Thus sayeth the Lord” when the Lord has not given him anything to say on His behalf. By decreeing and declaring that Secretary Clinton is now surrounded in the favor of the Lord, does this count as the same offense against G_D as does declaring “Thus sayeth the Lord” without His permission or approval?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Usually you wait till the Ruler is enthroned before offering a coronation for them.

 

[pianistclare]

+1

 

[Muzhik]

Usually you wait till the Ruler is enthroned before offering a coronation for them.

That’s what I was thinking too. It strikes me as a tad arrogant, and a declaration that she is GOD’S candidate. What happens to the people who support someone else for President? Are they now cursed for rejecting this “favor of the Lord”?

 

[Reuben_J]

I just finished reading this article (‘Pastors’ Lay Hands on ‘President-to-Be Clinton’ to ‘Decree and Declare Favor of the Lord’) which included this quote of the blessing that was given to Secretary Clinton:

“Until He comes again, Secretary Clinton and President-to-be Clinton, we decree and declare from the crown of your head to the soles of your feet that the favor of the Lord will surround you like a shield, in Jesus’ name,” the clergy said, repeating after Kirbyjon Caldwell, who leads Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.

My question has to do with the “decree and declare” part of the blessing (not sure what else to call it but a blessing). I know what Scripture says will happen to a prophet who says, “Thus sayeth the Lord” when the Lord has not given him anything to say on His behalf. By decreeing and declaring that Secretary Clinton is now surrounded in the favor of the Lord, does this count as the same offense against G_D as does declaring “Thus sayeth the Lord” without His permission or approval?

I think it is the way they pray. Not sure the explanation for it but it is nothing more than just a prayer. I think.

 

[sticknstring73]

I guess these are the end times after all.

 

[ltwin]

I think it is the way they pray. Not sure the explanation for it but it is nothing more than just a prayer. I think.

Yes, it is a blessing common in Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity. Sarah Plain received much the same back in 2008 at an Assemblies of God church in Alaska by the African preacher and “witch hunter” Thomas Muthee.

Obviously, many of these pastors have expressed support for her campaign so they probably want her to become President. But if you went to these churches, you would probably here the pastor pray over people starting any big endeavor in the same way. The guy using his savings to start a business would be “decreed and declared” over for God’s favor. The woman facing a medical operation would also be “decreed and declared” over. It’s just a way to bless this person and remind them that they are beloved of God and that he will give them grace to persevere.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s what I was thinking too. It strikes me as a tad arrogant, and a declaration that she is GOD’S candidate. What happens to the people who support someone else for President? Are they now cursed for rejecting this “favor of the Lord”?

logical observations.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, it is a blessing common in Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity. Sarah Plain received much the same back in 2008 at an Assemblies of God church in Alaska by the African preacher and “witch hunter” Thomas Muthee.

Obviously, many of these pastors have expressed support for her campaign so they probably want her to become President. But if you went to these churches, you would probably here the pastor pray over people starting any big endeavor in the same way. The guy using his savings to start a business would be “decreed and declared” over for God’s favor. The woman facing a medical operation would also be “decreed and declared” over. It’s just a way to bless this person and remind them that they are beloved of God and that he will give them grace to persevere.

Thanks for the explanation. We Catholics would have problem with praying like this but it is mainly out of misunderstanding of its usage. It would make sense when one notes that it ends in ‘Jesus name’, meaning that the prayer is said in the confidence of faith that when it is in the name if Jesus, the name being above all other names, one have to be confident that one’s prayer is heard.

Interesting, because prayer is conversation with God, but expressed in wide range of
pluralities.

Catholics traditionally end their prayers with ‘through Christ our Lord’ and in a formal congregational setting like the mass, the priest would end by invoking all the names of the Trinity. Catholics who are comfortable in another spirituality would also use Jesus’ name in prayer. Of course, there are times when we pray by calling the names of the saints.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s what I was thinking too. It strikes me as a tad arrogant, and a declaration that she is GOD’S candidate. What happens to the people who support someone else for President? Are they now cursed for rejecting this “favor of the Lord”?

I still think this is a good observation, and I will go as far as saying I feel it leans on the side of political gimmick.

 

[ltwin]

I still think this is a good observation, and I will go as far as saying I feel it leans on the side of political gimmick.

Yeah, pretty much. But it’s really no different from when the church anointed European monarchs in the Middle Ages (and still does today in the case of the Church of England and the British sovereign).

 

[Muzhik]

Yeah, pretty much. But it’s really no different from when the church anointed European monarchs in the Middle Ages (and still does today in the case of the Church of England and the British sovereign).

There are LOADS of differences! I’d feel a lot more comfortable if they had inserted something like, “…Secretary Clinton and, if it be God’s will, President-to-be-Clinton…” To call for protection to be upon her in her title of “Secretary Clinton” is well and good; but the way the blessing is phrased, it is not a prayer that G_D grant her the new title, it is a statement declaring that this new title is what G_D has ordained.

As far as blessings on monarchs go, those blessings were not declared until after the monarch had been crowned, or as part of the crowning ceremony. IOW, not until AFTER the person had been en-titled with that title. They are declaring that she has **already **been granted that title “in the Name of Jesus”.

Dangerous, indeed. Dangerous for both Secretary Clinton and for the ministers proclaiming this blessing.

 

[Reuben_J]

There are LOADS of differences! I’d feel a lot more comfortable if they had inserted something like, “…Secretary Clinton and, if it be God’s will, President-to-be-Clinton…” To call for protection to be upon her in her title of “Secretary Clinton” is well and good; but the way the blessing is phrased, it is not a prayer that G_D grant her the new title, it is a statement declaring that this new title is what G_D has ordained.

As far as blessings on monarchs go, those blessings were not declared until after the monarch had been crowned, or as part of the crowning ceremony. IOW, not until AFTER the person had been en-titled with that title. They are declaring that she has **already **been granted that title “in the Name of Jesus”.

Dangerous, indeed. Dangerous for both Secretary Clinton and for the ministers proclaiming this blessing.

I agree with you if they are saying something in a prayer which is not. It can be a false prayer.

But was that how they meant it? If that was, then it is very surprising that they should use wrong fact in a prayer. It is like me praying, “I declare that I am a Pope. In Jesus name. Amen”.

 

[Muzhik]

I agree with you if they are saying something in a prayer which is not. It can be a false prayer.

But was that how they meant it? If that was, then it is very surprising that they should use wrong fact in a prayer. It is like me praying, “I declare that I am a Pope. In Jesus name. Amen”.

My guess is that they are part of the “Name It and Claim It” movement. This is where (for example) instead of asking G_D to cure your cancer, you thank G_D in advance for removing the cancer from your body. It is a demonstration of faith that G_D **will **heal you because you have asked Him in faith to do so. I do that frequently myself, thanking G_D in advance for providing the funds to fix XYZ on my car.

The difficulty I see is that, while it is well and good to pray in faith to G_D, frequently this prayer doesn’t allow for the possibility that G_D might be planning on using your cancer to help someone else. I rarely hear people using this form of prayer of saying things like, “If it is Your will”, since they think that expressing any hesitation shows a lack of faith in the goodness of G_D, a lack of faith that G_D will provide.

If this is the case, then they are declaring that G_D will make Clinton President because they have prayed in faith that it WILL happen and because they have named the blessing and claimed it.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

 

[Reuben_J]

My guess is that they are part of the “Name It and Claim It” movement. This is where (for example) instead of asking G_D to cure your cancer, you thank G_D in advance for removing the cancer from your body. It is a demonstration of faith that G_D **will **heal you because you have asked Him in faith to do so. I do that frequently myself, thanking G_D in advance for providing the funds to fix XYZ on my car.

The difficulty I see is that, while it is well and good to pray in faith to G_D, frequently this prayer doesn’t allow for the possibility that G_D might be planning on using your cancer to help someone else. I rarely hear people using this form of prayer of saying things like, “If it is Your will”, since they think that expressing any hesitation shows a lack of faith in the goodness of G_D, a lack of faith that G_D will provide.

If this is the case, then they are declaring that G_D will make Clinton President because they have prayed in faith that it WILL happen and because they have named the blessing and claimed it.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Thank you. I can understand why we Catholics do not pray like that.

While big leeway is given for the way we pray, meaning there are wide varieties of prayers, and we cannot say any of them are wrong ways to pray, yet it is must contain humility and truth in them. Including “If it is Your will” usually qualify them, for one.

I also object to the insinuation that it implies lack of faith because it does not but recognizing that God has the final prerogative, not the praying person.

It reminds me when we open prayers of petition/thanksgiving to the congregation, especially in a small prayer meeting situation where members attending are known to each other. Anyone can say a prayer aloud and the rest would respond, “Lord, graciously hear us.”

We often remind each other that our prayer should be in proper order remembering that the rest would be agreeing to it in a response. At least those were directly asking God or giving thanks to Him.

 

[Muzhik]

This is almost like the same thing:

God Rains Down Divine Retribution Upon Detractors of Israel

the first part of the article I can get into. I do believe that G_D “… will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” But the second part of the article, describing what the rabbis did, is shocking. I think it goes beyond imprecatory prayer (praying that G_D punish someone else and cause misfortune to that person) and I think constitutes magik – something forbidden in Scripture.

The good rabbis, I fear, need to exercise caution and restraint, lest they follow the path of the rabbi of Prague, who created the Golem for protection and wound up being destroyed by it.