Others like the power of persistent prayer Features >>
About the Book
"The Power of Persistent Prayer" by Cindy Jacobs explores the importance and effectiveness of persistent prayer in a believer's life. Jacobs highlights the significance of consistent prayer, shares personal experiences, and offers practical tips for enhancing one's prayer life. Through this book, readers are encouraged to persevere in prayer and experience the transformative power of persistent communication with God.
Gordon Lindsay
Gordon Lindsayâs Early life
Gordon Lindsayâs parents were members of J. A. Dowieâs Zion City, Illinois when he was born. The cityâs financial difficulties forced the family west in 1904, where they temporarily joined another Christian-based community led by Finis Yoakum at Pisgah Grande, California. When similar problems emerged the family moved to Oregon after only a few months. From here the family moved to Portland, Oregon where Lindsay attended high school and was converted during a Charles F. Parham evangelistic campaign.
During his youth he came under the influence of John G. Lake, former resident of Zion City, missionary to South Africa, and founder of the Divine Healing missions in Spokane, Washington, and Portland, Oregon in 1920. Lindsay joined the healing and evangelistic campaigns of Lake, traveling throughout California and the southern states.
Lindsay began his own ministry in California as pastor of small churches in Avenal and San Fernando and for the next eighteen years, he travelled acros s the country holding revivals in full gospel churches. This period of travel prepared him as perhaps no other man in the nation to establish communication among a variety of Pentecostals.
When World War II began, Lindsay felt compelled to give up his evangelistic ministry because its rigorous lifestyle was taking its toll on his young family. He accepted a call to pastor a church in Ashland, Oregon.
William Branham enters Gordon Lindsayâs life
By 1947 he had witnessed the extraordinary ministry of William Branham and responded to the invitation to become Branhamâs manager. His managerial skills were soon obvious in the Branham campaigns, and in April 1948, he furthered the cause of the of the revival when he produced the first issue of The Voice of Healing, specifically to promote Branhamâs ministry. To Lindsayâs great surprise Branham announced that he âwould not continue on the field more than a few weeks more.â
At great financial cost Lindsay decided to continue the publication of the new magazine in cooperation with his long-time friends, Jack Moore and his talented daughter Anna Jeanne Moore. He broadened the scope of the magazine by including more of the lesser known healing evangelists who were beginning to hold campaigns and were drawing large audiences.
One such evangelist was William Freeman who had been holding meetings in small churches. Lindsay visited one of his campaigns and immediately felt it was the will of God to team up with him and organise a series of meetings through 1948. The Voice of Healing featured the miracles of the Freeman campaigns.
Voice of Healing Conventions
By March 1949 The Voice of Healing circulation had grown to nearly 30,000 per month and had clearly become the voice of the healing movement. Itâs pages successfully spread the message of the Salvation-Deliverance-Healing revival across the world.
In December 1949, Lindsay arranged the first convention of healing revivalists in Dallas, Texas. The assembly was addressed by Branham, Lindsay, Moore, old-timers such as F. F. Bosworth and Raymond T. Richey, and a number of rising revivalists including O. L. Jaggers, Gayle Jackson, Velmer Gardner, and Clifton Erickson. This historic conference symbolized the vitality and cohesion of the revival.
The following year, the convention, now about 1,000 strong, met in Kansas City, with virtually every important revivalist in the nation, with the notable exceptions of William Branham and Oral Roberts. Lindsay exercised great skill and wisdom exposing several points of danger and tension in the movement proposed guidelines for the future. Lindsay understood the fears of the older Pentecostal denominations and leaders and tried his utmost to deal with the offending issues.
In an article announcing âthe purpose, plan and policy of the Voice of Healing Convention,â he denounced âfree-lancers who violently and indiscriminately attack organization in general,â and he urged avoidance of ânovel prophetic interpretations, dogmatic doctrinal assertions, sectarian predilections, theological hair-splitting.â
The Voice of Healing Association
The 1950 meeting made the Voice of Healing convention into a loose association of healing revivalists. The evangelists officially associated with The Voice of Healing magazine held âfamily meetingsâ at the conventions, at the same time maintaining their desire to âprove to the world that those associated with The Voice of Healing have no intention to organize another movement.â Through the decade the Voice of Healing conventions were showcases for healing revivalism.
The conference programs were workshops on the problems of healing evangelists. Typical topics were âprayer and fasting,â âpreparation for a campaign,â âthe follow-up work after a campaign,â âthe system of cards for the prayer tent and the healing lineâ and the delicate issue of finances. As the association grew in importance in the 1950s, the program was frequently headed by Roberts or Branham; though every new revivalist aspired to be a speaker on the program.
The Voice of Healing family of evangelists flowered in the early 1950s. Lindsay continued to publicize Branhamâs work, although he was not formally associated with the organization; the nucleus of the fellowship was an influential clique which included O. L. Jaggers, William Freeman, Jack Coe, T. L. Osborn, A. A. Allen, and Velmer Gardner.
Gradually major ministries began their own magazines and had no further need for Voice of Healing promotion. Nevertheless, by 1954 the âassociate editors and evangelistsâ listed in The Voice of Healing numbered nearly fifty.
Though Lindsay became personally involved with healing evangelism from 1949, especially with other revivalists such as T. L. Osborn, he confined his best work to organization and management of the Voice of Healing magazine. By 1956 the expenses of the Voice of Healing were running $1,000 a day. In addition to the national and regional conventions sponsored by his organization, Lindsay also began to sponsor missions and a radio program.
âLindsay was more than an advisor during the first decade of the healing revival; he was much like the director of an unruly orchestra. He tried desperately to control the proliferation of ministries in an effort to keep the revival respectable. He repeatedly advised, âIt is better for one to go slow. Get your ministry on a solid foundation. . . . By all means avoid Hollywood press agent stuff.â
Many of the new leaders of the early 1950s owed their early success to the literary support of Gordon Lindsay through the Voice of Healing, but by 1958, many of the revivalists believed that Lindsayâs work was over.
An evolving ministry
Lindsayâs efforts to consolidate and coordinate the healing movement and its ministries became an impossible task. The increasing independence of ministries and the burgeoning charismatic movement caused Lindsay to reconsider his goals. He took the example of T. L. Osborn and concentrated on missionary endeavours. He remained the historian and theologian of the healing movement but began to produce teaching and evangelistic materials which were sent across the world.
The Voice of Healing ultimately became Christ for the Nations. Native church programs, literature, teaching tapes and funds were distributed to hundreds of locations. The organization had changed from one of healing revivalists into an important missionary society.
His ministry was always to those involved in the healing revival, independents and mainline Pentecostals, but the new charismatics â Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists â became his new audience. His encouragement of, and involvement with, the Full Gospel Businessmenâs Fellowship was designed to provide teaching and wisdom for charismatic leaders, many of whom held Lindsay in high regard.
His death on April 1st 1971
Suddenly, on April 1, 1973, Gordon Lindsay died. His wife, Freda, stepped into the breach and was able to stabilize and advance the ministry of Christ for the Nations. Lindsayâs death brought unparalleled financial support paying off all debts and expanding most of its programs.
David Harrel summarises the life of Gordon Lindsay perfectly: âThe death of Gordon Lindsay closed a major chapter in the charismatic revival. No single man knew the revival and its leaders so well. No man understood its origins, its changes, and its diversity as did Lindsay. A shrewd manager and financier, Lindsay had been as nearly the coordinator of the healing revival as any man could be.
When the revival began to wane, Lindsay was faced with a crisis more severe than those of most of the evangelists themselves. Never a dynamic preacher, he found himself virtually abandoned by his most successful protĂ©gĂ©s. But Lindsay proved able to adapt. Always a balanced person, Lindsay built a balanced and enduring ministry.â
Tony Cauchi
What Is Lifeâs Ultimate Good
Dear Dan, I agree; any view that has God as the foundation of morality â like the Christian view I described in my last letter â will have further, serious issues to address. In fact, your two objections get at the most central ones. Let me respond to both. What Makes Godâs Laws Good? Your first objection has a great pedigree and can be traced all the way back to Plato. Namely, what makes Godâs moral laws â his moral values â good? Does he like these laws because they are good? Or are they good because he likes them? Either way seems to spell trouble for Christianity. Take the first option. Are Godâs laws good because they meet some separate standard of good, one âoutsideâ of God? If so, God has to defer to â is beholden to â some higher authority. And thatâs impossible, according to Christianity. But the alternative seems just as bad. If Godâs laws are good because he likes them, it makes morality seem arbitrary, dependent merely on his personal tastes or whims. After all, what if he had preferred things like murder, rape, and torture? Would these therefore be good? Do we really want to define âgoodâ as âwhat God likes,â similar to the way âcoolnessâ is just whatever the cool kids like? Wouldnât this rob statements like âGod is goodâ of all significance, reducing them to saying merely that âGod is the way he isâ? Again, neither choice looks very promising. So, which horn of the dilemma should the Christian choose? Goodness Is Godness I think the second option is the right one: Godâs laws are good because he likes them. That is, anything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness. So then, is the phrase âGod is goodâ nothing but an empty tautology, saying no more than âGod is Godâ? âAnything that God likes or values is good by definition. Goodness just is Godness.â Well, no. In this specific context, where weâre defining âgood,â âGod is goodâ tells us something informative â namely, that Godâs values are what make things morally good. But in most other contexts, when we say, âGod is goodâ we can generally take for granted which properties or characteristics go on the âgoodâ list. In these ordinary cases, âGod is goodâ expresses something different â for example, âHereâs what God is like: he hates lying, murder, stealing â things we all agree are bad.â But then, if goodness is defined as whatever God likes, doesnât my view mean that murder and rape would have been good if God had liked them? In a sense, perhaps; at least their advocacy would have been included in his moral laws. But remember that weâre currently defining âgood,â and I think some of the rhetorical force of the wouldnât-rape-therefore-be-good objection comes from ignoring this context. After all, it seems that regardless of what we say ultimately âmakesâ something good, if that âgood-makerâ were different, good would be different. And in any case, the traditional Christian view of God holds that he couldnât have liked these things, that itâs logically impossible for God to be different than he is, just as a square couldnât fail to have four equal sides. It turns out, therefore, that things arenât as nearly as bad as the objection initially implied. Why Follow Godâs Moral Law? Then thereâs your second objection: why should we follow Godâs laws? Is it because, if we donât, heâll submit us to everlasting punishment? Should we follow Godâs laws simply to avoid pain? Does it turn out, after all, that morality is merely a matter of might makes right? Well, I think Christians should acknowledge that avoiding pain and suffering is a good reason to follow Godâs moral laws. Moreover, I concede that this would be a genuine problem â if this were the only reason for obeying God. And as I said, even this reason isnât without its virtues. After all, if we think of God as a parent â which the Bible encourages us to do â itâs a perfectly good reason, morally as well as rationally. As children we often obeyed our parents, in part, to avoid discipline. In fact, this was the reason for discipline in the first place â to help motivate us to obey. But of course, our obedience wasnât merely motivated by a fear of discipline. We also obeyed our parents because we loved and trusted them. We knew that their requirements were an integral part of their deep love and affection for us, that they gave us these rules to benefit us. Their laws were evidence of our parentsâ love. This interweaving of love and law, this close relation between our love for our parents, their love for us, and their moral values (that is, their moral loves) usually resulted in us adopting their morals; their values naturally became our values. We liked these values. And it didnât stop with moral values; we sometimes adopted our parentsâ values about sports teams, movies, and music â again, sometimes simply because we loved them. So, according to my view, we ought to follow Godâs laws because, ultimately, we want to â and the main reason we want to is that we love him. In this way, morality is ultimately personal and grounded in what we love. Meaning of Life The personal aspect of value isnât limited to moral value; itâs a component of all value, including lifeâs ultimate value. What we might call lifeâs ultimate meaning or purpose is perhaps the most important topic of all. So, what is our ultimate value, meaning, purpose, or goal in life? Well, suppose youâre right that thereâs no God. The meaning of life, then, would be like all value in a godless cosmos: subjective and relative. And because each person has his own values, there would be as many meanings of life as there are persons. In such a world, there would be no objective meaning that life has. But according to Christianity, humans have been made for something, for a purpose. Moreover, this purpose does not depend on us, and so, in this sense, itâs objective, human-independent. And because we were designed for a specific purpose, humans will only truly flourish and thrive by fulfilling this purpose. Fulfilling Godâs purpose for us is lifeâs ultimate meaning. That doesnât mean that, in a world without God, humans could not find some measure of meaning or value in things like family, work, art, gardening, or whatever. But unless these individual goods are put into the context of the much larger, overall purpose, they will never be as meaningful (to us) as they could be. Only by fulfilling this ultimate purpose is our meaning of life maximized. What Are Humans For? What is this larger context or purpose? What were we made for? We find a hint by noticing that, for many of us, relationships and community are what we most value, where we find our greatest fulfillment. We flourish best in community with people we love. And this fact is entirely in line with the Christian view that our ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself. Christianity is of one voice on this. As one famous confession says, our ultimate purpose âis to glorify God and enjoy him forever.â Indeed, God is a loving relationship, as odd as that sounds. The mysterious doctrine of the Trinity says that the Godhead is an intimate community of three (divine) persons. Thatâs what he is. (This is one reason why monistic religions canât truly make sense of the view that God is love: Who was God loving before he created persons other than himself? Such a being couldnât essentially be love; at best, he would need creatures in order to love.) âOur ultimate purpose is to know and love the ultimate Person, God himself.â Notice that the centrality of relationships is also evident when Jesus sums up all of Godâs laws in just two: love God and love your neighbor. The moral law â and, not coincidentally, lifeâs ultimate meaning â is about relationships, both human and divine. God, then, created humans for his own purpose. Our purpose â the meaning of life â is also importantly objective, just as morality is: it is human-independent. Yet itâs obvious that we can and do reject Godâs purpose for us. In fact, the gospel message â and the entire Bible â is predicated on such rejection. But God has given us another chance to truly flourish, to find ultimate meaning through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He has made this possible at an immense cost to himself. Dan, I get why you would reject Christianity, viewing it as you do from the outside. I hope youâll continue to consider all this and at least begin to sense that genuine atheism might be a lot different from your current âkinder, gentlerâ version. I also hope that in the process youâll reconsider Christianityâs claims â in particular, Jesusâs offering of himself and the relationship you were made for. Article by Mitch Stokes