Exposing a most insidious teaching that plagues many young Christians today...

::::::::

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. - Ephesians 5: 25-30 (ESV)

I have referred before in my writing to the heretical bridal paradigm preached by Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. This is a theology that over sexualizes Jesus to a sickening point. It feeds our basest flesh instincts and not our Spirit. It is a dangerous teaching that misleads thousands upon thousands of younger Christians. Before I had not gone into detail about it but I discovered today that Bickle has now placed an affirmation of this heresy on the IHOP website, probably in response to the outpouring of correct criticisms he has received. However, this affirmation only further reveals the debauched mindset of Bickle, IHOP and the bridal paradigm. Let us review it piece by piece with the Bible as our guide.

We affirm that the Bridegroom message is about Jesus' emotions for us, His beauty, His commitments to us (to share His heart, home, throne, secrets, and beauty), and our response of wholehearted love and obedience to Him. This message starts with experiencing Jesus' heart, emotions, and affections for us, and understanding that He delights in us, enjoys us, values our work, and calls us to partner with Him in ministry.

It starts out with some clever mixing of truth and deception. Most insidious theologies do. The devil did not outright lie to Eve in the garden. He mixed enough truth to get her to think and consider. We most certainly are to respond to God in wholehearted love and obedience. The problem we start to see already is this mixing of human emotion with God. This mixing of the way our flesh thinks with spiritual matters. God's emotions are always rooted in His holiness. He cannot change who He is. When you use words like "His beauty and commitments" what is the over-arching message? What is that terminology most likely to spark in a fleshly human? Relationships, specifically human relationships. It is the beginning of trying to transform Jesus into our mate. As for His beauty:

Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. - Isaiah 53: 1-3 (ESV)

We see here from Isaiah describing the yet to come Jesus, that He was despised and rejected. He had no beauty that we would desire Him. God does not want superficiality. He does not think as we do with our flesh. There is no "bridegroom message" about His beauty unless you are speaking spiritually. To those who are saved the cross is beautiful because of the sacrifice made upon it, not something physical to desire. Back to the opening statement, we see a continued usage of carnal terms to describe Jesus. He just wants to share His heart with us! Oh and His secrets! Jesus has secrets He wants to share with you! His home too - He wants us to move in with Him! The worldly language continues. He wants us to experience His emotions and affections for us. He delights in us and enjoys us and seeks to partner with us"in ministry of course. The ground work however has been laid.

We affirm that the bridal paradigm refers to having a bridal perspective of the kingdom. As Christians, we see the kingdom through the eyes of a bride, with wholehearted, loyal love for God. There are many paradigms of the kingdom of God in Scripture, including agricultural, military, and economic paradigms. The Spirit uses the bridal paradigm of the kingdom to transform our hearts, so that the first and great commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Mt. 22:37--38) might take first place in our lives.

Here we start to see the deception full board. There is no bridal paradigm. Mike Bickle made it up. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to have a "bridal perspective" of the kingdom of God. One of the main problems with this perspective is the allegory becomes personalized. Instead of the church as a whole being the bride, we become it personally. That is simply unsupported in Scripture. Our key verses today spell out where a great deal of this heresy originates from. In these verses Jesus is making a comparison. The Him the church is His bride. It is a picture for us that we can understand. Jesus presents the church unto Himself after He has sanctified her through His Word. So to create a paradigm that turns what is holy into what is carnal, is not sanctifying the church. It is sullying her. The entire paradigm doesn't work anyway because Christ is the head and we are part of His body. So the entire amorous connotations fall flat in light of Scripture. The word cherish means to treat as dear. We the church are precious to Christ. So precious that He died on a cross for our sins. That is the paradigm we need to be focusing on. Then Bickle doubles down and claims that the Spirit uses this heresy to transform our hearts so that the great commandment can take first place in our lives? Seriously? So anyone who doesn't buy into this nonsense does not have their heart transformed? They don't have the great commandment as being first in their lives? There is also nothing remotely romantic about the Scripture he references:

And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. - Matthew 22: 37-38 (ESV)

There is no understanding the affections of Christ in this. At best the bridal paradigm seeks to exploit loving God with all our heart but it does so by throwing our mind under the bus. Even then it is a poor understanding of our wickedly deceptive heart. It is that wickedness that this teaching plays to. The "affirmation" continues:

We deny, we refuse, all sensual overtones in proclaiming Jesus as the Bridegroom. Jesus is not our lover or boyfriend. We do not go on "dates" with Jesus. Receiving the "kiss of God's Word" (Song 1:2) has nothing to do with physically kissing God. Neither the spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon nor references to "the romance of the gospel" have anything to do with sensuality, but with the adventuresome love that is filled with a spirit of abandonment that sacrificially loves and obeys Jesus. An example of this is seen when Paul and Silas sang songs of love to Jesus after being beaten and thrown into prison (Acts 16:22--26).

So now Mike Bickle gets to the criticisms he has received for this drivel and he is trying to pretend that everyone else is wrong. Everyone else must be misunderstanding his paradigm. Jesus is not our lover or boyfriend? Really? Perhaps he did not get this memo to his lead worship singer, Misty Edwards. Here are some of her greatest lyrical hits:

Song 1

I am lovesick, for my Beloved
My Beloved and my Friend
Only YOU can satisfy
Try as I may to chase another Lover
I find there is, there is no other
For only YOU can satisfy

Song 2

For God is a Lover
Looking for a lover so He fashioned me
God is a Lover
Looking for a lover so
He formed my heart
God is a Lover
Looking for a lover so He fashioned me
God is a Lover
Looking for a lover...

Song 3

Come be the fire inside of me
Come be the flame upon my heart
Come be the fire inside of me
Until You and I are one

I could go on and on but I think the point has been made. Don't tell me where you stand on your affirmation page when what you do and endorse every week is the opposite. These lyrics are soft core pornography. If Jesus is not our Lover Mike, why do you keep making "worship" songs that call Him such? The "kiss of God's Word has nothing to do with a physical kiss yet you reference Song of Solomon 1:2?

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine; - Song of Solomon 1: 2 (ESV)

The reference you give is specifically for a physical kiss! The larger problem is the reliance on the Song of Solomon to prop up this false paradigm. No book in the Bible is less understood than Song of Solomon. I look at it as Warren Wiersbe did:

"While the Song of Solomon illustrates the deepening love we can have with Christ, we must be careful not to turn the story into an allegory and make everything mean something." - WW

We should do well to remember the author of Song of Solomon as well. Solomon did not exactly have a great track record when it came to women. He had 1000 wives and concubines and despite explicit warnings from God, he married foreign women who eventually led him into idol worship. Back to the Bickle comments. So you correctly affirm that Song of Solomon has nothing to do with sensuality but then admit to using phrases such as "the romance of the Gospel? Seriously? I think we are adults here Mike. I think we know what the word romance means. It is related to eros love. Yet the love God has for us is spiritual; agape love. The Word also deals with phileo love, which is a brotherly love. It is how we are to treat each other. Neither has anything to do with eros love and neither has anything to do with romance. What exactly is the point of using phrases like "the adventuresome love that is filled with the spirit of abandonment?" Can you be more sensual and less biblical than that? You will not find such language in Scripture but rather in the latest trashy romance novel or the new 50 Shades of Grey movie. You can try to couch things by throwing in "loves and obey Jesus" but it is surrounded with such blinding carnality, I am left wondering what was the point? Lastly on this portion, can you be anymore dishonest in abusing Acts 16: 22-26?

The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them,and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bonds were unfastened. - Acts 16: 22-26 (ESV)

They were beaten to within an inch of their lives and thrown into a dungeon. In the inner prison with their feet in stocks. They were praying Mike, praying. They were also singing hymns that I am confident did not contain any Misty Edwards-esque lyrics. How in the world can you turn that picture into just "singing songs of love to Jesus" and supporting a bridal paradigm is beyond me. We continue with the affirmation:

Jesus was the first to introduce the bridal paradigm to the Church. He referred to Himself as a bridegroom (Mt. 9:15); He compared the kingdom to His Father arranging a marriage for Him (Mt. 22:2); He described ministry as those encountering Him as a bridegroom (Mt. 25:1); He will return in answer to the prayers of His Church crying out in her bridal identity--"The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!'" (Rev. 22:17).

Jesus did not introduce the bridal paradigm. Matthew 9:15 is in a section dealing with fasting! He used the allegory of a bridegroom to make His point. The misuse of Matthew 22:2 is more staggering. This was a parable about salvation! Matthew 25:1 is another salvation parable. Yes in these parables Jesus is the bridegroom but that does not mean you take them and create paradigms and theology out of thin air. It certainly does not mean you over-romanticize or sexualize them either. The Revelation Scripture is presented correctly but he overlooks once again that this is not a personal identity but a collective one as His church. Bickle's Scriptural gymnastics are startlingly abusive to try and prop up his paradigm. The affirmation concludes:

Passages that point to Jesus as the Bridegroom God: Isaiah 54:4--12; 62:2--5; Jeremiah 2:2; 3:14; 31:32, Ezekiel 16:13--15, 32; 23:1--45; Hosea 1:2; 2:7, 14--23; 3:1--5; Matthew 9:15; 22:1--14; 25:1--13; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25-32; Revelation 19:7-9; 21:9; 22:17.

I am not going to go through these one at a time because the point has been made and no is disputing that God uses the imagery of the church being His bride, which makes Him the bridegroom in that analogy. The problem is to take verses wildly out of context or with absurd hermeneutics and cobble them together to create a fantasy paradigm laced with sexual overtones and romantic innuendoes, while crafting inappropriate false worship songs, all the while denying it. The bridal paradigm is a sick and twisted theology that enamors many young Christians, especially women. I see young women all the time referring to themselves as the bride of Christ. Referring to Him in clearly sexual and romantic language. Here is a quote from Bickle's book, Passion for Jesus:

"God is not some mystical, nebulous force that loves the masses but not individuals, who love is focused on vast populations but not on a single person. You serve a deeply loving, passionate God whose heart is ravished by the beauty of your sincere, devoted heart. You are so beautiful to Him that you take His breath away!"

Even here we see Bickle striving to take what is meant for the collective and apply it to the personal. Does God love us individually? Of course He does but the bride is not us individually. So the heart of God is ravished by us? We are so beautiful to Him that we take His breath away? Seriously? Can we get anymore carnal in our language and imagery? If He put this into a movie it would be rated NC-17! What do you think happens when you tell a 16 year old girl or a 24 year old woman that they ravish the heart of God? That God is just a lover so he fashioned them? Does that feed their Spirit or their flesh? The answer is clear. IHOP is a very very dangerous place beloved. Besides being a proven false prophet, Mike Bickle teaches an end time army dominionist theology wrapped up in the blanket of an overtly sexual gospel. Google search IHOP survivors and see some of the carnage he has already wrought, including a pending murder trial involving IHOP participants who on the side were running a sexual cult. The bridal paradigm is simply put, demonic. Mike Bickle has now affirmed that.

Reverend Anthony Wade - August 2, 2014

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.