Thursday, 14 June 2012

Nancy Missler

(these diagrams might be from Watchman Nee see this link
but if I remember correctly Nancy's thoughts on this topic were very similar........)

I mentioned in a comment on Leslie's blog that I enjoyed a Bible study by Nancy Missler, Chuck Missler's wife. Chuck had it (at one time) on his website in audio format (I believe? I know I had originally heard it in the audio format, but it is possible that he had it in written form only, it was quite a while ago). I tried to find it, but now they only have it available for sale on Nancy's own website she entitled "The King's Highway".

However, I did find a site that takes apart Nancy's Bible study, and gives reasons why Nancy is completely wrong in her thoughts on most things Biblical. It's long...I plan to read it, from what I remember, I thought Nancy had a very good study, but I was a new baby in Christ at the time, so I am interested in revisiting this and see where she (and I) possibly had it wrong. :)

Anyway, a few things to keep us busy and praying about :)


  1. Finished the first of 3 parts of the psychoheresy site's thoughts on Nancy Missler, and I do believe he makes a valid point. This is an excerpt from at the end of part one:

    "A psychologized perception of the human condition leads to psychologically tainted means of change. Missler presents a psychological model of man, which pushes her into a mixture of both biblical and unbiblical means of transformation. Part Two of this article will further describe Missler's mixture of psychology and theology, and it will also show how her biblical and psychological means of transformation conflict with each other."

    Having taken psychology courses I have to agree that psychology methods (man's ways) conflict with the Biblical (God's way).

  2. Having taken psychology courses I have to agree that psychology methods (man's ways) conflict with the Biblical (God's way)

    In what way? I took a bit of psychology in college, but don't remember much.

    1. Have you read the link Ma? It might help you understand the difference better. Psychology talks alot about the subconscious and Nancy talks about how we can change what is in our "inner man", but it is Jesus who makes the changes. ;-)

    2. Was reading the messageboard thread (where I got the diagrams for the temple) and see that they are from Nancy Missler's "The Way of Agape" and NOT Watchman Nee.

    3. An excerpt from part two of the psychoheresy article says:

      "Missler uses Romans 7:15 ("For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.") in her attempt to support these notions. However, Paul is talking about behavior resulting from sin that dwells in him, not about a reservoir of buried feelings that "motivate all of our actions." These feelings that she says cause behavior include "buried hurts and resentments, that were justified." While she says people must get rid of these buried (repressed) feelings, she softens the sharp edge of sin by referring to resentments as being "justified." But, resentment is sin and the Bible does not justify sin."

      There's a big part of the problem right there. "Sin" is not sin, it is justified hurts and resentments....nope! It's still sin. Holding resentments, no matter how justified we think we are, it is still sin. If we truly love and trust Jesus, we are thankful for everything and resent nothing. I still sin when I resent things, people, circumstances, etc, not trusting that Jesus is using all of that for good in my life, not accepting His Lordship over my life.

  3. Just finished the third of all three parts of that psychoheresy site's article on Nancy Missler. I understand and agree with the concerns he has with the mixing of pop psychology with theology. The two do not mix.

    excerpts from part 3:

    "By following these teachings, people learn to explain their present behavior on the basis of past hurts and other unconscious material. Believing that present behavior is driven or even influenced by unconscious hurts, fears, insecurities and the like is actually a technique for blameshifting. Such a conclusion cannot be biblical. The Bible teaches that people sin because of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (James 1:14; 1 John 2:16), not because of unconscious hurts, fears, insecurities, etc. If such teachings of the subconscious were biblical, they would be clearly stated as the reason why people sin. The only way one can find such teachings about "hidden chambers" is to read them INTO Scripture."

    and this:

    "Although Missler says she does "not suggest that ‘we’ initiate or go looking for the ‘hidden things,’" her examples reveal that after people hear her teach, they do begin looking for them. She says God will reveal these "hidden things." Therefore, they look for something to be revealed to them, and whatever they receive or conceive (or even dream) about their so-called hidden roots or chambers they identify as having been revealed by God.

    The Bible is clear about the root causes of our sins. Our sinful nature is at the root of our sin."

    True enough. If we try to dig around and find hidden dirt, we might make up stuff to "blame our current problems on" instead of accepting the fact that we still have a sin nature that we struggle against with the help of our Lord. All the rest is useless psychobabble nonsense. Jesus will accomplish what He desires to accomplish in the lives of His own. We can rest in that. :)

  4. Psychology talks alot about the subconscious and Nancy talks about how we can change what is in our "inner man", but it is Jesus who makes the changes

    True, BUT, we are warned a lot that what we do matters. This has been a thing of confusion for me in the past and somewhat now. I think that once we are "in Christ" we are responsible for walking in the Spirit. Of course, it is the Spirit and not our flesh, but Paul seems to say that we can chose to walk in it or not. I haven't read the article, though, so I should so I know more of what she is saying.

    1. I hope you get to read it, Ma. It is a very good article and really helped me to understand some of this better. ;)

    2. Ma said:
      "I think that once we are "in Christ" we are responsible for walking in the Spirit. Of course, it is the Spirit and not our flesh, but Paul seems to say that we can chose to walk in it or not"

      This is still an area that I go back and forth on as well, how much of it is what God does, and how much hinges on what we do? hmmmm....

      The article above touches on such things. Something that is mentioned in that article, something that I found very helpful, was the fact brought out (on page three) about Nancy having her marriage healed by the Lord, and that she desired to know how He did it. The author of the article asserts it is enough to know that God did it without trying to find out how and make a formulaic way for others to tap into getting God to heal their lives (and then cash in on it by "bottling it up and selling it" in the form of books and tapes for sale, this part is my own thought on the matter).

      It always seems to go back to "works or faith"...or "works and faith"...

      Works of any kind does not lead to salvation, period.

      After being saved, what kind of works are required? We do get info in NT about that...the "works people" who think it is about religious days and proper diets like to point to the book of James, but James is talking about something else completely. He is talking about how we treat people...and I know the difference of how I treat people "in my flesh" or "by the Spirit", the two are quite different! But I don't need to dig up past hurts or hidden traumas to find out how to let the Holy Spirit heal me. The Holy Spirit doesn't need all that help from me to relive my past traumas.

      This article is one of those that I will need to revisit from time to time, only because the psychology stuff is so entrenched into today's methods, even church methods and teachings, and I know that over time it has it's effect (like brainwashing).


Comments are always welcome, however spam will be removed.

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

If a comment is mocking or otherwise unfruitful it will be removed. If a comment is completely irrelevant to the post it likewise will be removed. If the post contains an audio or video teaching and it is obvious that the commenter has not listened to the presentation the comment may (or might not) be posted and I probably won't reply.