Thinking about Arnold Murray

I've been thinking about Arnold Murray (a satellite preacher out of Arkansas), and I think there is a good example of 'school' in what he has done. When I look at it I really got kicked off that Puritanboard because somebody started a thread on Arnold Murray, and I wrote a long response, written carefully (knowing my environment), but their shallowness overwhelmed them and they kicked me out. They could tell I was not 'of them' anyway. I would just have to say 'hi' to determine that. But Murray put out the call that was effectual in me, so I can't say anything bad about him. The one thing he does well is to read the actual words of the Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book and not care if it bores his audience. This is something even Reformed church leaders disdain to do (the "lay people" couldn't possibly understand!!).

(By the way: what does it mean that the good churchians at the Puritanboard know I am not 'of them'? It means there is a two-tiered Christianity. There is church Christianity and there is order (or 'school') Christianity. There are worldly knights, and there are Grail knights.)

Arnold Murray's doctrine obviously is unique. But even there it is not bad for 'hooking' certain types who are negative to the churchianity that Christianity has become all around us. Even the occult or neo-Nazi or what have you connections or accusations that get thrown around don't hurt what he is doing, because it sets him apart as not fearing the opinions of man (including Satanic churchianity leaders, seminary educated or not). I'm actually drawn to the symbol of the swastika for that reason (though I should state Murray has nothing to do with swastikas). I fear God alone. Churchians despise that. They want everybody fearing them and residing in their little satanic church nurseries.

I mentioned 'school' above. I mean that in the esoteric sense. What Murray has successfully done is create a school. It has boundaries, and he stays within those boundaries. This enables him to build force within the boundaries. He doesn't teach orthodox doctrine, but he doesn't need to. His listeners eventually leave and gravitate to that on their own. Like I did.

Once, about ten years after I'd ever ordered one of the books they sell I called them just curious what their reading list looked like currently, and their operator said you use to be on our list. I said, yes. Then she said since I left they can't sell me anything. I thought, after some time, wow, that's interesting. They were never after money in any of the usual ways, but not even wanting to sell a book to a former listener. With that they are saying, you are no longer in this school. No longer at this level.

And along those lines, Murray is also very good at being a rock for beginners to learn from and transcend. He repeats himself over and over. He doesn't try to impress anybody. That's a good teacher. He allows students to move on, and he stays behind to meet the new crop. He knows what he's doing.

I haven't heard him in a long time, so I can't speak to what he is up to now. I.e. if he's the same or changed. It actually wasn't difficult to see orthodox doctrine after listening to him because he doesn't really present any kind of recognizable systematic doctrine to begin with. After I learned for instance the doctrine of election from Reformed sources I went back and listened to Murray's tape on election and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. That's what I mean.

But having benefited from his efforts (and that is real, somebody's effort, you can't deny another person's effort that you are able to benefit from) I both feel sympathetic to him, even knowing pure biblical doctrine, and could never take part in any kind of mocking of him that occurs among the shallow and ignorant.

Early in my life when I was more interested in writing and literature and novels and what not I noticed there was a pattern in the lives of novelists where they were very reluctant to mention influences in their lives other than very generic ones that everybody of their era might mention. This is because they knew it only gives the world ammunition to mock them or misrepresent their connection to the influence in question. The very fact that a person could be influenced by a single aspect of an influence, or just 1% of the influence and how critics would not care about that but would run with a complete connection in a shallow and probably consciously vicious way...this made them keep silent. Murray would be just like that. You just mention his name and the monkey's at the Puritanboard (most of them Administrators and Moderators for some reason) start jumping around and throwing their dung.

Anyway, I was just thinking about Arnold Murray...who put out the call (the living language of the Old and New Testaments) that was effectual in me...