by Andrew Strom. (2 Aug 1996).

Rick Joyner has assured me that he did not mean what I thought he meant in his article on the coming Civil War in the church. However, despite my respect for Rick, I believe that this issue surely has to be the most critical that has faced the church in recent decades. Does God really want the prophetic movement "taking sides" in the coming conflict? And is this Civil War really a good thing, or will it be the most colossal disaster that has befallen the church in centuries? In New Zealand, God has given us very strong prophetic warnings regarding this whole issue, and this is what will be discussed in this article.

For at least ten years now, particularly in the American prophetic
movement, God has been warning of the great 'Civil War' that would
soon split and shake His church. A number of prophetic  ministries
have been given dreams and visions likening this coming great con-
flict  in  the  church  to the American Civil War of last century, 
which was fought between the Union in the North  (the  Blues)  and 
the Confederacy in the South (the Grays). In these dreams and vis-
ions of the coming war in the church, God  has  also  likened  one  
side  to the 'Grays' and one side to the Blues. Many prophets have 
interpreted this to mean a conflict between those  who  are  dist-
inctly  'head-knowledge'- oriented  Christians,  and those who are  
distinctly 'Spirit'-oriented. (This certainly seems a logical con-
clusion). No doubt there have always been tensions  between  these  
two extremes in the church, but this time it will be all-out war.

However, God has also warned very strongly  that  those  who  take 
part in this conflict will be excluded from the great Revival that 
is  to  follow immediately after this colossal 'shaking'. One very 
well-known vision, which was quoted by Rick Joyner in his article,
was given to Philip Elston several years ago. In it, he saw  Jesus
standing  with  arms  outstretched. Soldiers in blue and gray uni-
forms were marching past Him on either side, and were laying their
bloody swords on His arms. The Lord  resolutely  looked  into  the 
eyes of each one, saying, "NO-ONE WHO HAS THEIR BROTHER'S BLOOD ON

It is well-known around the world that civil wars are usually  the
most bitter, destructive and ugly conflicts that it is possible to 
have.  Brother  against  brother,  fathers, cousins and countrymen  
consumed with murderous  enmity  one  against  the  other.  What a 
nightmare!  (As  we  have seen recently in Rwanda and Bosnia). One 
thing I certainly do agree with in Rick Joyner's  article  is  his
statement  that:  "This  will,  in  fact, be one of the most cruel 
battles the church has ever faced. Like every civil war,  it  will 
cause  brother to turn against brother like we may have never wit-
nessed in the church before... What is coming  will  be  dark.  At 
times  Christians  almost  universally  will be loath to even call 
themselves Christians. Believers and unbelievers alike will  think
that it is the end of Christianity as we know it, and it will be."
He then goes on to say that: "Through this the very definition  of 
Christianity  will be changed, for the better."  I am afraid that,
due to the strong prophetic warnings God has given us in New Zeal-
and, I simply cannot go along with that last statement.

However, I certainly do believe that we are  headed  for  a  great
splitting and shaking of the church (in fact, I believe that  this
will  be a form of JUDGEMENT upon today's Laodicean church). But I 
just cannot go along with the idea that the prophetic movement  is
to  actively participate or "take sides" in this conflict, or that 
this Civil War is some marvellous thing  that  we  should  all  be  
looking  forward to in the church. The idea that we should join in
with this war, to try and drive the "Accuser of the brethren"  out 
of other Christian groups in this way, frankly strikes me as being 
one of the most disastrous and ill-advised courses of action  that  
I have ever heard.

But what are we to think when we read things like: "...it was time 
to straightforwardly warn the church, and to begin  preparing  for 
this  great  war  with the resolve to fight until there was a com-
plete victory. The definition of a complete victory  in  this  war 
would  be the complete overthrow of the Accuser of  the Brethren's 
strongholds in the church... This battle must be fought. It is  an  
opportunity  to  drive  the  accuser out of the church..." (- From 
'Civil War in the Church', published May, 1996).  I  am  afraid  I 
simply  cannot  agree  with any of this. Surely it is obvious that 
all that would be accomplished by such a brutal, all-out  conflict 
is  that  the  church would literally tear itself apart? And aside 
from a whole raft of crushed and damaged  Christians,  what  would 
be the real fruit of such a War? 

Before I go on to discuss what God has been showing us here in NZ,
I would just like to briefly discuss my own  background.  I  am  a 
Spirit-filled, tongues-speaking believer, and have  been  involved
with  the  Charismatic  movement  now  for some years. I am also a 
great believer in the coming end-times  Revival,  and  through  my 
writings on this subject I have come into  contact  with  hundreds 
of  praying  and prophetic groups and individuals across New Zeal-
and. My wife and I are also modern musicians  who  write  our  own 
songs, and we have been clearly directed towards "Sons of Thunder"
type music ministry for about ten years now. I am also  a  Revival  
historian,  and have been studying Revival and Reformation history 
for  about  twelve years. I am currently Editor of the New Zealand 
Revival Bulletin, which is a national prophetic journal.

There  have  been  a  large  number of dreams and visions given to 
prophets and intercessors in New Zealand regarding the coming move
of  God.  (Many of these are covered in my book, "The Coming Great
Reformation"). Like elsewhere around the world,  they  have  often  
spoken  of  the great 'shaking', division and Reformation that are 
about to come upon the church. One vision which  relates  particu-
larly well to  our present discussion, was given to a local inter-
cessor (whom I know personally) early in 1995. In this vision, she  
saw  the  waters  being  parted, just as Moses parted the sea. The 
words that she was given to describe what  she  was  seeing  were: 
"TWO  CHURCHES".  In  other words, what she was witnessing was the 
dividing of the current church into  two  distinct  'churches'  or 
movements.  For  a  time,  while the gap between the two sides was 
still relatively small, Christians were easily able to  jump  from
side  to  side.  However, as the gap widened, this became more and 
more difficult, and eventually the only way people could get  from
one  side  to the other was to jump into the deep rift itself (the
sides of which now looked like huge  'cliffs'  of  water),  to  be 
hauled  up by people on the other side. Significantly, this inter-
cessor was given the strong impression that the catalyst for  this
great rift was to be the 'Toronto blessing' movement.

Certainly, I have noticed a far more "militant" mood  amongst  the
'Spirit'- oriented  believers  since Toronto has swept through the 
church. There seems to be a lot more  talk  of  aggressive  mobil-
isation  and  aggressive defence of the movement against those who
oppose it. This hardening of attitude has also  coincided  with  a
similar hardening on the other side. Many of  the  'conservative', 
evangelical-type Christians seem to have been particularly appall-
ed by Toronto, and have become quite bitter in  their  opposition.
So we can see that conditions for a Civil War in the  church  have
indeed  been greatly advanced by 'Toronto' (and I guess by 'Pensa-
cola' also, which is closely related). For to have  a  civil  war,
it is necessary for BOTH SIDES to become quite "militant" in their
stance, one against the other. 

With all of this in mind, I just want to take a look now at one of
the  most  important  reasons that God has shown us, why we should
not even consider lifting our hands against  opposing  leaders  or  
organizations in the church (even if they are considered 'Saulish' 
by nature). The well-known lesson that God has very strongly poin-
ted us to is found in the story of David and Saul. In those times, 
just like today, there was a 'new move of God' - a golden era  for
Israel  -  on  the  horizon. This new era would begin when the new
leadership (ie. David) was finally raised  up  and  recognized  as 
the  true  leader of God's people. Remember, king Saul had already 
been rejected by God as leader, and David had been anointed by the
prophet to take his place. But did David then try to wrest control
of Israel away from Saul? Did he try  to  attack  Saul  and  bring 
about  this  new  golden  era himself? No! In fact he did the very

David refused to lift his hand against Saul in any way.  He  still 
regarded Saul as being the "Lord's anointed", God's chosen leader,
right up until the time that GOD HIMSELF acted to completely annul
Saul's kingship (by allowing him to be killed  in  battle  against 
Israel's  enemies).  In  other  words, David waited until SAUL WAS 
DEAD - in God's perfect timing - before he made  any  move  toward 
taking up the leadership of Judah and Israel. HE NEVER FOUGHT SAUL 
do so would have been REBELLION, and would have  been  pre-empting
what God was wanting to do. In fact, it is my belief that if David  
had  raised  his hand against Saul, then he would have proved him- 
self unworthy of the leadership of Israel, and would have disqual-
ified  himself  because  of it. God never sanctions rebellion, and 
this was obviously a very crucial test for David.

During his years of waiting, David suffered greatly in many  ways.
He was slandered, misunderstood, hunted like an animal, forced  to
live in caves in the wilderness, etc. And NOT ONCE  did  he  raise
his hand against Saul, even under the pretext of "liberating"  the
people  of  Israel  who  were being ruled by Saul. It is my belief 
that today, anyone who raises their hands against opposing leaders 
or groups, or participates in a 'Civil War' against them  at  this 
time,  is  falling  into  this self-same trap, and will disqualify 
themselves from taking part in the coming move  of  God.  This  is 
clearly what the vision that we discussed earlier is saying:  "NO-
I  now  want  to share with you something else, of a slightly "un-
usual" nature, which God has also pointed out to us  as  a  strong 
prophetic warning on this subject. Strangely enough, 1995  was  by
far the most unusual year for New Zealand sport in living  memory,
with massive 'shaking' or Reformation being visited upon three  of
our top national sports during that time in an unprecedented peri-
od of crisis and change. Uncannily, as God pointed out to me, much
of this 'shaking' and Reformation was  almost  identical  to  what  
God had been telling us was about to come  upon  His  church.  And 
interestingly,  in two of these sports, the concept of 'Civil War'
was right at the centre of what occurred.

The two sports that I am referring to here are Rugby Union (played
right  around  the  world) and Rugby League (played mainly in Eng-
land, Australia and New Zealand). These are very big sports, espe-
cially in the Southern Hemisphere. In early 1995, it was announced
by Robert Murdoch's News Corporation that they  were  launching  a
new  rebel  League competition (because they didn't have broadcast
rights to the existing one), which would be called  "Superleague".
They  immediately  began  signing up many of the best Rugby League 
players around the world, even though most of  them  in  Australia  
and New Zealand still had contracts with the existing competition. 
What resulted from this was a literal 'Civil War' in Rugby League, 
with two giant media moguls fighting for control  of  the  sport's 
best  players, and much bitterness and ill-will on both sides. All 
of this was played out in the full glare of the  media  spotlight,  
and it has done terrible harm to the sport as a whole. Right  now, 
Rugby  League  is still split irrevocably into two camps, with on-
going legal nightmares, and players in Britain beginning to defect 
to Rugby Union because of better conditions. For a sport that  was 
doing so well, and beginning to make big inroads in NZ, this Civil  
War has been an absolute disaster, and things are  already  begin-
ning  to  look very grim for the long-term survival of League as a 
truly leading sport in some areas. (In fact, you could almost  say
it  has  been  suicidal - different limbs of the same body tearing 
murderously at one another).

Meanwhile, in Rugby Union, 1995 was literally the most revolution-
ary and crisis-stricken year in the sport's  long  history.  Rugby
Union had always been one of the last really big 'Amateur' sports,  
but  because of the perceived threat of "Superleague", it suddenly
went Professional almost overnight in 1995, securing a multi-mill-
ion dollar TV deal and speeding up the pace of the game with  rule 
changes,  etc.  In  New Zealand (arguably the best Rugby nation in  
the  world at the moment), they also revolutionised the entire top 
administration (which was old and stodgy), getting rid  of  twelve  
men,  thus  leaving only seven (plus two business advisors) on the 
national council. They also appointed John Hart, the most innovat-
ive man they could find, as national coach. All of this has led to
a truly 'golden era' for Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere.

However,  Rugby  Union also came very close to 'Civil War' in 1995 
(which would have ruined everything, just like it has in  League).
Just as Rugby Union was turning Professional, another rebel  group
(the World Rugby Corporation) came along, and began to sign up all 
the leading  Rugby  Union  players around the world, offering them 
better money, etc. Just like the rebel  Superleague,  for  a  long 
time  it  looked  as though this new rebel Rugby Union competition
would succeed, and would capture all the best players.  But  right
at  the  last  moment,  the  whole thing began to unravel, and the
players eventually crawled back to the Union (just  in  time).  If  
this  new rebel competition had succeeded (as it very nearly did), 
there would no doubt have been all-out 'Civil War' in Rugby Union,  
just like in Rugby League, and the damage would likewise have been 
suicidally crippling and severe. The  sport  would  probably  have  
taken  years  to  recover  (if at all). But instead, Civil War was
narrowly  averted,  and  traditional old 'Amateur' Rugby Union was 
able to revolutionise itself so completely in the  space  of  just  
one  year,  that it has entered what many regard as a glorious new
"golden era". So who needs a Civil War? (Please note that  it  was
the  'rebellious'  movements  who  were  responsible  for starting 
these destructive conflicts).   

To me, the lessons that God has been trying to show us in pointing
to the above examples are pretty obvious. Civil Wars of  any  kind
are extremely damaging and debilitating. Do we really need to tear
the  church  apart  with this kind of bitter public infighting, in 
order to see Revival come to the church?  I  don't  think  so!  In 
fact,  I  believe that such a Civil War is far more likely to be a 
form of "JUDGEMENT" upon the church, and upon all who  participate
in  it,  rather than anything positive. If there is a Civil War in 
the church, I am convinced that those who participate in  it  will
have no part whatsoever in the coming move of God. Surely it makes 
sense that God would give all these visions of  the  coming  Civil 
War as a WARNING, not as some kind of invitation to participate in 

Frankly, I have to say that I have been very disappointed that the
American prophetic movement has seemingly advocated "taking sides"  
in the coming conflict. To me, this seems the height of  irrespon-
siblity, and it alarms me greatly. I have to say also, that  there  
are a number of factors associated with the prophetic movement  in
America  that  have  disturbed me for some years now. I don't know 
how well my words will be taken over there, but I do believe  that 
these  issues  are  important  enough to risk raising them at this 
time. Sometimes an outsider's view can be of value, but I do apol-
ogise in advance for any offence caused by what I am about to say.

It seems to me that there are some very profound differences  bet-
ween  the  way  the  prophetic  movement is set up in America, and
the way it functions in other parts  of  the  world.  In  America, 
there  seems to be a very strong perception amongst friend and foe
alike, that the prophetic movement there  is  so  closely  aligned 
with one particular denomination that they might almost be consid-
ered to be one movement. Surely this would have to be  seen  as  a  
very  unhealthy  state of affairs for any truly 'prophetic' group. 
How on earth can your words be taken as "impartial" when  you  are
seen  to be so closely aligned with the views and teachings of one
particular stream or denomination? Is this what God really  wants?
I  am  by  no means part of the "Anti-Vineyard" brigade, but is it 
really desirable to have a prophetic movement that is seen by many 
to be more of a mouthpiece for the Vineyard movement than  an  im-
partial  mouthpiece for God? I am sorry if I am offending you, but 
I frankly find it incredible that such a movement could  see  this  
as  an  acceptable  state  of affairs. And I also believe that, as 
always, there will be subtle pressure in such a situation, not  to  
be  too  critical or too analytical about some of the teachings or 
practices that are associated with the 'related body'. 

It  is  my belief that this unhealthy association with one partic-
ular stream has already affected the way  that  some  issues  have 
been examined by the American prophetic movement over the last few
years or so. Elsewhere in the world, this is  not  the  case,  and
other  prophetic movements are free to analyse such issues without 
any perceived bias one way or the other.  But  how  can  the  same 
be said of the American prophetic movement? As I said before, this 
apparent  partiality surely has to be  seen as a most debilitating  
weakness in any movement of this kind. Prophets are supposed to be 
beyond reproach in the area of impartiality. They are supposed  to 
be the "eyes", the watchmen of the church. Surely this can only be 
harmed when there is a perceived bias in favour of one  particular 
(controversial) stream of teaching?

One thing that has struck me repeatedly about the American  proph-
etic  scene  is  the seemingly never-ending talk about the problem  
of 'legalism' and Pharisee-type religion in the church. Certainly, 
this has been a problem (I have written detailed warnings about it 
myself  in the past). But honestly, do we really need to go on and 
on about it, like some broken record  or  an  endless  tape  loop? 
Surely  we  would  have to be kidding ourselves if we thought that 
this was the major problem facing the 'Laodicean' church?  I  just
cannot  go along with the idea that it is "the control spirit, the
political spirit and the religious spirit" that are largely  resp-
onsible  for the sick and tepid state of today's lukewarm Christi-
anity. This is certainly not what the Bible says.  The  Scriptures 
are  very  clear  as  to  what the major problems of the Laodicean  
church are: "... because you are lukewarm, and  neither  cold  nor 
hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, 
and  increased with goods, and have need of nothing'... BE ZEALOUS 

It seems beyond dispute to me that the major problems of the Laod-
icean church are compromise, lukewarmness  and  materialism,  etc, 
rather than some kind of 'control' spirit or pharisaical attitude.
And when the Bible speaks of the "last days", it warns  again  and
again of seducing spirits, 'lying signs and wonders', great decep-
tion amongst Christians (arising from  within  the  church),  etc. 
Surely  any  truly  'prophetic' movement in the last days would be
warning strongly of such dangers? But we don't seem to be  hearing 
many warnings about these things from today's prophetic  movement,  
do  we?  Could  it be that it is more "politically correct" in the  
Vineyard  to  attack legalism and domination, but not 'lying signs 
and wonders' or similar deception?

Surely it is obvious that if we live  today  in  the  age  of  the 
'Laodicean'  church, then we should be emphasising what Jesus Him-
self emphasised: The desperate need for  REPENTANCE  from  today's 
"bless-me, bless-me" Christianity, and from the insipid compromise 
and 'love of pleasures' that dominate so much of  today's  church. 
Does "taking up the cross" not mean what it says any more?

It is a well-known fact that over-emphasising certain doctrines or
teachings can lead to a very unbalanced Christianity. If  you  are
over-balancing in the direction of 'legalism', then your preaching
will cause heaviness and condemnation  in  people.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  you  are constantly preaching AGAINST legalism, and in-
stead tending to strongly emphasise 'liberty' and  grace  all  the 
time, then your preaching will result in the opposite problem: The
people  will tend towards 'casting off of restraint', license, and
a spiritual "fun/party" atmosphere. Sin and holiness will  be  de-
emphasised,  and  touchy-feely  'experiences' will tend to come to 
the fore. (This is simply a  logical  result  of  such  teaching). 
Sound familiar, anyone? This kind of inbalance is surely  just  as 
serious  and just as damaging as the 'legalistic' type of extreme.
They are both at opposite ends of the scale, but as history clear-
ly demonstrates, such inbalance in any direction can be absolutely 
fatal for God's people.

To get back to our original theme of 'Civil  War'  once  again,  a 
friend of mine who is a well-known prophet in Australia, was given 
a very significant vision in 1995. In it,  he  saw  a  giant  army 
snaking  through  the jungle. At it's head was the banner, "Joel's 
Army". Meanwhile, off in the jungle by itself was a battalion.  It  
stood, waiting. This battalion was in the shape of a great square,
and at it's head was a banner: "Gideon's Army". It was much small-
er  than  the  first. It seemed evident that Joel's Army was going
to war, but that Gideon's Army had yet to  receive  it's  marching 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the Scriptures openly declare 
Joel's Army to be an army of LOCUSTS, which sweeps through  immed-
iately  prior  to  the  genuine  Revival, devouring and destroying 
every good thing in the land. First comes this great army  of  lo-
custs  devouring  everything, then God drives the locusts away and 
sends a great Revival, followed by a great outpouring of His Spir-
it "upon all flesh". (If you don't believe me, just read the  book 
of  Joel  for  yourself.  It is very clear. There can simply be no 
dispute about it). So why are we being told that joining  up  with
Joel's Army is such a desirable thing?

Another  very significant dream was given to a local prophet (whom
I know personally) several years ago (quite some months before the
'Toronto blessing' was even heard of  here).  In  this  dream,  he 
found  himself in a large auditorium full of people. Many of these
people appeared spiritually 'fat' and overfed (including  many  of 
the  leaders),  while  the rest seemed small in comparison. At the
front of the auditorium he saw people FALLING  DOWN  LAUGHING  AND
CRYING, etc, and the words that were clearly spoken to him to des-
cribe  what  he  was  seeing were: "LAODICEAN REVIVAL". He noticed 
that it was essentially the large, overfed looking people who were
really becoming 'caught up' in this laughing, crying and  falling,
etc.  In  the dream, my friend was taken and seated with the small
people. And as he watched, a great gulf began  to  appear  between
the large people (who were still caught up in their 'Laodicean re-
vival') and the little people, who were being steadily drawn  away  
from this scene until a yawning gulf had developed between the two 
groups. Suddenly a great tide of young people flooded in  all  ar-
ound  these  little  people, and they began to minister to them in 
the power of Jesus Christ. The prophet knew that this was the  be-
ginning of the true Revival. Glory to God!

Notice  in  the  above dream of the "TWO REVIVALS" that it was the 
'Laodicean revival' that came first, followed after an interval by
the genuine Revival. This dream is  confirmed  by  the  well-known
prophetic allegory, "Escape from Christendom" (published by  Morn- 
ing Star several years ago) which also contains two revivals - one
counterfeit  and  one  genuine.  It also seems to fit in perfectly 
with the pattern found in the book of Joel.

I have to say that I have been astonished that the American proph-
etic movement has allowed itself to become so  closely  identified
in the minds of many Christians around the world, with the 'Toron-
to' movement. I myself put this down to the fact that their  close
association  with  the Vineyard clouded their judgement, and meant
that they did not look at  this  movement  as  objectively  or  as  
analytically as they should have. Speaking personally, having wit-
nessed the 'Toronto' manifestations for  myself,  and  also  as  a 
Revival  historian, I have to say that this movement surely has to 
be the most dubious that has arisen in the church for well over  a
century.  Why on earth would the American prophetic movement allow 
itself to become so strongly identified with such a movement?  The 
only explanation is their close association with the Vineyard. And 
so here we are, in the last days  (the  days  of  great  deception 
amongst Christians, of seducing spirits and "lying signs and  won-
ders"  in the church), with the most well-known prophetic movement 
in the world actually supporting a 'revival' that is surely one of 
the  most  suspect  and  dubious  spiritual  movements in history. 
Alarming, isn't it?

Some time ago, God gave me a prophetic analogy from the  story  of 
the  children  of  Israel  in the wilderness. It is clear that the 
wilderness was a place of testing and trial for the Israelites be-
fore they could enter into the promised land. God showed  me  that
the  twelve spies who went in to spy out the land were really just 
like prophets, who have been shown in the spirit what the  Revival  
of  tomorrow  will be like - a land "flowing with milk and honey". 
However, in the end result, ONLY TWO of these spies (or  prophets)  
- Joshua and Caleb - were truly uncompromising in their stand  for 
truth and for God's promise. The other ten spies, even though they 
had been shown what was to come, simply did not possess the uncom-
promising, immovable steadfastness that was necessary  to  inherit 
the  promised land. Even though they were definitely true prophets
(in the sense that they had truly  'spied  out  the  land'),  they 
preached  an  insipid,  compromising  word, and all who trusted in 
them perished in the wilderness. Joshua and Caleb, the "immovable"
prophets (and their families) were the only ones from that  entire
generation  who  made it into the promised land. The rest all fell
at the final hurdle - the last great 'test'.  Their  prophets  had 
let both them, and God, down very badly.

Like  the  children of Israel, I am convinced that  today's church 
has been passing through it's own wilderness of testing in  recent
times  (just before the 'promised land' of true Revival). And like 
the Israelites, I am convinced that only a "remnant" will  eventu-
ally  make it through into the coming move of God. (This principle 
is all the way through Scripture). It will be  a  "Gideon's  Army"  
(a  remnant  army), rather than a "Joel's Army" that will bring in 
the great last-days harvest. This is clearly  what  God  has  been  
speaking  in the dreams and visions that we have discussed. And it 
seems obvious from the Scriptures also.

I  would  just like to conclude this article by saying that it has 
not been my intention here at all, to 'attack' the American proph-
etic movement, but rather to warn and plead with them, to at least
consider the possibility that what I am saying is true. It  is  my 
belief  that  the  U.S.  prophetic  movement is now in far greater 
danger than it is probably aware of, just like the  many  previous 
movements  that  have  found themselves in a similar position down 
through history. Tragically, it has often been found  doubly  true  
of  Revivals  that:  "The  good becomes the enemy of the best". My 
great fear is that this may again prove to be the case this time.

In closing, I would just like to urge all who are reading this  to  
step  back for a moment and take a good hard look at what is happ-
ening around them. Please think twice before allying  yourself  in
any way with "Joel's Army". Remember, Gideon's Army is WAITING for
God to move, while Joel's Army is just about to march off to  war. 
The  choice  between  these  two is an absolutely crucial one. For 
again, let me repeat what Jesus Himself said in the  vision:  "NO-
[Please  note that it was never stated in the above article that I
believed the U.S. prophetic movement to be officially joined  with
the Vineyard. I was merely making the point that there were strong 
ties generally between the Vineyard and the  most  well-known  and  
widely recognized of the American prophetic movements. This is ab-
solutely common knowledge, and even the most cursory look  at  the 
relationship between many prophetic ministries and the Vineyard in 
the U.S. will confirm what I am saying. -A.S.]



'Why I Oppose the Civil War' copyright (c) Andrew Strom, 1996. (Feel free to download).
This document can be found on the Internet at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~revival