Someone gave my wife a book by Joyce Meyer, titled: Enjoying Where You Are On the Way to Where You Are Going. I have read in many places on the Internet and in many of the books and journals in my library about how bad a teacher Joyce Meyer is. So getting a first-hand look at one of her books was something I normally wouldn’t have accomplished because I refuse to pay good money for bad teachings! However, since my wife was given this book, I decided to review it. This article is the review I did of this book, and if you don’t have the book for reference, you won’t get the full effect, but there should be plenty here to demonstrate why Meyer is not a credible teacher.
To begin with, Joyce Meyer is a proponent of the heretical Word-Faith teachings, part of the extreme end of charismania. This doctrine comes out in her teachings. (This alone is a reason to avoid her!) This review isn’t as in-depth as it could be, simply because I didn’t want to expend the time. When citing Scripture I will use the Amplified Bible unless otherwise noted, because that is what Meyer uses.
p.9 Meyer quotes a paraphrase of Matthew 11:29. The paraphrase is the problem. Matt. 11:29 says, "You will find rest for your souls," while the paraphrase says, "You will discover the meaning of your life." Jesus has just offered the gospel, i.e., salvation through him. That is the meaning of "rest" for our soul - it is the "rest of salvation," the rest of knowing our sins are forgiven. It has nothing to do with discovering "the meaning of your life." Another problem with the paraphrase is that it says the yoke of Jesus is "the burden of responsibility I give you." The “yoke” is the yoke of service to Jesus! He just offered salvation and now He is saying to place yourself under the yoke of service to Him. Compare to Matt. 23:4 where He talks about the burden of the Pharisee's yoke. While this may not seem to be a very serious error, and the rest of Meyer's message in this chapter is satisfactory, I immediately become concerned as to her ability to rightly divide the Word (2 Tim. 2:15).
Chapter 2: One of the problems with this chapter is Meyer's use of Deut. 30:19 as an application to the Christian. This verse, in context, is addressed to Israel and Israel only. If she wanted to use this as a principle or analogy, she should have stated so. Her examples from the New Testament were sufficient. To rightly divide the Word she should delete all references to Deut. 30:19 from this chapter.
p.17 Meyer states, in regards to Israel, "The Promised Land was always available, and yet the Israelites wandered around in the wilderness forty years. Deuteronomy 1:2 states that the geographical distance of their journey was actually an eleven-day trip. They were all around the Promised Land, close to it, even at the border, but refused to go in. They sent in spies to see if it was really as good as it sounded, but they did not enter. And the Bible tells us the reason they did not enter was unbelief. (Heb. 4:6 KJV)."
This statement gives the impression that Israel chose to wander for the 40 years when they could have gone into the Promised Land at any time. When Heb. 4:6 says it was because of "unbelief" that they wandered, the writer is stating it was their unbelief which led to the punishment of God, which was 40 years of wandering until the rebellious generation were all dead, as described in Num. 14 and Deut. 1. The Promised Land was not "always available" to Israel during that 40 years because God would not allow them to enter.
Another concern is with her use of KJV for this proof text instead of the Amplified Bible as she did for all other quotes in this chapter. Her point is to make unbelief the reason Israel did not enter the land when Numbers and Deuteronomy plainly say it was rebellion and disobedience that led to the punishment. In fact, of the 19 English translations I looked at, only KJV, Revised English Bible, Today's English Version and J.B. Phillips say "unbelief" instead of "disobedience" at Hebrews 4:6. One could argue that it was unbelief that led to the disobedience, and that is all well and good, but if Meyer had used the Amplified Bible it would have said "disobedience" and that wouldn't have fit her scenario. Although Meyer's good point of the chapter is well-taken, I now become more concerned as to her ability to rightly divide the Word of God.
p.30 Meyer states that 1 Chron. 22:13 “warns against dread.” This text does not warn against dread, rather it encourages against it - That is a big difference! Meyer then states that dread “will also hinder our prosperity.” She follows this with Heb. 11:6 about how God rewards those who seek him. This is typical “name it and claim it” doctrine. Nowhere does Scripture say dread will hinder our prosperity, and Heb. 11:6 has nothing to do with financial rewards. She then leaps to the conclusion that dread is void of faith, and therefore, according to Romans 14:23, is sin. Common sense says that dread does not exclude faith. Jesus plainly seemed in dread of the crucifixion, but he lack no faith. The context of Romans 14:23 has to do with whether one’s faith permits eating certain items and, if not, to that person it is sin. It has nothing to do with dread vs faith. Meyer has again demonstrated her inability to rightly divide the word.
pp.31-32 Meyer, at the bottom of p.31 begins a sentence completed at the top of p.32. She says to let her book be a “point of contact.” This is an occultic divination activity which is practiced by many in the Word-Faith movement.
p.33 Meyer talks of the “labor of reasoning.” Then on p. 35 she says, “The doubtful, negative mind is filled with reasoning.” This denigrates reasoning but we are called by God to be reasonable people. We are to “test everything” (1 Thes. 5:21), which requires reasoning skills. The Bereans are praised in Acts because they used reasoning to determine the truth of what they were hearing versus what the Scripture said. This is typical of the Word Faith heresy - the denigrating of thinking and logic skills.
p.36 Meyer quotes John 10:10 about enjoying living “abundantly,” but John was not talking about a hedonistic enjoyment of life, which is what Meyer is implying here. When the Scripture talks of enjoying life, it is talking about enjoying fellowship with God, enjoying the fact that we are free of our bondage to sin. Meyer makes it more of a celebration - almost a “party” mentality. However, our joy is to be in the Lord.
p.38 Here is a classic example of taking Scripture out of context. Meyer quotes John 6:29 as, “Jesus replied, ‘This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe.…’” Meyer then proceeds to tell us all we have to do to please God is believe, with no subject of the belief being identified. Word Faith teaches that faith is a power in and of itself, and this paragraph is leading in that direction. The problem is that John 6:29 continues with, “...in the One Whom He has sent - that you cleave to, trust, rely on and have faith in His Messenger.” The passage defines the subject of faith; i.e., the work of God is to have faith in Jesus as our Savior. Again, this shows Meyer’s lack of being able to rightly divide the word of God.
p.40 Meyer says we make a much bigger deal out of sin than God does. If that is the case, then how does she explain the entire Bible’s teaching against sin, and that God had to provide a Savior to atone for sin? I think Meyer takes sin too lightly. Meyer then goes into some “name it and claim it” teaching with the idea that “receive” and “believe” are synonymous. She is obviously setting the stage for the remainder of the book.
p.42 Meyer says, “...the Gospel is supposed to bring great joy - not condemnation for sin.” However, I don’t think she really makes it clear what the joy is. We have to understand the “good news of a great joy” as being the joy of knowing we have our eternal life secured now in Christ. I think it is important that we do remain “sin conscious” in order to examine ourselves in our relationship with God, applying 1 John 1:9. Although I think this is what Meyer is trying to say, it doesn’t come across clearly.
p.44 Meyer equivocates with the word “life.” She says, “...He is Life, and my conclusion was that I could not enjoy God unless I learned to enjoy life.” Whereas Jesus is “life” in the sense of what he is giving to us (in all its facets, including eternal life), Meyer wants to enjoy “life” in the sense of being in the world and alive and “living it up,” so to speak. Either that, or she doesn’t plainly state what she means, at least to this reader. Meyer says, “A few years ago, the Lord said to me, ‘Joyce, I am not nearly as hard to get along with as most of you think I am.’” Is she saying she received a direct revelation from God? This statement seems to substantially reduce the holiness of God.
p.45 Here is where we really begin to get into the Word Faith teachings. She says “Faith is a force...” and then proceeds to go into unbiblical teaching about what faith is and what it does. She talks about faith being in the heart and being in agreement with the mind. The problem here is that the “heart” is the mind. I don’t know who this Ben Campbell Johnson is, but his talking about faith “actualizing” what one says is definitely of the Word Faith doctrine.
p.50 Meyer quotes James 1:6-8 and claims that this is an example of the “complicated, bewildered” man. However, when James is discussing the “double-minded” man, he is talking about one who on one side says he believes God and then disbelieves that God will answer his prayer. This is not complicated or bewildering to the man; it is just a lack of faith when praying to God. It has nothing at all to do with lacking simplicity, as is the subject of our chapter. This is another example of not rightly dividing the Word. In the next paragraph Meyer makes a mistake in defining words. She says that “anything simple is easy to understand because it is ‘composed of only one thing.’” “Anything simple” may or may not be “composed of only one thing.” That is one definition of “simple,” not of “anything simple.”
p.54 Here Meyer is guilty of equivocating. She has been talking of simplifying one’s life, making it less complicated. Then she uses where Paul talks of the simplicity of the Gospel as justification. In Gal. 5:1, the “yoke of slavery” Paul refers to is going back to the Law for justification. This has nothing to do with Meyer’s subject of living a simple life. Midway down the page Meyer again makes a slam at “reasoning.” Word Faith teaching does not want us to use reason because we would immediately see their false teachings for what they are.
p.55 Meyer says, “Complication is the work of Satan.” There is no Biblical basis for this, let alone that common sense says that “complication” is not always bad. Her whole concept of complication vs. simplicity being good or evil is nonsense, and not even addressed in the Bible in this context. If she had said, “Complication of the Gospel message is the work of Satan,” I could agree with her. We are told many times in Scripture that the Gospel is simple and even foolish in the sight of the unsaved, but that is not the context of Meyer’s subject.
p.56 Meyer says God spoke to her and said, in regards to her seeking the answer to her problem with her husband, “Why not simply go to bed?” Here she is again claiming personal communication with God, i.e., direct revelation. My problem with this here is that I think God wants us to discover what causes problems so we can address our own sin. It is not complicating an issue when you seek the cause of a problem. Beyond any of this, I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with our relationship with God!
pp.57-59 Last paragraph p.58 begins the problem. Meyer says, “Most people are full of what God has called them to do and what He has anointed them for...” I think she would be hard pressed to find “most people” believing they are anointed in any way. Maybe most people in her Word-Faith environment, but certainly not among the average Christian. Further on p.58 through p.59 she says, “God got the point across to me...”, “He [God] taught me some wonderful things...”, “The Lord taught me...”, “He [God] showed me...”, “He [God] made me see...”, “The Lord also taught me...”, “The Lord showed me...”. These are all examples of her personal “revelation” knowledge. She sets herself up as one who is in personal communication with God, beyond the normal Christian relationship of prayer and the Holy Spirit’s leading. This again is common among the Word-Faith teachings. Another problem is that she was listening to all these people telling her what to pray for and how to pray; what about what Scripture says about it? She never once mentions seeking guidance of prayer from the Bible. The whole issue beginning at the last
paragraph on p.58, in reference to praying under an “anointing” has no Scriptural basis.
p.60 In the third paragraph Meyer says, “I am placing a prayer cover over this family.” Where is the idea of a “prayer cover” found in Scripture? Nowhere! This is found in the teachings of Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare, another aberration.
p.63 Paragraph 5 states, “[God’s] will for each of us is prosperity and abundance.” “Prosperity” and “abundance” are very subjective terms, but I believe she is setting the stage for the “health and wealth” message of Word Faith. At any rate, if that was what God wants, why are there so many believers lacking these things from a strictly material aspect? I believe this quote is true in a spiritual aspect, but not in the material aspect, since there is no Scripture to prove this.
p.64 At the bottom of the page Meyer begins her definitions again, stating that “simple” means “easy.” However, in the verse she quotes this is not the meaning of the word “easy.” In fact, in v.28 “ease” is not in the text but is in the commentary amplification. This is also true of v.29. So, contrary to Meyer’s claim, the word does not appear often in this passage. In v.30 Jesus isn’t saying his yoke is “simple”, rather he is saying it is not difficult or, as William McDonald states, “does not chafe.”
p.65 John 15:11 does not speak of enjoyment! Jesus speaks of joy, which is a much different thing. In the next-to-last paragraph she says the Holy Spirit is “simple.” The Bible says nothing about the Spirit being simple. This is Meyer’s fantasy.
p.66 “Simplicity obeys promptly. It is complicated to disobey...” This is a logic fallacy of non sequitur. It may be complicated to obey and simple to disobey - each situation could be different.
p.67 Meyer really has no concept of what James talks about. Here she talks about the double-minded person as being confused and indecisive. When James talks about a double-minded person he defines it as a person who asks of God but doesn’t really believe God will answer him. This section, “Simplicity and Decisions,” is not what James 5:12 is talking about. James is talking about taking oaths, and that one does not need an oath to emphasize a “yes” or “no.” If Meyer would study a little about oath-taking in the Bible, and the purpose for using an oath to verify one’s veracity, she would know James is not talking about decision-making ability. Nowhere does the Scripture condemn a person for being unable to make simple decisions in life. Meyer’s examples of making decisions as to what to wear, what to eat, where to eat, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with James 5:12. This is again proof that Meyer cannot rightly divide the Word of God.
p.68 Meyer says, “it is much easier to decide to apologize than it is to stay angry and be filled with unforgiveness, bitterness and resentment...” She is flat wrong here. It is very difficult for anyone to decide to apologize for wrong-doing. It is an issue of pride. Experience in life will prove that to anyone.
p.72 To say that “every healthy adult should also have a child in him” is pure psycho-babble. We are supposed to mature and leave the child behind (1 Cor. 13:11). The attributes Meyer attaches to a child can also be found in a mature adult, but not always demonstrated. Jesus said we must be like a child in these attributes in order to be open to his message, but that is not saying we must not be mature believers. Heb. 5:11 - 6:1 makes a complaint against those who are still babes in the Word, and Paul, in 1 Cor. 3, complains about the Corinthians still acting as infants in Christ. Satan did not attempt to kill the Christ child because he “is always out to kill the child” in us, he was after Christ only. He knew who He was and wanted to get rid of Him. This is not an example of Satan wanting to “kill the child” in us. The next-to-last paragraph is nonsense. The progression Meyer makes is illogical: Satan was afraid of a child, a child was a king and kings rule; if we want to rule and reign as kings we must become like little children. What about the fact that the majority of all kings in history were adults! She says that, “When we become childlike, it frightens the devil just as the Christ Child frightened Herod.” No place in Scripture does it say that Satan is afraid of children! This is a claim Meyer makes up out of her own imagination.
p.74 In the third paragraph Meyer states that, “God will bless us in all that we undertake,” and then she cites
Deut.28:8 as her reference. This again proves to be out of context, as it is in reference to God’s promises to Israel. It has nothing to do with the Christian!
p.78 In referring to John 21:1-6, Meyer said that the disciples “quickly made an emotional decision” when they decided to go fishing, and that was why they failed to “produce the desired result,” i.e., they failed to catch fish. This is reading into the text; there is no place that it says they decided to go fishing just because they were emotional. This is silly reasoning. Meyer then says, “Perhaps Jesus was using this terminology [calling them “children”] to remind them of their need to come as little children and totally depend on Him.” Again, this is reading into the text. “Children” was a term of endearment, to show his affection.
p.79 Here is another blatant example of Meyer’s eisegesis and inability to rightly divide the Word. She quotes Is. 49:15 and says it “is another Scripture that reveals that our heavenly Father desires us to come to Him as children.” This is foolishness. The plain reading of the text demonstrates that God was using the analogy of a woman and her compassion for her child as being the way God relates to his “child” Israel. He says that He will never forget to take care of Israel any more than a woman will forget to take care of the child she has brought into the world. Throughout the next few pages Meyer continues her theme as to how we must be like little children, and she never points out that we must mature in the faith, that we can’t always be like little children.
p.81 Meyer equivocates in her use of “child”. She says that, “According to the Bible, childlikeness is our God-given, blood-bought right,” and then quotes John 1:12 and Romans 8:16-17 where the writers say we have the right to become children of God. The Scripture does not say we have a right to “childlikeness,” rather we have a right to become adopted as God’s children - heirs - through our faith in Christ. It doesn’t even seem that Meyer understands English.
Chapter 7: While this chapter is the best one yet for orthodox teaching, it, too, has a problem where Meyer takes Scripture out of context.
p.85 Meyer says, “God promised that the day would come when He would give people His heart, put His Spirit in them, cause them to walk in His statutes and bring them into a new relationship with Him.” She then quotes Ezekiel 36:26-28 and follows it with, “We are now living in the availability of the fulfillment of that promise. The Lord said that He would take away the stony heart out of man.” The problem is that Ezekiel says nothing of the kind. Ezekiel 36:26-28 in context is the Lord making a promise to Israel, not “people” in general; He will take away the “stony heart” of Israel, not of “man” in general. He is talking about bringing Israel back into the land from where they had been scattered and making them holy again. If Meyer wants to make the point that Christians are made new in Christ, there are plenty of Scriptures in the New Testament that can be used as proof texts, beginning with 2 Cor. 5:17, but the use of the O.T. here is just plain wrong.
p.103 Bottom of the page. Is Meyer saying that God spoke to her directly (which I don’t believe) or that he just brought it to her mind?
p.104 Is she saying a place is holy just because the Christian is there? That is what it sounds like, but that is
p.106 Top of the page. 1 Pet. 3:1-2 does not say “enjoy” - that is the amplification commentary! Can not Mrs. Meyer tell the difference between the text and the commentary?
p.107ff Meyer uses the word “spirituality” where she seems to be talking about “religiousity”.
p.109 The problem in the anecdote was not that they were discussing “spiritual” things, but that they were
discussing aberrational things such as “casting out demons” and “Charismatic phrases”. These are common among adherents of charismania and embarrass other Christians. The “burnout” is usually caused by emotionalism or other wrong focus. Biographies of great men and women of the faith do not indicate “burn out.”
p.110 Meyer takes another shot at “reasoning.” Word Faith teachers continually denigrate any logical thought.
p.113 Meyer calls joy a “spiritual force.” This is definitely wrong. Joy is an attitude.
p.115 Meyer discusses being of “good cheer” and “good courage,” but she makes these two words synonymous. Sometimes I wonder if she understands English, let alone the Bible! In Joshua 1:6 God is telling Joshua to be courageous because he will be leading his people into the promised land. God has made Joshua the leader of Israel and is taking him into a situation that would be fearful to the average person, so God is telling Joshua not to fear because God will be with him. God was not telling Joshua to have a “cheerful attitude” as Meyer states. Meyer contrasts Josh. 1:6 with John 16:33 where it says to “be of good cheer” by pointing out that the Greek here can mean “be of good courage.” The alternate meaning is not in dispute; in fact the following are some translations of this verse: “be of good cheer,” “take courage,” “take heart,” “be confident,” “never lose heart,” “cheer up,” “be brave,” “be strong.” It seems to me that Jesus is telling them that, although the future looks bleak, he has already overcome the world so we can “stiff upper lip” it, cheer up and be confident in Him. This is a little bit different than telling someone about to go into combat to “be courageous.” I think comparing the two as synonymous is wrong.
p.116 Meyer tells us that we should not continue praying about something once we have prayed about it already. She says, “If we have prayed God has heard.” How then does Meyer explain the story Jesus tells in Luke 11:5-13 about the persistent neighbor? Or how does she explain Luke18:1-8 where Jesus discusses the judge who finally gave in to the persistent widow? Luke 18:1 even states that this parable was to show the disciples “that they should always pray and not give up.” God tells us to persist; how can Meyer contradict that? Meyer then brings in Mark 11:23, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand! Jesus was not telling us anything about “speaking to” versus “talking about” the mountain. He was giving a lesson on faith and its power in our lives. Again I have to ask if Meyer really understands what she reads.
p.117 God’s laughter in Psalm 2 is not a laughter of faith, nor a laughter of joy. God’s laughter is one of derision, mocking men who are arrogant. Meyer again does not rightly divide the Word.
p.118 Meyer says Abraham laughed “the laugh of faith” when God told him he would have a child. My reading of this text (Gen. 17:17) leads me to believe it was a laugh of incredulity, a laugh to himself that God couldn’t be serious.
p.119 Speaking of incredulity, the anecdote about a dying man who laughed himself well strains my credulity!
p.121 Meyer says, “According to the psalmist, the climate of heaven is joy and pleasure–-which means that where God is, there is holy laughter.” Meyer has now broached the subject of “holy laughter,” which is an unbiblical Manifestation found in the aberrational “revivals.” The cited Psalm, 16:11, no where hints of any such manifestation. A problem exists with the remainder of this chapter, and probably the remainder of the book, in that Meyer confuses joy in the Lord with mirth. A joyous attitude due to our faith and trust in God is not the same as the happiness or mirth that result in laughter. Joy in the Lord is very often had in even the saddest situations, with laughter not even considered. Meyer confuses joy in the Lord with worldly joy based on pleasures of the flesh. Laughter is not so much from joy in the Lord as it is with happiness and mirth in the flesh.
p.122 Meyer says that Acts 16:22-26 describes an “incident in the lives of Paul and Silas and how their joy
preceded and precipitated a ‘sudden’ breakthrough,” where the prison doors opened for their freedom. Scripture says that what “preceded and precipitated” their release was “praying and singing hymns of praise to God.” It appears to me that it was worship and prayer, not “joy,” that reached God. Did they have joy in the Lord? Most certainly, but it wasn’t that joy that led to their release except obliquely in that the joy in the Lord is probably what led them to pray and praise Him.
p.126-127 Meyer is building up to her case for “holy laughter.” For in-depth exposition on this manifestation and how unbiblical it is, there are several sources available, but the following should suffice:
Will the Real Pharisee Please Stand Up?, by Rev. Robert S. Liichow
Weighed and Found Wanting, by Pastor Bill Randles
Counterfeit Revival, by Hank Hanegraaff
The Signs and Wonders Movement - EXPOSED, edited by Peter Glover
Blessing or Judgement? by Rev. Robert S. Liichow
The Two Roots of Today’s Revival, by Rev. Robert S. Liichow
New Wine or Old Deception? by Roger Oakland
The Confusing World of Benny Hinn, by Fisher, Goedelman, et.al.
p.127 Meyer says, “When God called me to teach and preach His Word...” But with her demonstrated lack of rightly dividing the word, and her aberrational and heretical teachings in other venues, it is obvious that God has not called her to teach or preach!
p.128 Meyer says, “I believe Jesus laughed a lot more than most of us do.” The problem with this statement is that it is nothing more than that - a belief. The Bible never mentions Jesus laughing, and I doubt if He laughed all that much during his ministry or we would have been told as much in Scripture. Either way is arguing from silence. Writing of her meeting in Birmingham, Meyer states, “There was an obvious anointing on the time of ministry to those standing...” What is obvious to me from her narrative is not an anointing of God, but it may have been an anointing of the occult because of the manifestation of laughter.
p.129 Meyer says she “felt it was the Holy Spirit so I just stood and watched it.” Feelings are deceptive; we are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” The spirit she was watching in no way represented God. In her discussion about the woman, Meyer says, “God used her...” From her narrative it is obvious that God did not use this woman, rather another spirit used her to start unbiblical nonsense. What makes this even more obvious is the fact that Meyer says the entire congregation would laugh when the Word of God was spoken. Laughing at God’s Word can only come from the demonic realm. There is nothing funny about God’s Word.
p.130 Again Meyer claims God was involved in this unbiblical manifestation by saying that “God was ministering to the people Himself...” I challenge anyone to show me from Scripture where this “holy laughter” is in any fashion godly. She claims God has used “laughter to minister to the congregation over the years” but this is making an assumption that God was there. Did Meyer have a personal revelation to prove it was God and not an evil spirit? Due to the unbiblical nature of this manifestation, I am forced to conclude it was an evil spirit that was ministering.
p.135 The “signs and miracles” of Mark 16:20 were to confirm the original message, to authenticate what the apostles were teaching was true. We no longer need signs and wonders for authentication because we have the written Word. Any signs and wonders Meyer is seeing in her ministry are false (2 Thes. 2:9-12).
p.141-142 This section is mostly drivel discussing self-centered desires to satisfy one’s ego. She speaks much of self-focused boredom. This is an outgrowth of Meyer’s problem of confusing the joy in the Lord with hedonistic enjoyment in the world. She never seems to be able to separate those two distinct concepts.
p.146 Spiritual joy is not affected by “sameness.” This is an example of confusing joy in the Lord with enjoyment.
p.147 Meyer’s use of Rev.3:8 is out of context. In this passage Jesus is speaking to the church at Philadelphia. William MacDonald’s Commentary says, “The open door which Jewish synagogue and pagan cults were powerless to shut is the God-given opportunity to preach Christ to all who will hear. The key of David [v.7] is an Old Testament allusion to the absolute sovereignty of God in opening doors and shutting mouths. See Isaiah 22:22. ... Therefore He would set before [the church at Philadelphia] an open door of opportunity that no one would be able to shut.” The passage certainly has nothing to do with God opening or closing doors for us to tinker with “diversity.”
p.148-149 Another claim that God speaks directly to her. Meyer speaks much nonsense about having a good time, as if that is what the joy of the Lord is about. With her, it’s all about “me.” Some of the ideas are quite illogical and of disorder. But God is a God of order, so why would he want us to do things helter-skelter?
p.151 Meyer quotes from 1 Pet.3:18 about being full of “joy unspeakable and full of glory,” and then she says for us to “enjoy your life!” Persons being persecuted and tortured for Christ certainly are not enjoying life, but they do have joy in the Lord as their strength. This section is building up for her teaching about how we can have “creativity and diversity” in our “Spiritual life.”
p.153-154 If Joyce’s husband thinks she’s called by God for this teaching, he is sadly mistaken!
p.159 Meyer says, “God does some of His best work in secret, and He delights in surprising His children.” I’d like to see Biblical reference for this.
p.160 Meyer says here that, “...whatever God calls us to do, He provides enjoyment for. God has not drawn you and me into relationship with Himself in order to make us miserable. Instead, He brings us righteousness, peace and joy. (Rom 14:17.)” Again, Meyer is confusing joy with enjoyment. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God “provides enjoyment for” “whatever God calls us to do.” Meyer’s reference misses the last part of the verse - the part about what joy it is that God gives us. “[After all,] the kingdom of God is not a matter of [getting the] food and drink [one likes], but instead, it is righteousness - that state which makes a person acceptable to God - and heartpeace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (My emphasis.) We have “joy in the Holy Spirit,” not “enjoyment.”
p.164 Meyer says she has had “almost twenty years of experience working closely with God...” I find this to be rather presumptuous, saying that she and God work close together. With her teachings and twisting of Scripture, it is obvious that God doesn’t work close to Joyce. Maybe she meant she has been drawing near to God.
Well, there you have my review of the many errors Joyce Meyer has in her teaching in just this one book. One book is enough to tell me that Meyer is a false teacher who should be avoided.
Chuck Missler accused of plagierism
3 months ago