If you feel God's peace, then praise God!
My concern is that people take this experience and then project it onto others, so when they suffer, they effectively tell them the same things: "It doesn't matter what you're going through". If one thinks that with their own circumstances, then that is good for them, but to hit others with that, then we become cold, and when the others don't get over it like we have,, then we become judgmental ("Oh, you do not have God's peace. It's because of your attitude. You are denying the power", etc.) And this "hard teaching" sells to all those constatly listening and reading the teachers who have become famous partly on it. And when you listen to these people further, it becomes totally confusing, because then they say you can't feel the "peace"; it is just by "faith", (using the "passes understanding" verse) or that it develops later and stuff like that. So basically, what you're left with is positive thinking or even the WOF concept of "positive confession": "It doesn't feel good, but by faith I know that this is good, and I have peace". Once again, many cannot do this, so there is judgment, and the teachers even speak of "all those Christians out there who just don't get it" or somethign to that effect.
And most such verses like this are speaking of salvation, not "nothing that ever happens to you now ever matters". Basically, that could correspond to what Mary said regarding "knowing that God loves me". But often it is used to try to disregard others' pain, and sometimes we get steeped anough in it and start to even disregard our own pain, even though it is still there, and we admit struggling with it. That's why this "peace" must be kept in its proper context of salvation. Otherwise, it becomes misleading promise of good feelings, which the teachers then turn around and deny. (As much as people here seem to criticize Joyce Meyers, she is a prominent promoter of these principles and platitudes). Meanwhile, while telling others physical circumstances don't matter, they are using all that money they gain to make sure theirs are as good as they can get.
So don't say "it doesn't matter" that you lost your husband, and the house is leaky. It doesn't affect you eternal relationship with God, but these things do matter for the time being, because we are still physical beings.
As for "God's promises", here is another excerpt of the page:
Phil 4:19 "God shall supply all your needs" and Heb.13:5,6 "Be content with such things as you have: for He has said 'I will never leave you nor forsake you'[from Gen.28:15] so we can boldly say 'the Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do to me'[from Ps.27:1]" is taken basically to mean that whatever you have at any given time is all you 'really' need; so if you are being theatened or abused by someone, for instance, it shouldn't trouble you, because at least they cannot take your soul; and when in danger, don't fear because even if you lose your job, your possessions, etc., that's OK because that would be all you "need" because Christ is "with you". Tim LaHaye (Why You Act The Way You Do, p.362) cites an instance where a person is planning a vacation with him, but then finds he has lost his job. He "trusts God" and goes on the trip anyway. Sure enough, when he gets home, another employer has called him for a job. So "God provided for his needs". Fine. But if this hadn't happened, and he had to foreclose the house, or whatever, then that would have been "God's will" for Him, and he better not have dared "sin" by grumbling about it! He still has other things to "thank" God for, so that is apparently what his true "needs" were! Hence, the definition of "needs" becomes scaled down. So someone else reads this and they expect that to happen for them, but they are not as fortunate, and they will be disillusioned, and of course only get a pat answer about "needs" from these teachers. Our perception of "needs" (along with "love", "fairness", etc) is then even said to be skewed. But they shouldn't have set people's hopes up that high using the word "needs" (out of its biblical context) in the first place!
We are then told "If you have not accepted His full leading for your life, you will complain because you doubt things will turn out all right". (p.123-4) But just what is "all right"? Do Christians never lose everything and wind up on the street? Do they never lose limbs and other body functions? Have any never died without having "those things" added to them? It is very confusing, because on one hand, the way the verses are initially quoted, it looks like God is promising nothing really bad will ever happen, but when it does; then we must revise the definitions of "need" and "all right", with "food" or even "air" as the last resort to prove that every Christian's "needs" have always been "provided for" no matter what happened! (And then we are at that point reminded again of all the scriptures saying life would be suffering). But then do Christians never starve to death? What is "all right" about that? That their soul will be in Heaven, of course, which is the absolute final resort! Let's look at this from the other angle and compare life the way it is with this hypothetical situation that God ALWAYS prevents, or never allows: what would it mean for God to not be with us, or not supply our every need, or for Him to "leave" or "forsake" us, then? Since every physical and emotional calamity imaginable has in fact happened to Christians; the only thing we are absolutely spared from is ending up [eternally] lost! That is what these scriptures are ultimately pointing to! While this should give us hope and something to be thankful for, as well as "peace" from any worries about eternity; still, our emotions are based on current situations, and the teachers make it sound like those situations in themselves will be or turn into some later situation (in this life) that is "all right". But that is never promised for this life.
