THE BUNKER: defending a biblical worldview

PATRIOTIC IDOLATRY

2012-09-27T07:50:00.006-04:00

Is Kirk Cameron Demonstrating the Compromise that Results from Patriotic Idolatry?

By Erin Benziger ∙ 21 September 2012 ∙ In Opinion ∙ Bookmark permalink

Kirk Cameron is best remembered for his role as Mike Seaver in the 1980s sitcom, Growing Pains. Today he is known as a Christian evangelist with Way of the Master and even more recently, Cameron is recognized for his movie, Monumental, and his persistent urgings for Americans to return to their alleged Christian roots.
Monumental stirred a firestorm of reactions among evangelicals. Many criticized Cameron and the film for its inclusion of Mormon Glenn Beck and controversial historian David Barton. Others who are more involved in the movement to ‘save America’ praised the work in spite of what some deemed to be religious compromise.
Now, Cameron once again has sparked a controversy with his latest endorsement of Glenn Beck on his Facebook page. Cameron writes:

Glenn Beck kindly and enthusiastically helped get the word out about my new film MONUMENTAL, and now I would like to tell you about a hilarious new project from him!
NCM Fathom Events, Mercury Radio Arts and The Blaze Present Glenn Beck Unelectable 2012 in select movie theaters nationwide — live tomorrow night, September 20, 2012 with a second showing on Tuesday, September 25, 2012.
Don’t miss Glenn as he squares off in this mock presidential debate.
Source

This announcement launched a stream of comments (151 as of this writing) both in defense and criticism of this latest partnering of Cameron with Mormon Glenn Beck. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate of these is one that reads,

Mormons are definitely Christians. You are more than welcome to check out http://mormon.org/jesus-christ – it will answer any question about what Mormons believe! Besides, I love that Kirk is cool with being friends with people that don’t believe exactly what he believes. That, to me, is truly being a Christian. Source

As has been demonstrated on CRN’s own Mormonism research page, the differences between Christianity and Mormonism are many. The religion of Mormonism teaches a false and damning gospel. Of course, one could argue that Kirk Cameron did not himself make the above statement, nor has he agreed with it. Nevertheless, this is the type of conversation that now is ensuing on the Facebook wall of evangelical Christian Kirk Cameron. How misleading it is to have individuals claiming that Mormonism is the same as Christianity, and yet, as of this writing, there has been no correction from Cameron.
This reality grieved some to the point of asking Cameron to step down from his role at Way of the Master until or unless he repents of his promotion of and association with Glenn Beck. Christine Pack of Sola Sisters would write,

Tremendous confusion is being sown among the body by Kirk’s continued alliance with Mormon Glenn Beck. Does it matter to Kirk that some people here on his FB wall are now insisting that Mormons are Christians? If he can’t take responsibility for his own FB wall, and he allows that confusion to stand, he needs to resign from Way of the Master and step down from his role as an evangelist for the Christian faith. Source

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Cameron, along with co-host and fellow evangelist Ray Comfort, actually have taught against Mormonism on their Way of the Master television show.
Indeed, it was one thing several months ago for Kirk Cameron to accept the endorsement of Glenn Beck for his movie, Monumental. It is quite another for Cameron actually to endorse Glenn Beck, which is what he seems to now be doing. At this point one must wonder if 2 Corinthians 6:14–16 begins to take relevance.
Another comment from a concerned individual reads as follows:

Kirk, please, I beg you. You are undermining the gospel by your partnership and promotion of Glenn Beck and his projects. The gospel is greater and more important than America. America will pass away. It is temporary, but God’s Word and His gospel is forever. Please. Look at all the people on this thread who have no idea. You are influencing them in a bad way. Source

This person seems to have identified the problem precisely. What was demonstrated in Cameron’s movie, and what he has consistently been preaching in recent months, is the importance of America to return to what he believes are its Christian roots. Yet, could such a focus be perceived as patriotic idolatry? Speaking at the 2012 Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. last Friday, the Christian Post notes that Cameron

said America can get out of the “mess” by returning to the “original factory settings,” which involves listening to the Founding Fathers who relied on wisdom that comes from faith in God and His Word. Source

Is this really the answer? Why not turn directly to God’s Word? Further, were America’s “original factory settings” truly Christian as Cameron alleges? In a conversation with Dr. Al Mohler, Gregg Frazer, professor and author of the book, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, discussed his research of America’s founding fathers. Speaking here about John Adams, Frazer noted:

John Adams, I argue, is sort of the quintessential theistic rationalist. That is, he wrote the most about theology of any of the key founders and studied the most. He read any and all theology that he could find around the world and he wrote the most about it and revealed his own views the most, and it’s really quite shocking what he came up with. He fundamentally denied basically all the fundamental tenants of the faith. He was raised in a Calvinist community; although, and again this is where denominational affiliations can get you in trouble, his church was listed as Congregationalist and they kept that name, but the church turned Unitarian when he was a young man, and so just the label Congregationalist can get you sort of off-track. But he denied the deity of Christ; he denied the Trinity; he denied the atonement. He actually said what I think is the most striking statement of all the things that I’ve found in all of my study, which was in his explaining his opposition to the Trinity, he actually said that if he were standing on Mount Sinai with Moses, where God gives revelation, and God Himself told him that the Trinity was true, he said he wouldn’t believe it.
He referred to the deity of Christ and the atonement as absurdities, talked about the fabrication of the Christian Trinity. He talked about the incarnation and said it has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity—the belief in an eternal self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient Author of this stupendous universe suffering on a cross—says that that’s the source of most of the problems in Christianity. Speaking of the Bible, he said that philosophy is the original revelation of the Creator to His creature, and no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it, so philosophy trumps the Bible.
Source

If America’s “original factory settings” were not actually Christian, then Kirk Cameron’s admonition for the country to return to these is erroneous and potentially dangerous. It is not the job of the Christian to moralize his country. The Facebook comment quoted above noted a fact of far greater importance: America is temporary. It will pass away. The Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, however, will not. These are eternal.
Where, then, ought the Christian set his sights? Not on a country made of men, but on Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:2) and His eternal kingdom. Those whose focus remains fixed on America, her financial failings and her moral pitfalls find themselves engaging in patriotic idolatry. How does one “get out of that mess”? Repent, remember and return to the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the only true hope.

2012-09-20T12:08:00.003-04:00

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship

Thursday, September 20, 2012

by Al Mohler

The whole world changed on Tuesday. At least, that is what many would have us to believe. Smithsonian magazine, published by the Smithsonian Institution, declares that the news released Tuesday was “apt to send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship — and beyond.” Really?

What was this news? Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced at a conference in Rome that she had identified an ancient papyrus fragment that includes the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” Within hours, headlines around the world advertised the announcement with headlines like “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife” (The Telegraph).

The Smithsonian article states that “the announcement at an academic conference in Rome is sure to send shock waves through the Christian world.” The magazine’s breathless enthusiasm for the news about the papyrus probably has more to do with advertising its upcoming television documentary than anything else, but the nation’s most prestigious museum can only injure its reputation with this kind of sensationalism.

A Fragment of a Text, an Even More Fragmentary Argument
What Karen King revealed on Tuesday was a tiny papyrus fragment with Coptic script on both sides. On one side the fragment includes about 30 words on eight fragmentary lines of script. The New York Times described the fragment as “smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.” The lines are all fragmentary, with the third line reading “deny. Mary is worthy of it,” and the next reading “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” The fifth states, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The papyrus fragment, believed to be from the fourth century, was delivered to Professor King by an anonymous source who secured the artifact from a German-American dealer, who had bought it years ago from a source in East Germany. As news reports made clear, the fragment is believed by many to be an authentic text from the fourth century, though two of three authorities originally consulted by the editors of the Harvard Theological Review expressed doubts. Such a find would be interesting, to be sure, but hardly worthy of the international headlines.

The little piece of ancient papyrus with its fragmentary lines of text is now, in the hands of the media, transformed into proof that Jesus had a wife, and that she was most likely Mary Magdalene. Professor King will bear personal responsibility for most of this over-reaching. She has called the fragment nothing less than “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” — a title The Boston Globe rightly deemed “provocative.” That same paper reported that Professor King decided to publicize her findings before additional tests could verify the fragment’s authenticity because she “feared word could leak out about its existence in a way that sensationalized its meaning.” Seriously? King was so concerned about avoiding sensationalism that she titled the fragment “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife?”

This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. One British newspaper notes that the claims about a married Jesus seem more worthy of fans of Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code, than “real-life Harvard professors.” If the fragment is authenticated, the existence of this little document will be of interest to historians of the era, but it is insanity to make the claims now running through the media.

Professor King claims that these few words and phrases should be understood as presenting a different story of Jesus, a different gospel. She then argues that the words should be read as claiming that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was likely his wife. She argues further that, while this document provides evidence of Jesus’ marital status, the phrases do not necessarily mean he was married. More than anything else, she argues against the claim that Christianity is a unified body of commonly-held truths.

Those familiar with Karen King’s research and writings will recognize the argument. Her 2003 book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, argued that another text from the era presented Mary Magdalene as the very model for apostleship.

A Preference for Heterodoxy
The thread that ties all these texts and arguments together is the 1945 discovery of some 52 ancient texts near the town of Nag Hammadi in Egypt. These texts are known to scholars as Gnostic literature. The texts present heretical narratives and claims about Jesus and his message, and they have been a treasure trove for those seeking to replace orthodox Christianity with something different.

Several ambitions drive this effort. Feminists have sought to use the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that women have been sidelined by the orthodox tradition, and that these Gnostic texts prove that women were central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to the men. Others have used the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that Christianity was diverse movement marked by few doctrinal concerns until it was hijacked by political and ecclesiastical leaders, who constructed theological orthodoxy as a way of establishing churchly power in the Roman Empire and then stifling dissent. Still others argue that Christianity’s moral prohibitions concerning sexuality, and especially homosexuality, were part of this forced orthodoxy which, they argue, was not the essence of true Christianity. More than anything else, many have used the Nag Hammadi texts as leverage for their argument that Christianity was originally a way of spirituality centered in the teachings of a merely human Christ — not a message of salvation through faith in a divine Jesus who saves sinners through the atonement he accomplished in his death and resurrection.

Professor King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels, has argued that the politically powerful leaders who established what became orthodox Christianity silenced other voices, but that these voices now speak through the Nag Hammadi texts and other Gnostic writings. Writing together, King and Pagels argue that “the traditional history of Christianity is written almost solely from the viewpoint of the side that won, which was remarkably successful in silencing or distorting other voices, destroying their writings, and suppressing any who disagreed with them as dangerous and obstinate ‘heretics.’”
King and Pagels both reject traditional Christianity, and they clearly prefer the voices of the heretics. They argue for the superiority of heterodoxy over orthodoxy. In the Smithsonian article, King’s scholarship is described as “a kind of sustained critique of what she called the ‘master story’ of Christianity: a narrative that casts the canonical texts of the New Testament as a divine revelation that passed through Jesus in ‘an unbroken chain’ to the apostles and their successors — church fathers, ministers, priests and bishops who carried these truths into the present day.”

King actually argues against the use of terms like “heresy” and even “Gnostic,” claiming that the very use of these terms gives power to the forces of orthodoxy and normative Christianity. Nevertheless, she cannot avoid using the terms herself (even in the titles of her own books). She told Ariel Sabar of Smithsonian, “You’re talking to someone who’s trying to integrate a whole set of ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history.”

Orthodoxy and Heresy: The Continual Struggle
Those who use Gnostic texts like those found at Nag Hammadi attempt to redefine Christianity so that classic, biblical, orthodox Christianity is replaced with a very different religion. The Gnostic texts reduce Jesus to the status of a worldly teacher who instructs his followers to look within themselves for the truth. These texts promise salvation through enlightenment, not through faith and repentance. Their Jesus is not the fully human and fully divine Savior and there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Were these writings found at Nag Hammadi evidence of the fact that the early church opposed and attempted to eliminate what it understood to be false teachings? Of course. That is what the church said it was doing and what the Apostles called upon the church to do. The believing church did not see heresy as an irritation — it saw heterodoxy as spiritual death. Those arguing for the superiority of the Gnostic texts deny the divine inspiration of the New Testament and prefer the heterodox teachings of the Gnostic heretics. Hauntingly, the worldview of the ancient Gnostics is very similar, in many respects, to various worldviews and spiritualities around us today.

The energy behind all this is directed to the replacement of orthodox Christianity, its truth claims, its doctrines, its moral convictions, and its vision of both history and eternity with a secularized — indeed, Gnositicized — new version.

Just look at the attention this tiny fragment of papyrus has garnered. Its few words and broken phrases are supposed to cast doubt on the New Testament and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. A tiny little fragment which, even if authentically from the fourth century, is placed over against the four New Testament Gospels, all written within decades of Jesus’ earthy ministry.
“The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife?” Not hardly. This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. Nevertheless, do not miss what all this really represents — an effort to replace biblical Christianity with an entirely new faith.

How to Think About the Embassy Violence

2012-09-15T10:38:00.002-04:00

How to Think About the Embassy Violence

Kevin DeYoung|11:47 am CT

NOTE: I’ve made several changes to this post from earlier this afternoon. Unlike professional journalists or media outlets I am not equipped to follow a breaking story like this throughout the day. Thus, some of the information in the original post was in need of qualification or correction. In particular, three points:

The attacks in Libya may have been preplanned and coordinated for the 9/11 anniversary. The YouTube video may be cover for the premeditated actions which were conceived well before the movie. We don’t know all the details yet.
Terry Jones involvement may be little more than a lurching for the spotlight after things began to escalate. This “pastor” should not be given more credit than he deserves.
It’s become clearer to me after I first published my post that the remarks from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo came before the attacks in Libya and before the full scale protests arose in Egypt. This puts the “cowardly” comments in a different light. Even if observers think they were too apologetic (which is probably why the White House didn’t want anything to do with them), they should be seen in their proper context. The previous iteration of this post was too quick to cast a harsh judgment, when a more judicious criticism (or saying nothing at all) was in order.

I’ve decided to keep the bulk of the post the same because I think the overarching points are still valid. The tensions between the West and radical Islam are worth commenting on. The big picture problem is not going away, but as a pastor I’m not in a good position to comment on all the specific issues in real time. Lesson learned.

******

What we are seeing unfold is terrible, uncalled for, and has to stop. All the way around.
The U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three embassy staff were killed by al-Qaeda linked gunmen in a raid on the consulate building in Benghazi. Meanwhile, in neighboring Egypt thousands of protesters tore down an American flag, burned it, and raised a black Muslim flag in its place. Reportedly, the reason for this international upheaval is a video on YouTube which criticizes Islam and mocks the prophet Mohammad (though increasingly it seems the 9/11 anniversary may have more to do with the violence). The film was reportedly produced by an Israeli-American property developer and has been promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones.
Everything about this ordeal is monumentally unfortunate and unnecessary.

Let’s start with Terry Jones. I wrote about him two years ago when he threatened to burn the Koran (a stunt he dropped and then later carried out). What I said then I’ll say again now: Jones’ actions are stupid and selfish. He puts American troops at risk, American dignitaries at risk, and American church workers around the world at risk. He certainly knows how to get attention. But he doesn’t seem to know how to make a difference for the good of the gospel, or even the good of his country. And as for the video, by all all accounts its depiction of Islam is unsophisticated, undignified, and unwise.

However insulting and detrimental Jones and others like him can be, however, the response of the gunmen in Libya is positively deplorable. To murder an ambassador over a YouTube video–or even over the pretense of a video–is wicked and evil. As I also pointed out two years ago, Muslim extremism cannot be laid at the feet of Western aggravation. No pastor or cartoonist or novelist is responsible for the outrage and violence carried out by some extremists Muslims and by terrorist-affiliated groups. Some may tempted to say, “Well, who can blame them when their prophet or holy book is desecrated.” But we can still blame them, and we ought to. Jesus is mocked in a thousand public ways every day in this country (and in most countries). This is wrong and deeply offensive to Christians. But it gives us no right to riot and threaten and murder. Every Christian should agree that killing people is not an acceptable response to religious offense. Every human being with a little common grace and a functioning conscience should agree with this principle. Muslims included.
This incident underscores one of the most significant challenges facing the Western world in our day. Will peoples who believe in free speech and freedom of religion sacrifice both when faced with the angry shouts and gunfire of those who don’t? As long as top ranking officials plead with crazy pastors every time they are itching to be annoying, the aggravating people among us will wield astronomically more power than they deserve. Citizens in this country have freedom of speech, which means they have the right to be annoying. Our authorities ought to protect that right, no matter whom they offend, including Muslims. No country can apologize (nor should they try to apologize) every time one or ten or three hundred of her citizens do something outrageous.

We don’t yet know all the details of who, what, and why. And, no doubt, we haven’t heard the last word on the matter from our government or our politicians. But we should not hesitate to restate and defend our first principles. In a democracy people are allowed to say and create things others don’t like. What they can’t do is perpetuate crimes that are deplorably wicked and violent. To act like the former offense is the real problem and not the latter is a foreign policy blunder, not to mention a moral one.

Pastor Greg Boyd Owes AiG a Public Apology!

2012-09-15T10:24:00.000-04:00

Pastor Greg Boyd Owes AiG a Public Apology!

Published on September 9, 2012 in Around AiG and Current Issues in the World.

On my Facebook page recently, I responded to a blog post written by Pastor Greg Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. You can read that Facebook post at this link.
Pastor Boyd specifically mentioned my name and that of our Answers in Genesis ministry as a whole in regard to our position on the book of Genesis. He said that he believed the impact AiG was having would be "disastrous for the church in America."

Now, Pastor Boyd can certainly have his opinions about what we believe at AiG and our impact, and I have commented on those things in the Facebook post. But in one sentence, Pastor Boyd clearly crossed the line and falsely accused us about what we teach regarding the gospel. Frankly, I believe this pastor owes us a public apology and needs to immediately retract this false statement. A Christian who bears false witness must do this.
Here is what Pastor Boyd wrote:

I instead just celebrate the fact that there are thoughtful Christians who embrace science and who wrestle with scientific and theological issues from the inside of the Christian faith instead of requiring people to declare war on science as a precondition to entering the kingdom.

Because he named me personally (and also Answers in Genesis) in his commentary, Pastor Boyd, in the context of his blog post, is leaving no doubt this his statement about the gospel refers to us. (I have asked several people to weigh in on this, and they all agree with my assessment.)
Also, I vehemently disagree with his implication that AiG is in a "war on science," and we've written many responses to such a false claim before (and I point out that we employ several staff with earned doctorates, and who practice and enjoy science). But here is where Pastor Boyd has really crossed the line, stating that "requiring people to declare a war on science [is] a precondition to entering the kingdom."

In the Christian world, "entering the kingdom" means becoming a Christian-eternal salvation.
Boyd's accusation that taking a certain approach to science is a "precondition to entering the kingdom" is accusing us of preaching a false gospel.

I checked the website of Woodland Hills Church and read its Statement of Faith. It seems to me that as far as the gospel is concerned, the church is orthodox. So I would never accuse Pastor Boyd, even though he disagrees with our stand on Genesis, of saying that people have to agree with his views on Genesis and science to enter the Kingdom of God! If he preaches the gospel as outlined in the church's Statement of Faith (regardless of any other areas we may disagree about), then I have no doubt people would be saved through his ministry as the salvation message is preached in his church.
Now, if Pastor Boyd were to check AiG's Statement of Faith and also read our blogs and articles on the AiG website, he would find that we preach the same gospel. Nowhere-I mean nowhere-have we ever tied anything related to science or one's views on Genesis as a "precondition to entering the kingdom." Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Certainly we take a very strong stand on a literal Genesis, but we never tie our stand on a young earth, six days, global Flood, etc. to a "precondition to entering the kingdom."

Let me be even more clear: We wholeheartedly embrace these passages of Scripture:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8; emphasis added).
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
In fact, here are some blog posts and articles we've written about this very issue:

Pastor Boyd's anti-AiG statement is clearly one that defames us in the Christian world. He has no evidence that we tie a view of science to entering the kingdom and receiving salvation.
Again, Pastor Boyd can disagree with us all he wants about Genesis-that's between him and the Lord! But he can't in good conscience falsely accuse us in regard to what we teach about the gospel.

Christian Values Cannot Save Anyone

2012-09-15T10:21:00.001-04:00

Christian Values Cannot Save Anyone

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - by Al Mohler

A recent letter to columnist Carolyn Hax of The Washington Post seemed straightforward enough. “I am a stay-at-home mother of four who has tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with,” the woman writes. “Therefore I was shocked when my oldest daughter, ‘Emily,’ suddenly announced she had ‘given up believing in God’ and decided to ‘come out’ as an atheist.”

The idea of a 16-year-old atheist in the house would be enough to alarm any Christian parent, and rightly so. The thought that a secular advice columnist for The Washington Post might be the source of help seems very odd, but desperation can surely lead a parent to seek help almost anywhere.

You usually get what you expect from an advice columnist like this — therapeutic counsel based in a secular worldview and a deep commitment to personal autonomy. Carolyn Hax responds to this mother with an admonition to respect the integrity of her daughter’s declaration of non-belief. She adds, “Parents can and should teach their beliefs and values, but when a would-be disciple stops believing, it’s not a ‘decision’ or ‘choice’ to ‘reject’ church or family or tradition or virtue or whatever else has hitched a cultural ride with faith.”

That is patent nonsense, of course. Declarations of adolescent unbelief often are exactly what Hax argues they are not: rejections of “church or family or tradition or virtue.” Hax does offer some legitimate insights, suggesting that honesty is to be preferred to dishonesty and that such adolescent statements are often indications of a phase of intellectual questioning or just trying on a personality for style.

Hax then tells this distraught mother that she “didn’t throw out what my childhood, including my church, taught me; I still apply what I believe in. I just apply it to a secular life.” In other words, Hax asserts that she maintains many of the values she learned as a child in church, and simply applies these values now to a secular life.

“How can I help my daughter see that she is making a serious mistake with her life if she chooses to reject her God and her faith?,” the mother asks. Hax tells the mother to accept the daughter’s atheism and get over her “disappointment that she isn’t turning out just as you envisioned.”

What else would you expect a secular columnist who operates from a secular worldview to say?

The real problem does not lie with Carolyn Hax’s answer, however, but with the mother’s question. The problem appears at the onset, when the mother states that she has “tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with.”

Christian values are the problem. Hell will be filled with people who were avidly committed to Christian values. Christian values cannot save anyone and never will. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Christian value, and a comfortability with Christian values can blind sinners to their need for the gospel.

This one sentence may not accurately communicate this mother’s understanding, but it appears to be perfectly consistent with the larger context of her question and the source of the advice she sought.

Parents who raise their children with nothing more than Christian values should not be surprised when their children abandon those values. If the child or young person does not have a firm commitment to Christ and to the truth of the Christian faith, values will have no binding authority, and we should not expect that they would. Most of our neighbors have some commitment to Christian values, but what they desperately need is salvation from their sins. This does not come by Christian values, no matter how fervently held. Salvation comes only by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Human beings are natural-born moralists, and moralism is the most potent of all the false gospels. The language of “values” is the language of moralism and cultural Protestantism — what the Germans called Kulturprotestantismus. This is the religion that produces cultural Christians, and cultural Christianity soon dissipates into atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of non-belief. Cultural Christianity is the great denomination of moralism, and far too many church folk fail to recognize that their own religion is only cultural Christianity — not the genuine Christian faith.

The language of values is all that remains when the substance of belief disappears. Tragically, many churches seem to perpetuate their existence by values, long after they abandon the faith.

We should not pray for Christian morality to disappear or for Christian values to evaporate. We should not pray to live in Sodom or in Vanity Fair. But a culture marked even by Christian values is in desperate need of evangelism, and that evangelism requires the knowledge that Christian values and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same thing.

I pray that this young woman and her mother find common hope and confidence in the salvation that comes only through Christ — not by Christian values. Otherwise, we are facing far more than a young woman “making a serious mistake with her life.” We are talking about what matters for eternity. Christian values cannot save anyone.

What Did America's Founders Really Believe? A Conversation with Historian Gregg Frazer Transcript

2012-09-15T10:17:00.000-04:00

What Did America's Founders Really Believe?

A Conversation with Historian Gregg Frazer Transcript

Monday, September 10, 2012

Gregg Frazer, Author, The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution

Thinking in Public

September 10, 2012

Mohler: This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them. I'm Albert Mohler, your host and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
The question of the religious convictions and the theological ideas of America's founding generation continue to reverberate in very contemporary controversy. And no one's better able to help us to interpret that controversy than my guest today, Professor Gregg Frazer, who is a professor of history at The Master's College in California. Professor Frazer holds a Ph.D. degree from Claremont Graduate University.

Professor Frazer, welcome to Thinking in Public.
Frazer: Thank you; glad to be here.

Mohler: Your new book, entitled The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, published by the University of Kansas Press, seems to be a particularly well-timed book, given so many of the controversies that have emerged in evangelical circles even in just the last several weeks. But a project like this goes way back, in terms of your planning and interest. How did you come to write this book?

Frazer: Well, I've been interested in the subject of the religious beliefs of the founders for over 30 years. As I actually explain in the preface to the book, some 35 years ago, I was sitting in an audience listening to Peter Marshall and David Manuel talk about the light and the glory and trying to make a case for United States being established as a Christian nation, and, as an historian, I just didn't think it sounded right. I thought that there were significant problems, and that launched me into 30 years really of studying this. And then when it came time to do a doctoral dissertation, that's what I ended up doing as my doctoral dissertation, and that launched into, eventually, the book.

Click here for complete article:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-america%E2%80%99s-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer-transcript/

INFLATION - When it Returns ...

2012-09-15T10:13:00.002-04:00

When, Not If, Inflation Returns

09/10/12

The cheek of it! They raised the price of my favorite ice cream. Actually, they didn’t increase the price; they reduced the container size. I can now only get three servings for the same amount of money that used to give me four, so I’m buying ice cream more often.
Raising prices is one thing. I understand raw-ingredient price rises will be passed on.
But underhandedly reducing the amount they give you…that’s another thing entirely. It just doesn’t feel…honest.

You’ve noticed, I’m sure, how much gasoline is going up.
Food costs too are edging up.
My kids’ college expenses, up.

Car prices, insurance premiums, household items — a list of necessities I can’t go without. Regardless of one’s income level or how tough life might get at times, one has to keep spending money on the basics. (This includes ice cream for only some people.)
According to the government, we’re supposedly in a low-inflation environment. What happens if price inflation really takes off, reaching high levels — or worse, spirals out of control?
That’s not a rhetorical question. Have you considered how you’ll deal with rising costs? Are you sure your future income will even keep up with rising inflation?
If price inflation someday takes off — an outcome we honestly see no way around — nobody’s current standard of living can be maintained without an extremely effective plan for keeping up with inflation.

It’s not that people won’t get raises or cost of living adjustments at work, nor that they will all neglect to accumulate savings.
It’s that the value of the dollars those things are in will be losing purchasing power at increasingly rapid rates. It will take more and more currency units to buy the same amount of gas and groceries and tuition. And ice cream.

I’m not talking science fiction here.
When the consequences of runaway debt, out-of-control deficit spending, and money-printing schemes come home to roost, it’s not exactly a stretch to believe that high inflation will result.
We need a way to diffuse the impact this will have on our purchasing power. We need a strategy to protect our standard of living. How will we accomplish this?

I suspect you know my answer, but here’s a good example. You’ve undoubtedly heard about the drought in the Midwest and how it’s impacted the corn crop. The price of corn has surged 50% in the past two months alone.

Commodity analysts say the price could rise another 20% or more as the drought continues.
Every corn-based product on the grocery shelf will soon take a lot more dimes and dollars to buy. But wait — what if I used gold to buy corn?

(Click on image to enlarge)

While the price of gold constantly fluctuates, you would have experienced, on average, no inflation over the last 30 years if you’d used gold to purchase corn. Actually, right now, it’d be on the cheap side.

When you extrapolate this to other food items — and virtually everything else you buy — it’s very liberating. Think about it: gold continues its safe-haven role as a reliable hedge against rising inflation.

I believe that those who save in gold will experience, on average, no cost increases in the things they buy and the services they use.
Their standard of living would not be impacted.

I think this kind of thinking is especially critical to adopt when you consider that supply and demand trends for gas and food dictate that prices will likely rise for a long time, and perhaps dramatically.
So how much will you need to make it through the upcoming inflation storm and come out unscathed?
Like all projections, assumptions abound. Here are mine for the following table. I’m assuming that:

The price of gold, on average and at a minimum, tracks the loss in purchasing power of whatever currency you use, and that it does so from current prices. Given gold’s history, this is an easy assumption to make.

Gold sales, over time, capture the gain in gold and silver so that your purchasing power is preserved. (This doesn’t mean I expect to sell at the top of the market; I expect we’ll be selling gold as needed — if gold has not itself become a widely accepted currency again.)

We pay taxes on the gain. This will decrease our net gain, but there should still be gains. In the famous Weimar Germany hyperinflation, gold rose faster than the rate of hyperinflation.

To calculate how much we’ll need, I looked at two components, the first being average monthly expenses. What would we use our gold and silver for? From corn to a house payment, it could be used for any good or service. After all, virtually nothing will escape rising inflation. Here are some of my items: groceries, gas, oil changes and other car maintenance, household items, eating out, pool service, pest service, groceries and gas again, eating out again, vitamins, movie tickets, doctor appointments, haircuts, pet grooming, kids who need some cash, gifts, and groceries and gas yet again. Groceries include ice cream, in my case. How many ounces of gold would cover these monthly expenses today?

And don’t forget the big expenses — broken air conditioner, new vehicle, vacation… and I really don’t think my daughter will want to get married at the county rec hall. How many ounces of gold would I need to cover such likely events in the future?
The point here is that you’re probably going to need more ounces than you think. Look at your bank statement and assess how much you spend each month — and do it honestly.
The other part of the equation is how long we’ll need to use gold and silver to cover those expenses. The potential duration of high inflation will dictate how much physical bullion we need stashed away. This is also probably longer than you think; in Weimar Germany, high inflation lasted two years — and then hyperinflation hit and lasted another two. Four years of high inflation. That’s not kindling — that’s a wildfire roaring through your back yard.

So here’s how much gold you’ll need, depending on your monthly expenses and how long high inflation lasts.

If my monthly expenses are about $3,000/month, I need 45 ounces to cover two years of high inflation, and 90 if it lasts four years. Those already well off or who want to live like Doug Casey should use the bottom rows of the table. How much will you need?
Of course many of us own silver, too. Here’s how many ounces we’d need, if we saved in silver.

A $3,000 monthly budget needs 1,285 ounces to get through one year, or 3,857 ounces for three years.
I know these amounts probably sound like a lot. But here’s the thing: if you don’t save now in gold and silver, you’re going to spend a whole lot more later.
What I’ve outlined here is exactly what gold and silver are for: to protect your purchasing power, your standard of living.

It’s like having your own personal financial bomb shelter; the dollar will be blowing up all around you, but your finances are protected.
And the truth is, the amounts in the table are probably not enough. Unexpected expenses always come up. Or you may want a higher standard of living. And do you hope to leave some bullion to your heirs?
It’s sobering to realize, but it deserves emphasis: if we’re right about high inflation someday hitting our economy…
If you think the amount of precious metals you’ve accumulated might be lacking, I strongly encourage you to put a plan in motion to save enough to meet your family’s needs.
Whatever plan you adopt, my advice is to make sure you have a meaningful amount of bullion to withstand the firestorm that’s almost mathematically certain to occur at this point. And now you know exactly how much gold you’re going to need.

Regards,
Jeff Clark
for The Daily Reckoning

MONUMENTAL the movie ... A monumental "Christian" mistake!

2012-04-28T14:27:00.001-04:00

..(2) preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (3) For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (4) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths - 2 Timothy 4:2-4

A MONUMENTAL MIS-STEP

Is seems like the Christian Narrative for our country is becoming more and more dilluted with each passing day. Jesus states in the Gospel of John ... "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" - John 14:6. I cannot find anything within the scripture that states that the Founding Fathers, the Tea Party or the restoration of a pagan Masonic monument will restore America and get us back to the ideals of the 1600's ... can you? Please don't misunderstand, I am in agreement with my Christian brothers and sisters that our country is in steep decline, but it is becoming clear that the "conservative" side of the aisle is taking a page out of the playbook of the left by ... "not letting a good crisis go to waste ..."

Kirk Cameron (Way of the Master / Living Waters) recently released a film entitled MONUMENTAL: In Search of America's National Treasure. Cameron is passionate in his desire to preserve the nation for generations to come, but is his desire misguided? There are many questions that DISCERNING CHRISTIANS must answer before discussing or endorsing this film. Questions like: Is his presentation of history accurate? Is Cameron un-knowlingly misleading millions of "well-meaning" down a road that is unbiblical? Is there another agenda behind the release of this movie?

It is interesting that Cameron states .... "this is only the beginning" ... One only has to do a google search to find out what Cameron is referring to ... click here to see the number of resources for Monumental. After viewing all of the resources - let me ask you a question - who are these resources marketed towards? Will the market be left-leaning, humanistic democrats? Or, is Cameron and his team marketing this project to conservatives, evangelicals, home-schoolers and Tea Party Patriots ... I think we all would lean towards the latter ....

As you embark on researching this project to determine its accuracy ... I feel it is important for you to understand a few of my concerns surrounding MONUMENTAL ... You can find them listed below:

1. Monument to the Forefathers ... THE monument of MONUMENTAL ...

Former Mormon and Freemason, Ed Decker details, "The Monument at Plymouth was not constructed at the site of the Pilgrims' crossing in 1620 and was not erected at God's instruction, by the pilgrims who were the ones who actually crossed. They never referred to any such thing as their memorial or their Gilgal, as it might have been.

Instead of a set of memorial stones, such as we read about throughout the Old Testament, this Masonic monument rises 81 feet above its base. It is hardly a Gigal.

It's cornerstone was laid in a grand procession and ceremony by Freemasons in 1859, 239 years after the Pilgrims landed. When I say grand procession, I mean several thousand Masons marched with their banners held high." - The Decker Report - The Freemasons and America: A Monumental Strategy

The Decker Report - Free Masonry and Mason Lodge - Resource Library - click here

The Freemasons and America: A Monumental Strategy - full article - click here

Worldview Weekend - Brannon Howse - Monumental Article - click here

2. Monumental - A review - Vince and Lori Williams (authors of Falsified: the danger of false conversions) - click here

3. Is MONUMENTAL historically accurate? The questionable history of David Barton - Throckmorton article - click here

Wing Clips Video Excerpt - Explanation by Barton to Cameron - watch it here

4. Monumental Tour ... billed as an opportunity to re-trace the steps of the Pilgrims, become trained and equipped regarding the formation of America ... but why study and become trained in the things of the occult? (see Decker articles for more context)

5. Monumental Tour Speakers

Kirk Cameron - www.kirkcameron.com
Marshall Foster - World History Institute
Gary Demar - American Vision

most alarming of all the speakers (from Evangelical perspective)
Demar is a PRETERIST ... it is this belief that fuels his RECONSTRUCTIONISM
Preter-ism is 2-pronged (Full versus Partial)
Preter-ism ... is not a biblical concept, rather it originated with the Jesuit Order
Noise of Thunder Radio - Chris Pinto Article - Jesuit: Romanist Preterism - click here

As you can see, there is more than one reason for the confessing church to be concerned. We are on the edge of a very slippery slope ... I hope that you take some time to investigate the information contained within this post and discern what action you need to take with the results.

Mitt Romney 2012 ... Mormon Plan for America

2012-04-27T17:13:00.001-04:00

The Mormon Plan for America and The Rise of Mitt Romney

The Man Who Would Be God

Ed Decker

From the book: My Kingdom Come: The Mormon Quest for Godhood

This is just a peek inside this important chapter

The very ethos of the Mormon faith is built around the anticipated return of Jesus to Independence, Missouri, for his thousand-year millennial reign. It is here that he will assign godhood to the worthy. However, it cannot take place until the U.S. Constitution falters and is saved by the LDS church. The nation will become a Mormon theocracy. Mitt Romney has raised Mormon speculation that this may be the time and that he may be the one to lead the way as both U.S. President and LDS high priest.

Almost 30 Years ago, the late BYU Professor and LDS author Cleon Skousen founded the Freemen Institute [later to be called The National Center for Constitutional Studies]. The name came from the Book of Mormon

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name offreemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government. Alma 51: 6-7

Skousen joined forces with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority on some major political issues late 70s and early 80s and I was prompted to study out both the public and the LDS insider position on government, the constitution. [LDS say it is a divine document from the hand of God] Using that research, I produced a Study called “The Mormon Plan for America”.
When George Romney, Mitt’s father, made his aborted run for President in 1968, there was a lot in internal LDS talk about the last days prophecies that the US constitution would hang by a thread to be saved by the elders of the LDS church. Many felt that the day had finally arrived for the actual “Kingdom of God” to be established.

This pure form of theocratic, prophet led government would prepare the way for the ushering in of the millennium, the time when Jesus would return to earth, sit in his temple in Missouri to reign over the earth, with the center of His government operated as the “Kingdom of God” on earth.

The actual background for all these whispered conversations came from much of the historical documents of the church and the speeches of many of the early church authorities.

It goes something like this. Joseph Smith implemented a program called the United Order in the church… It was a plan of sharing... everything in common, all properties and wealth turned over and owned by the church and dispersed by the Brethren to the people on an as needed basis with a requirement for good stewardship or loss of use.

It was called the “Kingdom of God.” It was people living as God ordained under the United Order. However, it failed.
It was later determined that it could only work when both the secular and ecclesiastic functions operated under one authority... An LDS prophet ruling over a theocratic government where eternal commandments like the United Order and plural marriage and blood atonement would function within “The Kingdom of God”

That Theocracy would come into existence when the US Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy.
On December 7, 1968 Elder Hugh B. Brown presided over the groundbreaking of the LDS Washington D.C. Temple. It was dedicated in November 1974 by the prophet, Spencer W. Kimball.

The unique thing about this temple that struck me as singularly important was the design and furnishing of a large room on the upper floor. A photograph of this room is in the film, The Godmakers. It was set to house a presiding governing body.

It is my own personal belief that it was designed as the place where the theocratic government of God would conduct its business, with the prophet in His place of authority.

Full Complete Article - click here - or visit http://www.saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/the-mormon-plan-for-america-and-the-rise-of-mitt-romney

David Barton ... Telling Lies about Jefferson

2012-04-21T20:36:00.000-04:00

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ - Colossians 2:8

David Barton (self professed Christian and historian) has recently published a book entitled "The Jefferson Lies". Discerning readers only need to look at who composed the foreword (none other than LDS Mormon Glenn Beck) to know what "lies" ahead of them as the thumb through the pages. I once admired and looked up to David for his "historical perspective" and his deep admiration for the founding of our nation. Admittedly, I was caught up in the romance of his mythology and worse, I thought he was biblical. Then I started to READ for myself and began to research the "historical evidence" that David gave in his presentations ... what I fool I had been! I quickly came to learn that David was only giving half the story ... And, the side of the story that he was proclaiming - was dramatically out of context. With the "The Jefferson Lies", Barton does his magic to portray Thomas Jefferson as a Christian ... something that is clearly NOT TRUE!

The bottom-line for me ... I can no longer sit back and listen to David Barton and the lies he is weaving (and has already weaved) within our churches. Not only is Barton's message devastating ... his target audience, which are made up of Evangelical Christians, are hanging on his every word and for the most part buying into his false view of history. If you doubt what I just said, answer this question - what will be the largest group to purchase Barton's latest book? I am sure many home school families already have it in their libraries and are devouring its contents to teach to countless unaware and trusting children - what a shame!

What convicted me the most has been our laziness (as a Christian community) regarding United States history. We took what David Barton said as gospel and for the most part ... never really studied or researched what he said in context. With blind faith, we opened our doors and let him speak from our pulpits - that mistake is on us and we must take responsibility for it - And, promise to be dilligent to speak out against false teaching ... (Acts 17:11)

As I compose this post my mind is racing ... I do not know where to start, what to say or what direction to lead you??? The lies and misdirection(s) are numerous and in no way could be covered in one post on a simple blog. Here is my plea - Churches stop having this man occupy your pulpits and present to your congregations ... He is a wolf that has been let loose in the pasture. He is deceiving people by the thousands and I can no longer sit on the sideline and watch .... You shouldn't either!

Think about this for a second ... We (the Christian/Conservative community) have sat and listened to David Barton for years. We have been mezmorized by his smooth delivery regarding the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and how it all goes back to the scripture. We fell in love with the story and never bothered to get serious about researching his claims for ourselves - BUT, the un-believing world did AND they knew that for the most-part, we were wrong !!!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, if we cannot get our history correct ... how in the world can we expect them to believe us when we proclaim Christ and Him crucified ?????

At this point, I still have many unanswered questions ... I am struggling with feelings of resentment toward Barton, but I also must sift through many feelings of shame due to the fact that I was once deceived and proclaimed his message to people that trusted my opinion ... for that I am sorry! Over the next few weeks I will be diligently researching many things related to Barton and his view of history - WILL YOU DO THE SAME? In the meantime, I have provided some "nuggets" that might jump start your research ... I hope they are useful ....

1. David Barton Lies About Jesus and Taxes - Fighting for the Faith / Chris Rosebrough

(listener note ... go to 41:21 of the podcast ... segment begins at 41:21 thru 1:02:25)

2. The Christian Advocate by Ashbel Green (pgs 78, 135, 194, 246 and 305) .... Green was in the inner circle of the Founding Father's. Green was also an outspoken opponent of the views of one Thomas Jefferson - Barton never gives his audience the perspective of Green ... why not?

3. Fox News Report ... Easter Sunday 2012 ... Jefferson denies the Resurrection - click here

4. GBTV - The Jefferson Lies w/David Barton - click here

5. Warren Throckmorton - GBTV Follow-Up - The Jefferson Lies w/David Barton - click here

Barton Spins Jefferson Lies - click here
Barton Spins Jefferson Lies - Part 2 - click here
Warren Throckmorton - David Barton Page - click here

6. "The Jefferson Bible" .... view it here

7. Chris Pinto - Noise of Thunder Radio - Radio Archives ... The Jefferson Lies - click here

8. Chris Pinto - Noise of Thunder Radio - Articles ... The Founding Fathers - click here

9. Chris Pinto - Adullam Films - Documentary ... Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers - click here

(scroll to 1:45:26 in the film ...)

10. WVW - Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto - The Jefferson Lies/Book Review - P1 - click here

WVW - Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto - The Jefferson Lies/Book Review - P2 - click here

11. Library of Congress ... read the letters of Jefferson in context - The Jefferson Papers

Hate Religion but Love Jesus

2012-03-15T19:52:00.000-04:00

- Kevin DeYoung - http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung -

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

Posted By Kevin DeYoung On January 13, 2012 @ 1:25 pm In Uncategorized | 1,143 Comments

UPDATE: Since I posted this article, Jefferson Bethke and I have had a chance to talk by email and over the phone. I included some of our conversation in a follow up post ^[1]. I hope you will be as encouraged by the exchange as I was.

******

There’s a new You Tube video going viral and it’s about Jesus and religion.
Specifically how Jesus hates religion.
The video—which in a few days has gone from hundreds of views to thousands to millions—shows Jefferson Bethke, who lives in the Seattle area, delivering a well-crafted, sharply produced, spoken word poem. The point, according to Bethke ^[2], is “to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion.” In the past few days I’ve seen this video pop up all over Facebook. I’ve had people from my church say they like it. Some has asked me what I think. Others have told me there’s something off about the poem, but they can’t quite articulate what it is. I’ll try to explain what that is in a moment. But first watch the video for yourself.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.
And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.
This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Verse 1
What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind
Doesn’t automatically give you vision

Okay, so the line about Republicans is a cheap shot (if you vote GOP) or a prophetic stance (if you like Jim Wallis). While it’s true that “republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian” and in some parts of the country that may be a word churchgoers need to hear, I doubt that putting right-wingers in their place is the most pressing issue in Seattle.

More important is Bethke’s opening line: “Jesus came to abolish religion.” That’s the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that’s not what religion is. We can say that’s what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn’t just define them however we want. “Jesus hates religion” communicates something that “Jesus hates self-righteousness” doesn’t. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear “religion” and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and “spiritual, not religious” bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote ^[3] a few years ago.

The word “religion” occurs five times in English Standard Version of the Bible. It is, by itself, an entirely neutral word. Religion can refer to Judaism (Acts 26:5) or the Jewish-Christian faith (Acts 25:19). Religion can be bad when it is self-made (Col. 2:23) or fails to tame the tongue (James 1:26). But religion can also be good when it cares for widows and orphans and practices moral purity (James 1:27). Unless we define the word to suit our purposes, there is simply no biblical grounds for saying Jesus hated religion. What might be gained by using such language will, without a careful explanation and caveats, be outweighed by what is lost when we give the impression that religion is the alloy that corrupts a relationship with Jesus.

Verse 2
I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

These claims say very little because they try to say too much. Have there been religious wars in the last two thousand years? Yes. Have there also been wars over money, land, ego, women, slavery, democracy, freedom, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and just about everything else you can imagine? Yes. Furthermore, if you want to blame conflict on religion, you can’t neatly excise Jesus from the equation. You may not like the Crusades, but many of the Crusaders thought they were sincerely fighting for Jesus by trying take back the Holy Land from the Muslims.

More to the point, Christians need to stop perpetuating the myth that we’ve basically been huge failures in the world. That may win us an audience with non-Christians, but it’s not true. We are sinners like everyone else, so our record is mixed. We’ve been stupid and selfish over the years. But we’ve also been the salt of the earth. The evangelical awakening in England in the eighteenth century is widely credited for preventing the sort of bloodbath that swept over France in the “enlightened” French Revolution. Christians (and conservatives in general) give more to charitable causes than their secular counterparts. Christians run countless shelters, pregnancy centers, rescue missions, and food pantries. Christians operate orphanages, staff clinics, dig wells, raise crops, teach children, and fight AIDS around the globe. While we can always do more and may be blind to the needs around us at times, there is no group of people on the planet that do more for the poor than Christians. If you know of a church with a dozen escalators and no money and no heart for the hurting, then blast that church. But we have to stop the self-flagellation and the slander that says Christians do nothing for the poor.

As for divorce, it is often (but not always) wrong. Even when it is wrong, there is forgiveness when people repent. Shame on any church that doesn’t think or demonstrate that there is room at the cross for unwed or divorced moms.

And about the harsh language in the Old Testament—it cuts both ways. All people in the Old Testament, and in the entire ancient near east for that matter, were religious people. Some of them were fakes and hypocrites and whores. Some were idolaters and adulterers. Some performed their rituals and went on to ignore the weightier matters of the law. And some of the religious people were God’s remnant, God’s holy people, and God’s friends. In both Testaments, God has no problem rebuking religious people and no problem loving them either.

Verse 3
Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies
While the corpse rots underneath

I’ve already said that I don’t think “religion” is the right term for what Bethke is talking about. But he has done a great job here of describing false religion. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for being “whitewashed tombs,” for looking beautiful on the outside and full of dead people’s bones on the inside, for appearing righteous but being full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matt. 23:27-28). It is possible for churches and churchgoers to have the reputation for being alive, but actually be dead (Rev. 3:1). Some churches claim to love grace, but all they give you is legalism. Bethke is hitting on a real problem.

Verse 4
Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

I wish Bethke, and critics like him, would admit that they are “judgin.” He is evaluating Christianity. He is criticizing church as he sees it. The whole poem is a harsh judgment on religious people. Granted, judging is not the same as judgmentalism. After all, I’m judging this poem. So I don’t think what Bethke is doing is wrong. I just wish he wouldn’t try to claim the moral high ground.
Other than that, this is another good verse. Bethke tells his own story to prove that we can be real good at fooling everyone, including ourselves. We need to realize that there are plenty of people in many of our churches who seem to have it all together but don’t. They are kidding themselves and we should not encourage such self-deception.

Verse 5
Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

There is much that is good and a few things that are confused in this verse. The church should be an ocean of grace. We don’t have to hide our sins before God. It doesn’t depend on us. We should love the church and the Bible and believe that sin exists. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus never supported self-righteousness. All of that is wonderfully and powerfully true.
But let me raise a few other points.

One, we have to remember that the purpose of a hospital is to help sick people get better. I’m sure Bethke would agree with that. But there is no indication in this poem that the grace that forgives is also the grace that transforms. Following Jesus is more than keeping rules, but it’s not less. In one sense, loving Jesus is also all about keeping rules (John 14:15, 21, 23-24). I’m not sure how the Jesus of John 14 fits in the world of Bethke’s poem.

Two, there is no inherent dignity in being broken. Jesus likes the honesty that acknowledges sin, hates it and turns away, but he does not love authenticity for its own sake. We have to be more careful with our language. When Paul boasted of his weakness, he was boasting of his suffering, his lack of impressiveness, and the trials he endured (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9). He never boasted of his temptations or his sins—past or present. That’s not what he meant by weakness. Being broken is not the point, except to be forgiven and changed.

Three, as I’ve mentioned before ^[4], the religious leaders hated Jesus, first and foremost because they thought he was a blasphemer who dared to make himself equal with God (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; and less clearly in John 18:19-24). It’s true that many of the religious elite found Jesus too free with his meals and his associations. They called him a “glutton and drunkard” (Luke 7:34), though he wasn’t either. But they also said John the Baptist “has a demon” (Luke 7:33). They were just as opposed to John’s asceticism as they were upset with Jesus’ liberty. More than hating grace, the Jewish leaders hated the truth about Christ and found ways to reject God’s messengers.

Verse 6
Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans

I won’t repeat my initial comments about religion and Jesus and whether they are really “on opposite spectrums.” I don’t think they are. That point notwithstanding, Bethke speaks the truth in this section. The differences between slavery and sonship, bondage and freedom, blindness and sight are all biblical themes.

I think the line about “religion says do, Jesus says done” can be misleading. Too many people hear that as “relationship not rules” when we’ve already seen that Jesus wants us to do everything he has commanded (Matt. 28:20). But if “do” means “do this to earn my favor” then the contrast is very appropriate.

Verse 7
Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
“Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

There is a lot to like with this final section. Great affirmation of Jesus active obedience. Great focus on the cross. Great invitation for sinners to come to Christ. I think Bethke understands justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. I would have liked to have heard something about the wrath of God being poured out on the cross as opposed to simply “absorb[ing] all of your sin.” But given Bethke’s previous video criticizing Love Wins, it’s best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I’m not sure it’s best to so emphasize that Jesus was thinking of us on the cross. The “joy set before” him in Hebrews 12:2 was the joy of being seated at God’s right hand, not the joy of being with us as Bethke advocates in another video ^[5]. But these are smaller points that do not negate the strong message of grace and forgiveness.

Conclusion
I know I’ve typed a bunch of words about a You Tube video that no one may be talking about in a month. But, as I said at the beginning, there is so much helpful in this poem mixed with so much unhelpful—and all of it so common—that I felt it worth the effort to examine the theology in detail.
The strengths in this poem are the strengths I see in many young Christians—a passionate faith, a focus on Jesus, a love for grace, and a hatred for anything phony or self-righteous. The weaknesses here can be the weaknesses of my generation (and younger)—not enough talk of repentance and sanctification, a tendency to underestimate the importance of obedience in the Christian life, a one-dimensional view of grace, little awareness that our heavenly Father might ever discipline his children or be grieved by their continued transgression, and a penchant for sloganeering instead of careful nuance.

I know the internet is a big place, but a lot of people are connected to a lot of other people. So who knows, maybe Jefferson Bethke will read this blog. If you do, brother, I want you to know I love what you love in this poem. I watched you give your testimony ^[5] and give thanks to God for his work in your life. I love the humble desire to be honest about your failings and point people to Christ. I love that you love the church and the Bible. I love that you want people to really get the gospel. You have important things to say and millions of people are listening. So make sure as a teacher you are extra careful and precise (James 3:1). If you haven’t received formal theological training, I encourage you to do so. Your ministry will be made stronger and richer and longer lasting. I encourage you to speak from the Bible before you speak from your own experience. I encourage you to love what Jesus loves without tearing down what he also loves and people are apt to misunderstand. I encourage you to dig deep into the whole counsel of God.

Thanks for reminding us about Jesus. But try to be more careful when talking about religion. After all, there is one religion whose aim is to worship, serve, know, proclaim, believe, obey, and organize around this Jesus. And without all those verbs, there’s not much Jesus left.

Article printed from Kevin DeYoung: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung
URL to article: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/
URLs in this post:

[1] a follow up post: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/14/following-up-on-the-jesusreligion-video/

[2] according to Bethke: http://rapgenius.com/Jefferson-bethke-why-i-hate-religion-but-love-jesus-spoken-word-lyrics

[3] the book Ted Kluck and I wrote: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802458378/deyorestandre-20

[4] I’ve mentioned before: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung../../../../../2009/12/02/why-did-they-hate-jesus/

[5] another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjmnoUKXaZM&list=UUc4yillQaNo6a-iG2PYbbrA&index=6&feature=plcp

YOU ARE LOVED ...

2012-03-13T10:06:00.004-04:00

John 3: 16 - 18

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (18) Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Visit http://claytonjennings.com/ for more audio and visual content ...

Rick Warren, Islam and King's Way Document

2012-03-07T08:20:00.000-05:00

Article by Erin Benziger (from the Do Not Be Surprised blog, printed in full)

Could it be that Saddleback Church's interfaith initiative, known as the King's Way document, has been a bit more trouble than it's worth?

Last week, Orange County Register reporter Jim Hinch broke a story that quickly went viral. Saddleback church, he reported, in conjunction with the Islamic Center of Southern California, had co-authored a historic interfaith document. Hinch's report reads in part:

The Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and one of America's most influential Christian leaders, has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

The effort, informally dubbed King's Way, caps years of outreach between Warren and Muslims.

The effort by a prominent Christian leader to bridge what polls show is a deep rift between Muslims and evangelical Christians culminated in December at a dinner at Saddleback attended by 300 Muslims and members of Saddleback's congregation.

At the dinner, Abraham Meulenberg, a Saddleback pastor in charge of interfaith outreach, and Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, introduced King's Way as "a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians." (Online Source)

Rick Warren quickly responded to this post with the following:

This post by Warren was later removed. Warren followed this up by producing a white paper which first appeared on the blog of Ed Stetzer, and later also appeared on Warren's own blog. Part of this white paper reads as follows:

QUESTION: A recent newspaper article claimed you believe Christians and Muslims worship the same God, that you are "in partnership" with a mosque, and that you both agreed to "not evangelize each other." You immediately posted a brief refutation online. Can you expand on that?

WARREN: Sure. All three of those statements are flat out wrong. Those statements were made by a reporter, not by me. I did not say them ... I do not believe them... I completely disagree with them ... and no one even talked to me about that article! So let me address each one individually: First, as I've already said, Christians have a fundamentally different view of God than Muslims. We worship Jesus as God. Muslims don't. Our God is Jesus, not Allah. Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Second, while we urge our members to build friendships with everyone in our community, including Muslims and other faiths, ("Love your neighbor as yourself"), our church has never had any partnership with a mosque. Friendship and partnership are two very different levels of commitment. Some of our members have hosted a Bible study with Muslim friends, which I applaud, but I've never been to it, and a Bible study certainly isn't any kind of partnership or merger! It's just crazy that a simple Bible Study where people explore Scripture with non-Christians would be reported as a partnership and others would interpret that as a plan for a new compromised religion. Just crazy! Third, as both an Evangelical and as an evangelist, anyone who knows me and my 40 year track record of ministry that I would never agree to "not evangelizing" anyone! I am commanded by my Savior to share the Good News with all people everywhere, all the time, in every way possible! Anyone who's heard me teach knows that my heart beats for bringing others to Jesus. (Online Source)

While Warren's words seemed to contradict previous actions, this statement nevertheless was acknowledged by those who initially reported on the story. Not long after this, however, Ken Silva ofApprising Ministries corresponded with OC Register reporter Jim Hinch, who shared with Silva an excerpt of this elusive King's Way document. Upon reading this excerpt, it is not difficult to see why or how Hinch arrived at the conclusions that he did when he stated in his article that the document proposed, "a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God." Below is the excerpt of the King's Way document that was sent by Jim Hinch to Ken Silva:

The document, which was given to me [Jim Hinch] by a source for this story on condition it not be published in its entirety, outlines several areas of theological agreement between Christians and Muslims and commits members of both faiths to three goals: becoming friends; making peace; and sharing “the blessings of God with others.” Here is how the document describes the points of theological agreement:

I. WHO: we believe in ONE GOD:

1. God is one (Mark 12:29; Muhammed 47:19)

2. God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Al Shura 42:11)

3. God is different from the world (1 Timothy 6:16; An An’am 6:103)

4. God is Good a. God loves (1 John 4:16; Al Buruj 85:14) b. God is just (1 John 1:19,Romans 3:26; Hud 11:45) c. God’s love encompasses God’s judgment (1 Peter 4:8; Al A’raf 7:156; Al Ghafir 40:7)

The Register story based the phrases “same God” and “one God” on the phrasing in this document, which states that Christians and Muslims believe in one God. (Online Source)

Thus far, the contents of this King's Way excerpt have not been addressed by Rick Warren. This is unfortunate, as clearly some further explanation is necessary.

Today, however, has yielded another interesting discovery. In the post, "Historic Interfaith Document was One Year in the Making," it was noted that the following post was found in the December 2011 archives of the blog of the Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC):

Last Sunday, a historic event took place at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Saddleback is known for its famous pastor, Rick Warren, who delivered the prayer at President Obama’s inauguration ceremony. The Church hosted a number of Muslim communities in based in Southern California for its second annual celebration of Jesus (pbuh). This event is significant because Saddleback is a large evangelical church with over 22 thousand members. Although only a select number of individuals were invited to this dinner, it demonstrates the new theological position of Saddleback. At the celebration, a document one year in the making was presented which encourages Christians and Muslims to appreciate the similarities of our faiths.

The document encouraged that our communities work together towards the common good and to combat bigotry in a 1-2-3 plan. The first step in the plan identifies the belief in one God. The second step acknowledges God’s commandment to love God and your neighbor. Finally, step three is for our communities to commit to three things: making friends, building peace, and serving the world at large together.

This relationship with Saddleback Church was initiated over a year ago with a friendship between one of the pastors, Abraham Meulenberg, and the ICSC’s Jihad Turk. Pastor Meulenberg reached out having heard about the Center and our interfaith work. From this friendship developed an institutional link between their respective organizations. (Online Source. To view pictures of this event, visit here.)

If one attempts to click on the links above, which initially led to the original blog post and to the ICSC Flickr page containing pictures of the event, it will be noticed that these links either lead to a different blog post, or, in the case of the pictures, the link no longer works.

Is this a mere coincidence? If Rick Warren is being so honest with his denials of the claims of the OC Register story, then why is all of the evidence of the King's Way document suddenly disappearing? Well, thanks to today's technology, the missing ICSC blog post has been preserved, captured, and can be viewed right here:

(Click to Enlarge)

This blog post by the ICSC is not just a mere blog post, however. It is important to note some of the language used within this post, specifically the following statement:

This event is significant because Saddleback is a large evangelical church with over 22 thousand members. Although only a select number of individuals were invited to this dinner, it demonstrates the new theological position of Saddleback.

A new theological position? For a Christian church? Perhaps the members of the ICSC misunderstood the intent of this entire endeavor. If so, one wonders why Saddleback did not seek to clarify such a misunderstanding sometime between December and today. One also must surely wonder why the King's Way excerpt that has emerged has been ignored by Warren and his team. Finally, it cannot help but be questioned why it is that the ICSC has suddenly deleted this clear, boastful evidence of the December event and this "historic interfaith document." In the interest of Christian ethic, we certainly hope that there is no "King's Way Cover-up" underway.

Additional Resources

Is King's Way an Interfaith Document or Not? You Be The Judge.

Rick Warren Addresses Chrislam Controversy

A Common Word Between Us and You (Interfaith document created by the Muslim community, aimed at uniting Christians-Muslims)

A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You (Interfaith document created by the Christian community, signed by Rick Warren)

Controversy Over An Article About Rick Warren's Efforts to Bring Muslims, Christians Together

Islamic Center of Southern California Co-authors Historic Interfaith Document ("King's Way")

"Historic Interfaith Document" (King's Way) was "One Year in the Making"

Critical Issues Commentary: A Biblical Look at Rick Warren's Teaching

One World Religion - Here we come .....

2012-03-07T07:54:00.000-05:00

Will Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally Be About Ecumenicalism and the Social Gospel?

By Brannon S. Howse

To be "Loving" now means you embrace ecumenicalism and don't divide on theological and doctrinal issues for success in the culture war and you embrace a social gospel. Will this be the message we hear at Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally on 7-28-12 in Dallas?

If you don't agree with Beck's spiritual agenda will that make you a bigot? In 2010 I was quoted in a CNN article on why Christians should not unite in a spiritual enterprise with a New Age Mormon to win the "culture war." Beck talked about the article on his radio program and said, "so now the religious bigotry is there too". I wrote about Beck's comment in a column back in 2010.

Beck's rally will center on a three day event of "Celebration of Service". I believe Beck is really pushing a social gospel agenda along with his ecumenicalism. Recently Beck's website announced his global plan which included a visit to the Vatican. Therefore, may I suggest Rick Warren be a keynote speaker at Beck's rally so Warren can talk about his global Peace Plan, the social gospel, and his ecumenicalism. After all, Rick Warren has proven he can work with Muslims so why not a Mormon? After all there are a lot of similarities between Mormons and Muslims. A few years ago Warren signed the Yale document that declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. The document declared:

We applaud that A Common Word Between Us and You stresses so insistently the unique devotion to one God, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same god. Glenn Beck, like Warren, is also pushing a social gospel agenda along with ecumenicalism. Beck's website states:

"Glenn Beck will be reaching out to individual organizations, churches, and more across the area and ask them the question: 'If you had unlimited manpower for one day – what would you do?'…I have said enough words. It's time for me to help hold up the arms of community and faith leaders and serve those who are doing the heavy lifting on healing our nation…It is time to deemphasize the political solution and first demand real change in ourselves."

So Beck is going to rally the churches and faith leaders and Beck is going to help hold up the arms of the faith community?

If Beck is going to deemphasize the political solution that really only leaves a spiritual solution and thus the desire to work with the churches. Are you interested in in the spiritual solutions of a New Age Mormon? I for one am not. Christians should not unite with Beck in spiritual enterprise as declared in Romans 16:17, 2 John 9-11, Ephesians 5:11, and 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Beck's social gospel, ecumenicalism, and global plan seem very similar to that of Rick Warren. In the December 20, 2011 Orange County Register it was reported that Rick Warren is opening the PEACE Center as part of his global PEACE Plan. I believe Warren's PEACE plan is really a communitarian philosophy of bringing together the church, corporations and the government for what Warren has called the three-legged stool.

The Irvine woman is one of about 72,000 people who have benefitted from Saddleback's food pantry since its 2009 opening, according to Saddleback officials. The pantry is one of several services that will be part of the church's new PEACE Center.

The OCR reported:

A permanent larger, two-story structure is in the planning stages. It will house a free health clinic, clothing exchange, warehouse and auto-repair shop in addition to services being offered at the temporary center. So far, $600,000 has been raised through donations toward the $2 million cost of the structure.

In the OCR Warren was quoted as saying:

"This is not for members of Saddleback but for people in the community," he said. "When the final building is built, it will be the first thing people see when they come to the campus. It's not about the church but the hope and love that's in that building."

Nowhere in the New Testament Church description of the church do we see the mandate for the corporate church to focus on social programs for those outside the church. While this could be a ministry for individuals as a platform for preaching the Biblical gospel, it is not a function described in the Bible as a calling of the New Testament Church. The New Testament church is to equip and train its members for the work of ministry-the preaching of the gospel.

Pastor Jesse Johnson put it best when he wrote:

There is a very real danger that has been played out through history repeatedly, that when churches embrace a vision for combating poverty, evangelism is one of the first victims of this altered commission…To guard against that, the church is never commanded to show compassion to the poor as a means for expanding the kingdom. Simply put, you owe the poor the gospel; Jesus died to purchase for them the privilege of hearing the testimony of his death and resurrection (1 Tim 2:6). That is both the most and the least you can give, and Robin Hood ethics do not overlap with the Great Commission.

The most loving thing Christians can do is reject the social gospel and preach the Biblical gospel to a lost world. The most loving things Christians can do is expose false teachers and their false teaching. While these Biblical mandates may be declared hateful by those committed to a social gospel, false teaching, and ecumenicalism, it is not. In Revelation 2:15 God declares his hatred of false teaching. A hatred for and not rallying around false teaching, the social gospel, and ecumenicalism is a hallmark of those that love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

ABORTION: After-Birth ...an article from Ken Ham

2012-03-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

More on “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”

ShareThis Published on March 3, 2012 in Current Issues in the World and Thoughts and Things.

Recently, the Journal of Medical Ethics caused an uproar when it published an article titled, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” News reports initially focused on the short abstract of the article that was available for free online (the full paper cost $30 to purchase, according to one report www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions), when the paper was suddenly made available in full shortly after the controversy began. Although I already posted about this story on my Facebook page, I thought it worth looking at the full report for today’s blog and including this link so now you can all read the four-page paper for yourself here (jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html).
The authors of the paper were Alberto Giubilini, who works with the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University in Australia, and Francesca Minerva, who works with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Their thesis? They believe that parents should be allowed to abort their newborn infants.
The authors stated their argument as follows:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. (p. 1)

Giubilini and Minerva take abortion a step further, arguing that parents should be allowed to abort their newborns. They justify their position by claiming that an infant is not technically a person:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. (p. 2)

At which point do Giubilini and Minerva consider infants to be persons? They declined to say: “we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible” (p. 3).
To give you an idea of just where this sort of thinking leads, consider this paragraph from the article:

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on ahealthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet. (p. 2)

What we’re seeing here is what happens when society loses its biblical foundation. Once people abandon a basis in the absolute authority of God’s Word, then moral relativism will permeate the culture. This is what is happening in our once Christianized West. The situation is akin to that described in the book of Judges:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

It also reminds me of Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” These people are so blinded by evil that they believe allowing after-birth abortions will be good for society—that it will be good for parents to be able to abort kill their own newborn children for any reason.
This type of thinking may shock many Christians who understand that all life, both inside and outside of the womb, is precious, but it is not really new. Another “ethicist” named Peter Singer has advocated similar ideas for years. (See Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical Ethics, 1st ed., pp. 122–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) And it won’t just stop at what this article is reporting on—much evil will be claimed as okay as God turns our nations over to judgment because of their rebellion, and as sinful man determines to do what is right in his own eyes.
Romans 1:28–32 delivers the sobering reality of what society will look like when the people willfully reject their Creator. Among other things, they invent ways of doing evil, and even though they know that those who practice such things deserve death, they not only engage in those activities, but approve of those who practice them.
What these two “ethicists” believe about life is exactly contrary to what God teaches about life. The Psalmist praises God, saying, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” God tells Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Our God is about life—He values it—and He makes clear in His Word that every person—unborn babies and newborn infants alike—are known by Him and exist from conception.
For more on this shocking pro-infanticide thinking, see today’s News to Note and read the commentary by a medical doctor and AiG researcher, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Worldview Training Event - April 1, 2012

2012-03-03T10:55:00.001-05:00

Have you ever felt that the world we are living in is spinning out of control?

Do you wish to engage the culture and the church, but do not know where to start?

Soldiers must go to bootcamp before they step on the battlefield and so must Christians.

If a Biblical worldview was easy, every Christian would have one!

We will be kicking off our 3rd year of training with a special conference featuring Worldview Weekend Rally with Brannon Howse, Dr. John Witcomb & Dr. Jimmy DeYoung.

The event is FREE but you must reserve your tickets online. To reserve your spot please visit:

Beth Moore - Black Box Warning?

2012-02-09T18:02:00.003-05:00

The following is a post from Amanda Bowers who writes on the site "My Sheep Hear My Voice". In this article you will learn a great deal regarding Beth Moore, Henry Blackaby and Richard Foster. I am sure that some of the information may catch you off guard - I only pray that all of us are as teach-able as Amanda. I encourage all of you to read the article and forward it to those you see necessary. We she all be this humble when handling the Word ... see article below:

Dear Sisters in Christ,
It is with regret and repentance in my heart that I am sending this letter to you. As you know over the past four years I participated in leading and facilitating several Bible studies including specifically authors Beth Moore and Henry Blackaby. This was a great privilege and opportunity, and it was something I enjoyed greatly as I fellowshipped with each of you desired to grow together in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by the study of His Word.
However, as it has pleased our Lord to reveal to me over the past six months and while I never intended to EVER MISUSE THE WORD or take it out of context in ANY WAY so as to mislead or harm anyone, and while I am not saying that was the intent of the above teachers I mentioned, I have come to realize that my lack of full understanding of God’s Word, in particular with regard to the closure of the Cannon of Scripture and also my irresponsibility in not fully evaluating the above teachers before agreeing to promote or endorse them by leading studies, it is quite possible that I have mislead some of you. For this I sincerely ask your forgiveness and I repent. I have stepped down from teaching at this time as I desire to not take lightly the great privilege and honor it is to teach the Word of God and I recognize that I have much more to learn.

Now as to specifics for what I am referring to, it has come to my knowledge that the above teachers, while I have no intention of judging their hearts or motives, have misused God’s Word and/or aligned themselves up with others who have done so.

Regarding Beth Moore, through a series of circumstances this summer (you can read about it here: http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/104/) I became acquainted with a movement known as, “Spiritual Formation” and in this movement in particular I became aware of a type of prayer being promoted known as “Contemplative Prayer” (also goes by the title “listening prayer” and “centering prayer” also may hear the term “God’s whispers” or listening for that “still small voice”) This type of prayer is touted as being handed down to us by what are known as the “Desert Fathers” which is used to describe many of the monks and priests of the first centuries. While on the surface this prayer seems to be about contemplating our Lord as we pray which would be Biblical, it is in fact a prayer that endorses the notion that in order to really “connect with God’ one must “empty or quiet their minds of all thought” in order to “hear God speak to us”. Many of the proponents of Contemplative prayer go so far as to say that we should learn from those who practice this type of prayer in the eastern religions, such as Hindus and Zen Buddhists. Well, sadly, NO WHERE in Scripture are we ever taught to “empty our minds”. Sure, we are told to “Be still and know that I am God” which is the most popular verse of Scripture used to endorse this prayer, a careful study of Psalm 46:10 reveals that the psalmist is referring to our anxiety and not being anxious about our lives as God is in charge. This passage is not an instruction in prayer at all. In fact, if we study scripture we know that Jesus told us numerous times to be watchful in prayer because we have an enemy that seeks to destroy us. We are told to “renew our minds” by the Word of God, not to empty them.

Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. Colossians 4:2
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Peter 5:8
Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. Luke 12:37
Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Matthew 26:41

One of the leading proponents of Contemplative prayer is a man named Richard Foster. The most dangerous aspect of this teaching and the movement known as “Spiritual Formation” is that there is a blurring of lines between Christianity and other religions. In fact, Mr. Foster, makes no apologies on his ministry website, Renovare, he states the following:

“Renovaré is a nonprofit Christian organization headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, and active worldwide. We seek to resource, fuel, model, and advocate more intentional living and spiritual formation among Christians and those wanting a deeper connection with God. A foundational presence in the spiritual formation movement for over 20 years, Renovaré is Christian in commitment, ecumenical in breadth, and international in scope.
In his very popular book, Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster describes an experience of “contemplative prayer” in this way,
“In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. Imagine your spiritual self, alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere. . . Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in His presence. Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. Note carefully any instruction given. With time and experience you will be able to distinguish readily between mere human thought that may bubble up to the conscious mind and the True Spirit which inwardly moves upon the heart. (Foster: 27, 28)”

Sisters, that is NOT biblical prayer! That is called Astral Projection by the New Age movement.
I hope you notice right away that NO ONE BUT CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN BY THE SPIRIT can have a “deeper connection with God”. Mr. Foster is endorsing that ANYONE who desires a deeper connection with God can achieve this connection practicing the many “spiritual disciplines” he endorses which include “contemplative prayer” and other extra biblical means.
What does this have to do with Beth Moore? Ms. Moore participated and endorsed contemplative prayer WITH MR. RICHARD FOSTER in a video on 2006 called “Be Still”. (And Yes I viewed it myself) She unashamedly endorsed contemplative prayer as a means by which we can hear God in our lives and have a deeper connection to God. She also quotes other contemplatives in many of her studies (including one I led with you called, “When Godly People Do Ungodly Things”) such as two men by the names of Basil Pennington and Brennon Manning.

Here are some online references that speak more about Beth’s participation and endorsement in this unbiblical form of prayer.
http://dayzofelijah.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/a-word-on-beth-moore-by-a-bold-pastor/
http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2010/03/breaking-free-from-beth-moore-and-her.html
http://apprising.org/2010/03/11/a-beth-moore-expose/

What is mysticism?http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-is-mysticism.html
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/151/

I highly recommend this video done by former Roman Catholic Priest who was converted years ago and is warning people about this very type of teaching: http://youtu.be/OfI9H1ZajLs

I can provide you much more evidence that Richard Foster who is a Quaker and sadly he is widely accepted as offering Christians much to learn regarding prayer, is not handling the Word of God correctly and in fact, promotes that ANYONE desiring a closer relationship with God can have it. ANYONE: regardless if they are Christian or not. In fact I have started a blog where I am writing about what God has shown me this summer and you are welcome to go there for more information. www.hearshisvoice.wordpress.com There is a dangerous movement coming into many evangelical churches and if I were to write to you all that I have learned this past six months, this letter would be even longer. But I am happy to share more with any of you who desire to know and I sincerely hope you will at least consider giving an ear to what I have to say as one who loves the Lord and loves you as my sisters. You can email me at jcdisciple07@gmail.com. I will send you as much material as you want documenting my concerns over Richard Foster and the endorsement of him by Beth Moore and others in the evangelical world. And again, I sincerely ask your forgiveness for my not being more cautious myself as to who I endorse or align myself with in teaching.
We are told in the Word several times that when false teachers, as Foster is one, are discovered we are not to promote them, but to flee from their teaching and expose them. By endorsing him and being in his video, Beth Moore is lending a full endorsement to him. Just so you know, I did contact Living Proof Ministries with my concerns, but received no reply. Several others online have indicated that she has been contacted and either has not contacted them back or has maintained that she stands behind her promotion and participation in the Be Still video of 2006.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ; AVOID THEM. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. Romans 16:17-`8

I want to also thank a few of you who during the time that I was leading “When Godly People Do Ungodly Things” were alert that something wasn’t quite right and came to me about Beth Moore and her teachings. At that time my discernment skills were not as sharp as they should have been, but your questioning planted a seed that the Lord later used to deliver me from her bad teaching and I hope now to set that straight for you and any others who may have been led astray by me. Again, I am truly sorry.

Now, as to Mr. Blackaby, my concern with him is similar but hinges more on the endorsement that God is still speaking to us and giving us revelations today. LET ME BE CLEAR HERE while, I do not disagree that the Holy Spirit guides us by conviction of sin, bringing to our remembrance passages of Scripture that we have studied, and pointing always to Jesus, I do not believe that the prophetic gifts and visions are still occurring today, Scripture and church history has taught and confirmed via numerous trials over various heresies that these gifts were poured out during the days of the apostles to verify they were from God and for the writing down of the canon of Scripture, but as the cannon was closed, these charismatic gifts ceased. Again we are not taught in scripture to sit in silence and empty our minds in an attempt to “listen to God”

In his book, Hearing God’s Voice, Mr. Blackaby even states this,

“There is nothing more important in life than understanding when God is speaking to you. If you are disoriented to God’s voice, your life is dangerously vulnerable. The Bible indicates conclusively that God does speak to people and that he does guide them in his will. The problem of not hearing from God never lies with God. He does communicate his will. It is not a matter of us searching in vain for God’s hidden will. He readily reveals it to those who show themselves obedient to do it. If you do not hear God’s voice, could it be your heart is not ready to respond to what he says?”

This is pretty typical of Blackaby’s teaching. Indicating that if you don’t “hear God speaking to you” it is a problem with you and probably because you are sinning or unwilling to obey. Well, what if you have searched and confessed every sin you know to do so, and still don’t “hear” God? Who of us is ever completely free from sin? Why do we continue to seek to “hear God” when He has already given us a written revelation for our lives.

It was this teaching that tormented my soul, kept me paralyzed as to how to serve God many times, and caused a class system in thinking that some Christians are just more “holy” than others. Friends, this is simply NOT TRUE. Your heavenly Father loves You dearly and He has given you a closed cannon of Scripture to study and obey. We pray to God using words as He instructed in the Lord’s Prayer, then by the Holy Spirit, does answer our prayers and providentially does guide us, but He uses the Word to do so and He never instructs us that if we aren’t “hearing Him speak” it is because we aren’t righteous enough or haven’t learned the proper techniques to sit in silence and “hear Him”.

Again, I reiterate, I am not at all saying that Ms. Moore or Mr. Blackaby are intentionally misleading folks any more than I was intentionally misleading you. I believe they have the best of intentions in their teaching, but the bottom line is we are instructed in scripture to test everything and to be Bereans and take it back to scripture to see if it is so.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, [a]and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, [b]for they received the word with [c]great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, [d]along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. Acts 17:10-12

For some other references to help you understand my concerns over Mr. Blackaby I refer you here:http://www.svchapel.org/resources/book-reviews/4-christian-living/118-experiencing-god-by-henry-blackaby
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue99.htm

When Ms. Moore promotes contemplative prayer and silence which is akin to eastern mystical mediation and when Mr. Blackaby threatens Christians that if they aren’t “hearing God” it is because they don’t have a right relationship with God and haven’t rightly learned how to read the signs of circumstances, people, and random Bible reading, they both mislead Christians into a more mystical experiential driven walk with God rather than one built upon solid Bible understanding an Biblical decision making.
I offer a few more articles and videos at the end of this letter for you to read to understand more than I can express in this short letter. If you do not use the internet or have access, please contact me. I am happy to print out these articles and mail them to you. Essentially, this is an issue over what was termed by the Reformers of the protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura. It means Scripture Alone. It was a fundamental issue that the Reformers stood upon when protesting the Roman Catholic Teaching that men need additional teaching and experiences outside of Scripture in order to fully know how to be saved, how to know Christ, and how to know what He wants for their lives. The Reformers staunchly defended the idea that Scripture is all that is necessary for faith and living. Basing this upon the Scriptures that tell us,

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I want to add that historically, Baptists, have been the ones to stand firmly against the charismatic false teachings that tried to enter the church. I really don’t know what is happening today, but many have sadly been led astray from this foundational truth and are compromising the Word by promoting eastern mysticism as a valuable tool for Christians.
Again, I want to say. I am NOT SAYING the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead us and guide us into God’s providential will. Not at All!! In fact, I truly believe that God is Sovereign and NOTHING HAPPENS that isn’t according to His decree and Sovereign will. What I am saying, however, is that in our prayer life we are never taught to sit in silence to summons God to reveal to us through inner hunches His will for our lives. We are never taught that we can’t make decisions until we know what God is “saying to us” or “revealing” to us. God has already “revealed” His will for every believer in His written Word. The cannon has been closed and all we need is to study it in CONTEXT, obey what we are told which includes renewing our minds and not being conformed to this world, so that by this renewal of our mind and knowledge of the Word, as we go through our lives, the Holy Spirit will guide us and bring to our remembrance Scripture in order to enable us to make wise decisions. But to seek to “hear Him” in some mystical fashion, and worse, to threaten Christians that if they aren’t “experiencing God” in this manner it is likely because of sin or unwillingness to obey, is at best a misrepresentation of the correct way to pray, and at worse tormenting to the soul of a genuine believer longing to follow Christ.

I love you dear sisters and I hope you understand my heart is only to warn you and apologize for not being more discerning in the past. I recognize these are heavy topics and may take you completely by surprise. I only pray, that you will understand my heart is only desirous of honoring our Lord and His Word and in loving my sisters by not refraining to speak the truth in love.

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 1 Corinthians 16:13

In His Name and For His Glory Alone,
Amanda Bowers

What is Contemplative prayer?http://youtu.be/3fOkxORTWHs
http://youtu.be/RaccrwYGOsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipnC5uXEeUc

Who is Richard Foster and what is Spiritual formation? These are the articles I’ve written on my blog. There are numerous more citations and reference links should you wish further proof or explanation for my claims.http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/104/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/114/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-i-believe-richard-foster-is-a-false-teacher-reason-2-denies-total-depravity-and-salvation-by-grace-alone/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/151/
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue112.htm

Gospel Coalition and ER2

2012-02-08T11:53:00.005-05:00

Carson and Keller on Jakes and the Elephant Room

originally posted @ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/03/carson-and-keller-on-jakes-and-the-elephant-room/

Controversy customarily generates its share of purple prose. It is very easy to read everything an opponent says as negatively as possible---in malam partem, as the Latins say, "in a bad sense," while taking what our friends say in bonam partem, "in a good sense." Such debate tends to generate polarities---and God knows that sometimes what we most need are clear-sighted polarities. Some of these polarities, however, quickly take on the flavor of party spirit and predictable responses, without any powerful effort to encourage a meeting of minds, even where we end up in disagreement.

But controversy can also provide a teaching moment, not least because the interest of many people is focused on the disputed issues. It is hard to deny that such a moment has arrived. We would like to offer some theological reflections on six conceptual pairings. We have learned over the past few decades that clear thought about the six pairings we are about to comment on is not easy. Others may be able to improve upon our musings, or even correct them. Still, we hope that the following theological reflections will clarify at least a few issues for some people.

1. Persons and Manifestations

What is at stake in the distinction? Toward the end of the second century and right through the third century, a number of thinkers defended a modal Trinity: the one God disclosed in three modes or manifestations. These people were variously called Unitarians, Patripassians (because they believed the Father suffered), or Sabellians (after Sabellius, a presbyter in Ptolemais, c. AD 250). They defended the deity of Christ (and on this one point aligned with historic Christian belief), but they denied personal distinctions in the Godhead. In their view, the one and the same person is simultaneously Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These labels express the different relations that God sustains with the world and the church, just as do other labels (e.g., Creator, King, Sustainer). But one cannot say that God the Creator addresses God the King: there is only one person. So on this view, the one person, God, has revealed himself in various manifestations or modes (hence this view is sometimes called modalism); we are not dealing with one God who has disclosed himself to be three persons, each of whom can and does address the other. It was not long before the church roundly condemned modalism, not least because Scripture is replete with passages in which, for instance, the Father addresses the Son, and the Son the Father.
When orthodox believers sought language to summarize the idea that each person of the Godhead is a self-conscious agent (the Latin category is suppositum intelligens), in the Greek part of the ancient world they first settled on prosōpon ("face"). But the Sabellians understood the same word to mean something like "aspect," and they defended the view that God revealed himself under a threefold aspect. Eventually the orthodox settled on hypostasis. Among the Latin speakers, Christians settled on substantia or persona---and hence our English word "person." (See chart below.) Christian thinkers have argued for centuries exactly how we should understand persona in Latin and "person" in English, but the very least that had to be affirmed was the deeply entrenched biblical reality that the "persons" of the Godhead interact with one another, address one another, love one another, in a "personal" way.

Terms Expressing God's Oneness and Threeness

	Greek	Latin	English
One	ousia, physis	substantia, essentia	being, substance, essence, nature
Three	hypostaseis, prosōpa	personae	persons, subsistences, modes of subsistence

(This chart is from John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, A Theology of Lordship [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002], 697; see pp. 696-705.) Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is much richer than these few lines suggest. As Christians in the third and fourth century studied the biblical evidence, they insisted that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit express necessary, internal, and eternal relations in the Godhead. Today, of course, we sometimes quickly summarize the doctrine of the Trinity: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is but one God. That is true as far as it goes, but it does not guard very well against modalism. The early church taught "that the Father eternally, necessarily, and incomprehensibly communicates the divine essence to the Son without division or change so that the Son shares an equality of nature with the Father yet is also distinct from the Father" (this is the careful summary of Keith E. Johnson, "Augustine, Eternal Generation, and Evangelical Trinitarianism," TrinJ 32 [2011]: 141-163). The language of "communication" was judged crucial: the essence is absolute and communicable, and the early church fathers spoke of this communication in terms of the eternal generation of the Son, while the person is incommunicable, i.e., it cannot be shared. So while one joyfully confesses that the Son is God and the Father is God, the church throughout its history has equally insisted that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. The church needs a robust Trinitarianism to avoid modalism on the one hand and tritheism on the other.

Had we the space and time, it would be delightful to justify this synthesis by providing the exegesis of many passages, and then extend the discussion from Father and Son to the Spirit. Someone might ask, "But what does it matter?" The answer is twofold: (1) If this summary accurately captures at least some of the glorious truth of the nature of the Godhead, to abandon it is to abandon a true understanding of God. If we are to worship God aright, we must worship him as he is, as he has disclosed himself to us. The only alternative is to worship a god who is progressively false as our understanding skews away from the truth. (2) Various truths connected with the gospel itself become incoherent if one abandons robust Trinitarianism. The Father sends the Son; the Son demonstrates his love for the Father by obeying him all the way to the cross; the Son addresses his Father in the anguished cry, "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?"; the Father gives the elect to the Son; in the plan of God, the Son propitiates the wrath of God and expiates sin; in the wake of his ascension and session at the Father's right hand, the Son reigns as the Father's mediatorial king until he has crushed all opponents, when he will turn the entire scope over to his Father; indeed, when the Son "offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death . . . he was heard because of his reverent submission" (Heb 5:7). None of these relational displays---and there are many others in the drama of redemption---is coherent under modalism. These relations are tied up with the nature of the Godhead. It is not surprising that those who adopt modalism habitually slide toward a diminished gospel.

In his Institutes, John Calvin sums it up: "Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons: you will say in one word what Scripture says, and cut short empty talkativeness." He then adds that, in his experience, those who "persistently quarrel" over these words "nurse a secret poison" (I.13.5).

Read Full Response @ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/03/carson-and-keller-on-jakes-and-the-elephant-room/

Elephant Room, Voddie Bauchman and T.D. Jakes

2012-02-08T11:48:00.002-05:00

The Elephant in the Room

January 30, 2012

by Voddie Bauchman

http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/

This past week a firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.” The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event. The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter.

I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter. While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd. Hence, my explanation now.

My Invitation to ER2

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2. The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out. James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place. He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in. I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room.
Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity. My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics. Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution. Also, to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2.
I called my fellow elders to make them aware of the invitation (we usually meet monthly to review and consider invitations, but this was an urgent matter, and MacDonald had asked for a decision by the next day). We agreed that I should 1) find out more about the Elephant Room (specifically, was this an apologetics forum, or a forum that would assume Jakes’s orthodoxy), and 2) find out why Dever had backed out.
After investigating the matter, I decided to decline the invitation. My decision was based on four major areas of concern (Note: I voiced these four concerns to James MacDonald during our phone conversation the next day):

T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.

I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see: The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter. Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism. Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity. There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.
The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.

Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9) Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note: James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).
Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best.

My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings). I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city. I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there. Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity. He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).
Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.

One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity. Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.” In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event. You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest. If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience. It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism. Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism. Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically). He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness. Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism. The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile. They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries. I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers. I don’t fit the profile! Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism. If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.

While Pastor MacDonald said he “respected” my decision, he made it clear that he did not agree with me. We agreed to disagree and he moved on. At this time, I made two important decisions. First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2. I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further. There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light). I do not regret this decision. My second decision, however, is another story altogether. My second decision was to move forward with the scheduled Men’s Conference. That was unwise.

The Men’s Conference

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference. The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2. Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2. The decision to go public was inevitable. The only question was how.
I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page. These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.
As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend...” As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things. I answered those questions as honestly as I could. I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).
This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. We prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers. James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12). MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Looking Back

Looking back on the incident, I realize that I put myself in an untenable position. As I see it, I had three choices once ER2 went down the way it did. I could remain silent indefinitely, which would have given tacit approval of Jakes, etc.. I could have held my comments until after the Men’s Conference, which would have been deceptive to James MacDonald, HBC, and those who showed up to hear me. Or I could answer the questions honestly ahead of time leaving no doubt as to both my decision to honor my commitment to the Men’s Conference, and my disapproval of ER2. Obviously, I chose the latter.
In hindsight, I should have canceled the event when I declined the ER2 invitation. But remember, there were many ‘moving parts’ at that time. There were private, internal discussions within The Gospel Coalition. There was public pressure from all corners of the evangelical community, and there were private conversations (I’ve already alluded to my own discussion, and that of Mark Dever, but there were others). There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time.

Looking Ahead

As I look ahead, I think two things are very important. First, I believe T.D. Jakes is wrong on the doctrine of the Trinity, and wrong on the gospel. I am also involved directly in a matter (the ER2 controversy) that has brought discussion of those facts to light. Consequently, my mandate to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9) obligates me to be on record in the matter. I have done that.
Second, the racial overtones of this matter have gotten out of hand (see here, for example), and must be addressed. The ER2 controversy is now pitting black evangelicals against white evangelicals, and against each other with T.D. Jakes as the centerpiece. This is an opportunity to pull back the curtain on the awkward racial dynamic in evangelical circles. Race is a convenient ‘dodge’ for those with weak arguments, and an inconvenient truth for those who harbor prejudice. Beyond that, it is an absolutely confusing subject for myriad evangelicals who simply love Christ, love his church, and want desperately not to offend their brothers and sisters in the Lord by using “black” when they should have used “African American,” or vice versa!
The irony is that this issue is most pronounced when heterodoxy is in play. For example, when a white evangelical disagrees with a solid, Reformed, black pastor on a technical theological issue, there is rarely a charge of racism. However, let that black brother be part of a heterodox or heretical group (i.e., Oneness Pentecostalism, Word of Faith, Black Liberation Theology, etc.), and suddenly the white brother who makes the argument against him faces charges of racism! Why? Partly because of... RACISM!
You see, some of this boils down to what has sometimes been called, “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Asking black people to adopt orthodox theology (when Lord knows they don’t have access to the same schools, books, opportunities, and, in the minds of some... lack sufficient intelligence) is asking them to negate their blackness. While, on the other hand, the solid, Reformed, well-educated black pastor is NOT REALLY BLACK. Therefore, he’s fair game. Irony of Ironies... that is racist! And that’s what has to be dragged out of the shadows.
I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. There’s just one problem: Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching... that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

2012 - The Road Ahead

2012-02-08T11:18:00.001-05:00

2012: The Road Ahead - Part 5

by Gary Kah

http://www.garykah.org/

The Road Ahead

As we enter 2012, things wont be getting any easier for Bible-believing Christians and conservative Jews. Satan has worked long and hard to get our fallen world to this point. Gods Word predicted such times would come. We shouldnt be surprised.

While I am not caught off guard by current developments, I am grieved and deeply saddened by the fact that so many people are filled with hatred and despise the very truth that could save them. The question for me as a Christian becomes what should I do how should I respond?

As the world drifts ever closer to the crisis point that will give rise to the nefarious leader described in Scripture, the warning signs the Lord is permitting us to see are reminders that our time is short and this earth is not our permanent home.

As James put it, our life is like a vapor that appears for a while and then vanishes (James 4:14). This being the case, we must travel lightly, not being weighed down by the temporary and often vane pursuits of this life. Rather, we must keep our hearts and minds focused on matters of eternity, recognizing that our reward is not of this world but awaits us in Heaven.

Keeping an eternal perspective in an increasingly depraved and materialistic world is no small challenge. We can only be victorious in this area by maintaining a close daily walk with the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord, I believe, is allowing us to see the signs of the times to draw us closer to Himself. As we draw near to Him, the Holy Spirit empowers us to be obedient and surrendered to doing Gods will in our lives. This, in turn, impacts those around us for His glory and honor.

Peter said it well: Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. I Peter 2:11-12

At a time when hatred for Christians is on the rise and many are being persecuted for their faith, it is important that we do not let our love for each other and even for those who may despise us grow cold. Jesus exhorted his followers,

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you?-Do to others as you would have them do to you-Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:27-28, 31, 35-36

Similarly, in Romans chapter 12, Paul wrote, Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:9, 14, 17, 19 & 21

The bottom line is this: In the process of hating and exposing evil as we are commanded to do we must at the individual level never stop loving the sinner. In order to fulfill the Great Commission given to us by Jesus (Matt. 28:19-20), we must continue to represent Him with dignity before those who hate us, remembering that we too were once enemies of Christ before we embraced His love and accepted His forgiveness. With this in mind and as we embark on a new year, let us abide in Jesus and let His love and grace live through us to reach those who desperately need Him.

1 Aaron Klein, ??Next target of protesters: U.S. Dollar? Group seeks global currency to replace each nation??s financial system,?? WorldNetDaily, October 31, 2011, www.wnd.com/?pageId=362293.

2 Ibid.

3 ??Mikhail Gorbachev Says Uprisings Signal an Emerging New World Order,?? Report on Gorbachev??s speech at Lafayette College, October 20, 2011, http://www.lafayette.edu/about/news/2011/10/20/mikhail-gorbachev-says-uprisings-signal-an-emerging-new-world-order/.

4 Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, (AP reporter Karen Matthews in New York contributed to this report), ??Religion claims its place in Occupy Wall Street,?? YAHOO! News, October 24, 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/religion-claims-place-occupy-wall-street-171204904.html.

5 CNN, December 5, 2011.

6 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, ??New recession threatens the globe as debt crisis grows,?? The Telegraph, November 10, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8882524/New-recession-threatens-the-globe-as-debt-crisis-grows.html.

7 Ibid.

8 Becket Adams, ??These States Will Suffer the Most in the Event of an EU Collapse,?? The Blaze, November 17, 2011, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-states-will-suffer-the-most-in-the-event-of-an-eu-collapse/.

9 ??Vatican Calls for ?(R)Central World Bank?? to Be Set Up,?? CNBC Report by Reuters, October 24, 2011, http://www.cnbc.com/id/45013499.

10 Patrick Hennessy and Bruno Waterfield, ??New euro ?(R)empire?? plot by Brussels,?? The Telegraph, October 22, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8843785/New-euro-empire-plot-by-Brussels.html.

11 EU Chief: The Time has Come for a Federal Europe,?? Express, online edition, September 14, 2011.

12 ??Middle East firestorm: Worsening crisis may soon engulf region in ?(R)unthinkable?? nightmare,?? DEBKAfile, as reported by The Extinction Protocol, November 28, 2011, http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/middle-east-firestorm-worsening-crisis-may-soon-engulf-region-in-unthinkable-nightmare/.

13 ??Middle East firestorm: Worsening crisis may soon engulf region in ?(R)unthinkable?? nightmare,?? Haaretz, as reported by The Extinction Protocol, November 28, 2011, http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/middle-east-firestorm-worsening-crisis-may-soon-engulf-region-in-unthinkable-nightmare/.

14 ??Iran moves on from ?(R)Destroy Israel!?? to ?(R)Destroy all the Jews!???? Exclusive Report by DEBKAfile, December 3, 2011, http://www.debka.com/article/21536/printversion/.

15 Ibid.

16 L. A. Marzulli, Commentary & Analysis, ??Middle East Update ?C The Gathering Storm,?? ??Report: Syria arms missiles with chemical warheads,?? December 12, 2011. His website is www.lamarzulli.net.

17 Ibid.

18 NBC Nightly News, December 12 & 15, 2011.

19 The Christian Post, as reported by JNN News, Jerusalem-on-the-Line, December 11, 2011, http://www.jnnnews.com/jol_dec_11_11_sp.htm.

20 JNN News, Jerusalem-on-the-Line, December 11, 2011, http://www.jnnnews.com/jol_dec_11_11_sp.htm

2012: What to Expect - Part 4

2012-02-08T11:10:00.007-05:00

2012: What to Expect - Part 4

by Gary Kah

http://www.garykah.org/

Nightmare in the Middle East

Although Europe is in the midst of a worsening crisis, it is nothing compared to the nightmare faced by the Middle Eastern countries, especially Israel. The Jewish nation finds itself surrounded by governments intent on its destruction. The so-called Arab Spring uprisings which were supposed to bring freedom to the people, are instead moving Arab nations toward an Islamic caliphate that will threaten the stability of the entire region.

After the recent elections in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is now in firm control of that country. Things are headed in the same direction in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and other nations where The Brotherhood has a growing presence. The Muslim Brotherhood, it should be noted, has birthed most of the known terror groups in the Middle East. These same groups are also receiving support from Iran.

Ironically, while the West has applauded and even directly supported the Arab Spring, Iran sees itself as the principal beneficiary of the movement. Irans Ahmadinejad envisions building a multi-nation Islamic caliphate that will lead the charge to annihilate Israel. At present, he is only a few months from having a nuclear weapon. If nothing changes, by April of this year, Iran is expected to have five nuclear bombs in its arsenal.

It is widely suspected that recent explosions at two Iranian military installations were the work of Israeli covert operatives trying to delay or stop Irans development of surface-to-surface missiles that would be used to deliver nuclear bombs. If Israel were to launch an open preemptive strike targeting Irans nuclear sites, it would have the effect of further solidifying support for Iran among radical Muslims in the region. On November 27, Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi warned that Israel would be attacked with 150,000 missiles if it launches any military action against the Islamic Republic.13 If Israel does nothing, however, it will only be a matter of time before she comes under attack. Our sources in the Middle East are telling us the situation is precarious and anything could happen at any time.

The Iranian government seems to be doing everything in its power to provoke Israel. According to DEBKAfile, in early December, Irans rulers upgraded their strategic objective of wiping Israel off the map and extended it for the first time to the more ambitious one of annihilating the Jews worldwide. DEBKAfile reports:

-the ayatollahs in Tehran and Qom unleashed a virulent campaign of anti-Semitic propaganda in their sermons. A new book and a film were released for wide distribution on orders from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?-.

Under the title How Israel should be destroyed, this book was awarded the best book prize at the Khorassan book fair when it was first displayed there on Thursday, Dec. 1. The books editor Hojjat-ol-Eslam Mohammad Ebrahim-Nia stresses that this prescription has the force of a fatwa (religious edict) and is binding on every Muslim. The anti-Semitic film, “The Sabbath Hunter”, has been circulating for some time but was a flop with Iranian movie audiences. Now the Supreme Leader has ordered it to be screened at every university in the land. The Basij students who rampaged through the British embassy in Tehran this week were made responsible with getting it widely shown.

While Irans leaders are stoking the flames of war, Irans close ally, Syria, is in complete upheaval. Syrias situation is perhaps the most complex in the Middle East. If Arab Spring protesters eventually win out, they would likely be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood under a new Syrian regime. Another possibility: If President Bashar Assads power continues to be threatened, he might do something desperate to solidify his control like invade Jordan or Israel. Assads government recently armed its medium-range missiles with chemical warheads and has warned it would launch them at Tel Aviv if Syria is in any way attacked or threatened.

No outcome in Syria looks favorable for Israel or the pursuit of freedom. The unfolding situation in Damascus could well tip the scales toward war in the Middle East, and therefore bears close watching. (Russia has reportedly sent a large number of gas masks to Damascus. 17 Other reports indicate that a number of US troops exiting Iraq have been redeployed in Jordan along that countrys border with Syria.)

Some may wonder, where does Iraq fit in? The tragic fact is that Iran now holds sway over Iraq. After nine years of war and the deaths of nearly 4,500 US troops and at least 150,000 Iraqis, in many respects the country is currently more unstable and more likely to go the direction of radical Islam than when Saddam Hussein was in power.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. Sunnis have long been at odds with Shiite Muslims, who control Iran. The Iraqi government being left in charge as US soldiers come home is predominately Shiite, with strong loyalties to their Iranian Shiite brethren. The fact is, Saddams Sunnis kept the more radical Shiites in check and served as somewhat of a counter to Iranian dominance in the region. In other words, as long as Iran and Iraq had to contend with each other, they didnt have much time or resources to stir up trouble elsewhere. Now, all bets are off. US intervention threw off the balance of power in the region.

Some of the fall-out from this sad reality can be seen in the Iraqi treatment of Jews and Christians. The handful of Jews remaining in the country are in constant danger, and the persecution of Christians has gone viral. Prior to the American occupation, Iraq had a sizeable and even vibrant Christian community of 1.4 million. However, most of Iraqs Christians have since fled the country due to intensified persecution. Only about 500,000 Christians remain in Iraq, and many of them are trying to get out. The Christian Post recently reported, ??Persecution makes the Christian community smaller each year, with churches as well as households being targeted and causing worshipers to flee.

Islamic terror groups have had a favorite slogan for several decades: ??First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.?? This means of course, first the Jews then the Christians will be targeted for persecution, subjection and elimination.20 This hatred is now playing out in parts of the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. (Please take a moment to read the adjacent report Persecution of the Saints, which gives a brief overview of the plight of Christians in these regions.)

2012: What to Expect - Part 3

2012-02-08T11:05:00.007-05:00

What To Expect in 2012

By Gary Kah

http://www.garykah.org/

Growing Unrest in Europe

While the situation in the US is unpredictable at best, matters in Europe are becoming more tense by the day. On December 5, the S & P security ratings agency warned 15 European Union countries of potential downgrades. The treasury bonds of Portugal, Ireland, and Greece have already been downgraded to junk status. Spain and Italy arent far behind.

Only a few weeks earlier Professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, rattled nerves by warning that the world is looking straight into the face of a great depression. The IMF reported that loans had doubled to almost 200 percent of GDP ?C an unprecedented level of credit growth and about twice the intensity of the Japanese bubble in the late 1980s. EU commissioner Olli Rehn slashed growth forecasts from 1.6 to .5 percent for 2012, stating that recovery has now come to a standstill. Humayun Shahryar from the hedge fund Auvest offered the bleakest assessment, predicting the Eurozone faced a major economic collapse, perhaps with double-digit drops in GDP. He explained, European banks are massively over-leveraged and almost every one [of them] is worthless -This is going to be worse than 2008 because they have run out of bullets. The sovereign states are not strong enough to stand behind the banks

Niall Ferguson, a Harvard History Professor, elaborates: Europes problem is not just that governments are overborrowed. There are an unknown number of European banks that are effectively insolvent if their holdings of government bonds are marked to market in other words, valued at their current rock-bottom market prices.

Accurately anticipating such a crisis, the Vatican issued a special report on October 24, offering its solution. The 18-page document explicitly calls for the establishment of a global public authority and a central world bank to govern over financial institutions which have become outdated and ineffective. The world authority to be created would be given universal jurisdiction. Here are some excerpts from the report:

In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of central world bank that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks. Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nations powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalized world.

(Source: Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority, The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Vatican City, October 24, 2011.)

Already moving in this direction, the European Commission has recently taken steps to more closely integrate the economies and finances of its EU member states. On October 21, for example, European Council president, Herman Van Rompuy, put forth a proposal for a single Treasury to oversee tax and spending across the 17 eurozone nations. His announcement came after Europes finance ministers met in Brussels to find a way out of the eurozone crisis. Mr. Van Rompuy, who according to British sources is close to the German government, suggested plans for a finance ministry to be based either in Frankfurt or Paris.

Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, has gone so far as to openly call for a Federal Europe a United States of Europe.11 This idea is rapidly gaining momentum across Europe, being viewed as a potential way out of the deepening financial and political crisis.

Europe, which is setting the tempo for the rest of the world on globalization, must be persuaded to take the next step into a fully integrated, multinational regional government which would conveniently fit into a system of global government (under a world political authority). In the mind of determined globalists, every crisis presents an opportunity to advance their agenda which includes the creation of regional federated governments that can easily be merged into a world government.

European leaders are pushing hard toward this goal. This time, given the enormity of the crisis, they may finally have the leverage to achieve it.

Interestingly, while Europe wrestles to reshape itself, the blame for its problems which are being used to force this change is increasingly being directed at the Jews. This sentiment is particularly well advanced in France, but is now spreading across other Eurozone countries including Germany, Greece, Spain, and Italy. History seems to be repeating itself.

2012: What to Expect - Part 2

2012-02-08T11:01:00.004-05:00

2012: What to Expect - Part 2

by Gary Kah

http://www.garykah.org/

The Occupy Movement

Not coincidentally, the Occupy Wall Street movement is serving as a platform for New Agers who support a one-world/socialist financial system, which is needed to undergird their coming spiritual order. In fact, a group working with Occupy Wall Street is now proposing a global currency system to replace the currencies of individual nations. Aaron Klein, an investigative journalist who has been tracking this development, reports,

An online group calling itself OWS Currency is working to devise an ??alternative currency system for participants at Occupy Wall Street, according to the groups charter. Occupy Wall Street and subsequent occupations prove that the people are eager for a new system,?? states OWS Currency. Lets help them build it.

Klein goes on to link the push for a new financial system by the Occupy movement to organizations funded by internationalist George Soros, and to avowed Marxists, some of whom have close ties to the White House.

Not surprisingly, on October 19, Mikhail Gorbachev the former leader of the Soviet Union threw his support behind the Occupy movement in an address titled Perspectives on Global Change,given before a crowd of 3,600 at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:

We are reaping the consequences of a strategy that is not conducive to cooperation and partnership, to living in a new global situation. The world needs goals that will bring people together?-I believe America needs its own perestroika. (italics in original)

The entire world situation did not develop properly,said Gorbachev. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement. My friend the late Pope John Paul II said it best. He said, “We need a new world order, one that is more stable, more humane, and more just.” Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages?-all because we do not have a system of global governance.

He commented on the changing world: “We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change, he said. As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order.

Although the Occupy movement initially spread to dozens of cities throughout the United States, by mid fall many common sense Americans began questioning the true motives of the movement. Scenes like those in downtown Boston, which reflected a new age/interfaith religious element, threw up red flags among Christians.

The Associated Press reported, Dewey Square is crammed with tents and tarps of Occupy Boston protesters, but organizers made sure from the start of this weeks-old encampment that there was room for the holy. No shoes are allowed in the Sacred Space tent here, but you can bring just about any faith or spiritual tradition. A days schedule finds people balancing their chakras, a compassion meditation and a discussion of the biblical passage in Luke. Inside, a Buddha statue sits near a picture of Jesus, while a hand-lettered sign in the corner points toward Mecca.

Occupy protesters show disdain for Jews. At first, a number of liberal Jewish groups were supportive of the movement. However, their enthusiasm seemed to wane in November when swastikas and anti-Jew billboards began appearing among demonstrators. In New York, several cars were reportedly set on fire by anti-Jew protesters.

For now at least, the Occupy movement has leveled off. It may be regrouping to make a stronger stand in the months ahead. Its organizers have big plans, significant funding, and the support of some of the nations major unions and the expanding New Age/Interfaith movement. Their goal, I believe, is to create instability and demand for a new world order.

2012: What to Expect - Part 1

2012-02-08T10:55:00.001-05:00

What to Expect in 2012 - Part 1

by Gary Kah

http://www.garykah.org/

Well, here we are, the much anticipated year 2012 has finally arrived ?C the year in which the world as we know it is supposed to end. The countdown to December 21st is on, with more one-world/new age events being planned for the next twelve-month period than any other stretch of time in recent memory.

Meetings on the itinerary include a host of interfaith gatherings designed to bring the religions of the world together in order to facilitate a Quantum Leap into the New Spiritual Order. While this may or may not be the year in which the one-world agenda comes to fruition, the Bible warns that a time of unprecedented worldwide deception spearheaded by the Antichrist (also known as the Beast or Lawless One) will take place in the final days of human history just prior to the return of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 24, Revelation 13 & 14, II Thessalonians 2). Only God knows how much time we have to freely share His message of hope and forgiveness; however, new age globalists are pulling out all the stops to make their dream of an occult world order come true.

The momentum is expected to build through the spring and summer, accelerating next fall when over 300 spiritual leaders representing the worlds religions come together in Rome. Their purpose will be to draft a charter intended to pave the way for a new global consciousness.The drafting of this charter will be overseen by a group of influential religious leaders including two prominent Vatican cardinals, a former Italian prime minister, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, and new ager Barbara Marx Hubbard, among others.

Then, on December 21 , the New Group of World Servers (NGWS) will be sponsoring a worldwide occult meditation festival. The NGWS has been inspired by the writings of Theosophist Alice Bailey who founded Lucifer Publishing Company in 1922, before changing its name to Lucis Trust two years later. (See chapter two of my book The New World Religion for complete documentation.) It is Lucis Trust and World Goodwill ?C sister organizations derived from the work of Alice Bailey ?C that are the guiding bodies behind this festival week. Their hope is that the occult meditations/activities occurring simultaneously throughout the world during that week will enable group fusion to bring about their desired global transformation.

During this worldwide occult spectacle, a new birth of the world is to be celebrated. Dubbed Birth 2012, New Age leader Barbara Marx Hubbard is calling December 22, 2012, a global birthday. She is working with other new age figures, hoping their efforts will bring about the global evolutionary leap that will finally unite the world spiritually, socially, and consciously. In short, December 22 has been designated the launch date for unveiling their new world order.

MacArthur takes on the N.A.R.

2011-11-01T09:27:00.000-04:00

The Un-Holy Trinity of the New Apostolic Reformation

Considering the climate in which we all find ourselves living .... the below message from John MacArthur is worth listening to .... click on the link below to listen or visit http://www.gty.org/ more resources.

Message 10/23/11 - The Modern Blasphemy