Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘christian worldliness’

Flee Fornication!

Posted by Job on October 30, 2009

Pastor Foster’s outstanding efforts for justice on behalf of victims of church sexual abuse reminds me of 1 Corinthians 6:18. “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” This is relevant because sexual sin is rarely committed at the drop of a hat, almost at random. Going out and committing adultery, fornication, or homosexuality is not like tripping and falling down the stairs. It isn’t something that you do suddenly when you “snap”, “crack under the pressure”, or somehow lose control of your faculties, your ability to think and reason clearly or restrain yourself. It is rarely a sin that “just happens on the spur of the moment”, the result of a situation that rapidly spiral out of control.

Now perhaps there are sins that probably can happen that way, maybe including even murder, but they DO NOT include sexual sins. Instead, the idea that “it just happened” or “it was beyond my control” is a convenient reassuring lie that we often find refuge in after the fact. Truthfully, the only time that this explanation is even plausible is when abuse of alcohol or drugs are involved, and in those cases, rather than being excuses for sinful sexual behavior, drug and alcohol abuse are sins themselves. Instead, sexual sins are almost always sins committed after a time or incident of temptation, and the comission of said sin is thus the result of the failure of the Christian to remove himself from the temptation.

Let us be honest here. We aren’t simply walking down the street minding our own business when some unclean spirit seizes us and unwillingly forces us to do dishonor our bodies and abuse the bodies of others with this type of sinful behavior. And we also aren’t these naive souls that find ourselves manipulated and overcome by the wiles of a tempter or seductress. Plainly speaking, if it isn’t rape, then it is sexual sin. If it isn’t violent coercion, then it is sexual sin.

So why does it happen so often, even amongst the clergy? The reason is that we are like David as opposed to being like Joseph. Now consider Joseph. When Potiphar’s wife made her advance and grabbed hold of him, he didn’t trust his ability to resist the temptation or negotiate the situation. No, Joseph got out of there, leaving his clothes behind! And Joseph, being a very wise person, almost certainly knew that his running naked away from Potiphar’s wife and leaving her holding his clothes would leave him with absolutely no defense whatsoever. He knew that running off in that manner would result in any charge made against him being believed, and that any legal standing or credibility that he might have had – and being a Hebrew slave in Egypt he really had none to begin with – would have been forfeited. So in leaving his clothes behind, he was really abandoning all that he had. He was giving up every right, every privilege, every consideration that the world had to offer him. And why did he do so? Because obedience to God’s law was worth all the rights, privileges and recourses that the world had to offer. Joseph was going to obey YHWH even if it cost him everything, including his very life! Make no mistake, either way Joseph was going to be in a hard position. He either had to put himself in the position where he had to resist the seducing charms of Potiphar’s wife, or put himself in a position where he would have no defense against a false charge of attempted sexual assault by that same wife. As the Bible narrative tells us, Joseph chose the latter, and willingly bore the consequences! As was evident from the time that Cain slew Abel and was made manifest in the most supreme and extreme example by the rejection and death of the SINLESS Jesus Christ on the cross, true righteousness in this wicked world always comes at a price, and it was a price that Joseph was willing to pay.

But instead of being like Joseph, we are like David. David watched Bathsheba bathe. He could have easily avoided doing so. Some blame this on David’s not going out to battle, but one doesn’t even have to go that far. David could have simply closed or averted his eyes and gotten away from there as fast as he could; gone back inside his house. Instead, he allowed viewing the body of another man’s wife to please him, and from there it was simply James 1:14-15, which reads “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” So where Joseph fled fornication, David gave a place to the devil, and with the latter you saw the result. David “took Bathsheba and laid with her”, and it is still my opinion that the Bible does not state that David’s relations with Bathsheba were consensual on her part, but instead used language similar to Absalom’s rape of Tamar and Shechem’s rape of Dinah. In that light the contrast between Joseph and David becomes even more stark: where the former fled consensual sin with Potiphar’s wife,  the latter appears to have forced himself on Uriah’s wife.

So why are we so often more likely to choose the path of David over the path of Joseph? It appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of another verse from James, that being 4:7’s “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” Actually, that is 4:7b. 4:7a, which reads “Submit yourselves therefore to God” is often ignored and omitted, and 4:7b is often quoted in isolation, usually as sort of a “Christian cliche'”, which of course increases its potential to be misunderstood and misapplied.

We often interpret “resisting Satan” to placing ourselves in compromising and sinful situations. We think of ourselves as spiritual athletes or superheroes. We tell ourselves that there is some great merit in putting temptation before our face and resisting it, that it is some mark of spiritual maturity and upright character. We think that because we are Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that it means that we can trust ourselves and that we can be trusted. And the feelings of attraction or tension that we might have? We tell ourselves that they don’t exist because we are born again, and born again Christians don’t have those problems! Or we tell ourselves that because we are so strong and mature and are experiencing such victory that we can handle them without acting on them. We can just sweep them under our emotional, mental and physical rugs, we tell us, and we further deceive ourselves by telling ourselves that God will make it stay there. After all, we delude ourselves because of bad theology and teachings: it’s His job! It is one of His promises! To be able to stare temptation right in the face hour after hour, day after day, week after week and year after year without falling is one of the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit!

And Christians who reject this form of (let us call it what it is) NEEDLESS SELF-TORTURE, SELF-ABUSE AND SELF-ENDANGERMENT? We call them “legalists.” We call them “fundamentalists.” We even question their own salvation and Bible knowledge. We say “if they were REALLY saved, if they REALLY UNDERSTOOD GRACE, if they REALLY UNDERSTOOD VICTORIOUS CHRISTIAN LIVING, if they REALLY HAD THE SELF-CONTROL THAT CHRISTIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, then they wouldn’t need all these legalistic rules. They’d just trust themselves and each other, and above all trust God. Right?

Well, we see the result of this thinking. Having cast aside the rules designed to keep Christians pure as “old-fashioned”, “legalistic”,  “impediments to church growth” and “sexist”, we see that teen pregnancy, illegitimacy, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce and pornography are huge problems in our churches, in some cases surpassing that of the general population, and that speaks nothing of the sex scandals among the clergy and other church leaders. And despite all this, we deceive ourselves as to the reasons why. Instead of separating from worldly practices and ideas, we tell ourselves that we can partake of those same practices, implement those same ideas and still not sin because we are Christians.

This is particularly absurd when the Bible itself explicitly calls it a lie. In a general sense, 1 John 1:8 says that any Christian who denies his capacity for sin deceives himself and rejects God’s truth. And in a specific sense, Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 promotes marriage as a way for Christians to avoid sexual sins. Again, 1 Corinthians 7 IS NOT DIRECTED AT UNBELIEVERS. Paul WAS NOT telling unbelievers to get married to avoid sexual sin! Paul was telling baptized, born again, Holy Spirit filled BELIEVERS to get married to avoid sexual sin! And of course, if avoiding fornication is an issue for single Christians, avoiding adultery is an issue for married ones. So if that was an issue for Christians in Paul’s time, what makes us think that it isn’t now? Is it because society has advanced? If so, in what way? Because we are so much more civilized thanks to our humanistic, rationalistic mindset that we are capable of more self-control than we could in Paul’s repressed, misogynistic social location? Such ideas are nonsense, a strong delusion.

So then, the mark of true Christian maturity is not to put temptation in your face so you can brag about how holy and righteous you are for not giving into it. Instead, the mark of true Christian maturity is to do whatever you can to avoid the temptation, and being willing to suffer the consequences. Again, consider Joseph. He was willing to go to prison – and he may well have been executed – over running away naked. But how many contemporary Christians are just as willing to turn down a situation at school, at work, or even at church that requires them to work long hours alone with an attractive member of the opposite sex? Or what about shunning the raunchy and prurient movies, TV shows and Internet websites, including those that may be harmless themselves but have racy advertiser content?

Again, that may sound anti-modern, antedeluvian, medieval, old-fashioned, legalistic, fundamentalist or whatever you want to call it. I call it not giving a place to the devil (Ephesians 4:27) and submitting yourself to God, of being more like Joseph and less like David. After all, what merit is there to imperiling yourself with temptation for its own sake? Does it make you a better witness for the gospel? Even if that were the case, when you contrast the high number of evangelical Christians who commit sexual sin (at least 60% and very likely higher) and the low number of Christians who actually evangelize (less than 10%) and being a better evangelist clearly isn’t the reason. Instead, being more like the world is the reason.

Also, let us have some consistency. Those of you who believe that you are such powerful, faithful bold victorious Christians that you can resist all this temptation, why limit it to that area? Expand your horizons. Go handle poisonous spiders and scorpions. Grab a rattlesnake by the tail. Make yourself a cocktail of household cleaners and drink it. Stand out in the middle of a freeway. Or take a boat out into deep water, the ocean or the middle of a swirling river, and step out and walk on water. You have faith, don’t you? You are a mature, strong Holy Spirit-filled Christian, aren’t you? Isn’t avoiding that behavior legalism? Fundamentalism? Old-fashioned? Is refusing to pick up a rattlesnake misunderstanding grace?

Of course, you won’t do that. Why? Because you value your life and health. And that is precisely the issue. You value your own safety and security over avoiding sin. You are much more willing to risk the chance that you might sin than you are to risk the chance that you might die. Therefore, you are willing to take a chance that you might sin and tell you that God will keep you from sinning, but you are unwilling to take the same chance with your life under the idea that God will save you from poison, drowning, or getting crushed by a car. But you might say “there’s no reason for doing those things.” Well, there was no reason for David to watch Bathsheba bathe, was it? The truth is that there is also no reason, no reason that will advance the kingdom of God, for Christians to sit around and unnecessarily tempt themselves with sin, and that is not just sexual sin but a great many other sins. But we actually have a Christian mainstream, an evangelical mainstream, that regards trying to separate from wickedness as sinful, hypocritical and Pharisaical, and the results are plainly exhibited before all. Many of the things that we tempt ourselves with we do so for no reason other than our own entertainment or to be like everyone else, and other times we do so because we are unwilling to make a real sacrifice to our lifestyles, to our comfort, to our aspirations. We don’t want to go to prison like Joseph. We don’t even want to miss out on a promotion, become a laughingstock at school, or be considered “extremist” by other churches. As a result of this carnality, this selfishness, we are much more willing to pollute our minds and bodies and offend God with our sin than we would ever be willing to put ourselves in harm’s way, and yes that does include put ourselves in harm’s way to actually spread the gospel. And the result is the Christian landscape in America that we see today.

Paul Washer does an excellent job of addressing this precise topic in the video below, which I really hope that you will view. In it he gives added emphasis to pastors who unnecessarily expose themselves to sexual sin, and that goes back to some of the topics that Pastor Foster regularly deals with on his site.

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Murder of Late Term Abortionist George Tiller By Scott Roeder: A Warning To Christians

Posted by Job on May 31, 2009

News that notorious late term abortionist George Tiller received the very sort of violent death that for 30 years he meted out to innocent unborn children reminded me of debates that I used to have with a liberal that I once knew. This fellow was extremely well versed in suspect and intellectually dishonest arguments, but there was one in particular that he absolutely nailed me on:  though both conservatives and liberals have their extremists, in this country it is the conservative extremists that have always been more prone to committing acts of political and ideological violence. Now I took great offense to this statement, because even though the fellow who made the comment did not intend any religious overtones when he made the statement at the time I was a Bush Republican who equated “conservative” with “Christian.”  However, some informal research on my own (not that I am a professional researcher i.e. a journalist, historian, statistician, etc.) not only confirmed the point that the fellow was trying to make – that the clear majority of political violence that had occurred in this country was committed by conservatives – but also one that he was not trying to make and was not interested in, which is that many of the conservatives who resort to political, ideological and religious violence in this country do in fact profess to be Christians.

Of course, the media has the habit of claiming as professed Christians those who are not, including Eric Rudolph (who set off bombs at the Olympics and at abortion clinics and homosexual nightclubs in the 1990s) and Timothy McVeigh. Quite the contrary, Rudolph and McVeigh both renounced Christianity. However, the sad truth is that doing so with McVeigh and Rudolph were never necessary, as there were plenty of right wing terrorists who were professed Christians to choose from! And I have to tell you, news that conservative Christians constitute the single biggest block of Americans that support torture and the war in Iraq, it is no surprise.

Now this is not intended as a broadside against conservatism. I myself am apolitical and attack both sides. I attack conservatives more because conservatives maintain the demonstrably false position that their movement most faithfully represents and advances the doctrines of the Bible where liberals make no such claim. In other words, where Christian followers of the Republican Party and the conservative movement are often likely people who are sincere but deceived, there is no way that any supporter of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who placed Kathleen Sebelius – the friend and supporter of Tiller, the nation’s most notorious abortion doctor because of his willingness to perform procedures so gruesome that even the vast majority of his peers that kill babies for a living refuse to do – to lead the vital Health and Human Services Department can claim that they are supporting someone who respects, let alone obeys, the Bible. 

But the question remains: why is it that in America more politically motivated violence comes from those who claim to be motivated by a literal interpretation of the Bible than by, say, adherents to the liberation theology of Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s so-called “pastor” Jeremiah Wright? A similar question: why did so many Bible believing Christians back the Iraq War and continue to do so even after it was exposed as a complete fraud and total nonsense, and why do so many support torture? Why did so many Bible believing Christians support the increase of state power when that very state power has been used against Bible believing Christians for centuries, from the birth of the faith in the fascist Roman Empire to modern times in communist and fascist states? 

I wonder if the answer to this was found in a discussion board on the Jerusalem Post that dealt with the issue of violent crime in America. The fellow stated that it was a longtime teaching of the rabbis that where full keeping of a Torah made a person better than he was before (i.e. better than a pagan or a nonobservant person) partial keeping of the Torah made a person more evil than he was before (i.e. more evil than a pagan or an atheist). Because of the spiritual nature of the law of God, only keeping its whole counsel made a person more like God, where keeping only part of it actually makes them more evil. Now normally I am suspicious of the teachings of the rabbis, but this is one instance where the saying actually correlates with what the Bible says. The Old Testament prophets, for one, castigated Israel for only keeping part of the law i.e. the sacrifices and observances while committing murder, idolatry, and injustice. Jesus Christ picked up this theme against the Sadducees, scribes and Pharisees, including this devastating comment: Matthew 23:15 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

So where legitimate Christianity makes a person better, more like Jesus Christ, false Christianity makes a person worse, more evil, and further people reared in or converted into false Christianity become twice as worse as the first generation of false Christians! And according to the same statements of Jesus Christ, this means that America and its church is in a whole lot of trouble.

Now while American Christians certainly have a long sad history of not acting like Christians (and refusing to admit it, see “The American Patriot Study Bible” and its whitewashing of history) this is more about the contemporary scene. You see, we are over four decades into the strong delusion and great deception of the American evangelical church known as the religious right. Its earliest modern form was when (Roman Catholic) Pat Buchanan was able to garner religious support to help get Richard Nixon into office. Sometime later the movement became a full fledged one, motivated primarily by Roe v. Wade, to aid the election of JIMMY CARTER. (Few religious right leaders will acknowledge that Jimmy Carter was their first candidate.) After Carter turned on them, groups like the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, etc. were formed to back Ronald Reagan and the rest is history.

However, the religious right, while certainly right, was never religious. Not only was it an ecumenical movement, bringing Protestants together with Mary and angel and pope worshiping Roman Catholics (something that would have been impossible without Vatican II and Billy Graham), but actually an interfaith movement, involving Christians, Catholics (whom I take the position constitutes an entirely different religion), Jews and atheists. Further, before September 11th, George W. Bush was actually trying to bring Muslims into the coalition as well!  We all know from the Bible that coming together with unbelievers to advance Christianity is something that is forbidden, but instead for the past 30 years we have had Christians working hard to advance the religious agendas of Catholics and Jews!

Further still, the religious right never advanced actual Christianity, concerned around the death and resurrection of the Word of God Jesus Christ and living by the commandments of that same Christ. Instead, the religious right advanced a civil religion of morals, values and culture, what the Salvation Army founder William Booth would call Christianity without Christ and religion without the Holy Spirit. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if you promote actual Christianity, then the Catholics, Jews, and non-observant Christians will all leave in a heartbeat. The second is that actual Christianity is not something that will be advanced by governments and their laws and armies, but instead is a religion of the heart. So instead of using the true message of Jesus Christ in evangelism, we try to tell people how to behave, not so that they will avoid an eternity in the lake of fire and be reconciled to Jesus Christ, but so that they will be “good people” or “good Americans” according to our own estimations. And of course, this causes more than a few people with atrocious personal and spiritual lives (adulterers, drug addicts, liars, racists, tax cheats etc.) being called “good Americans” just because they have the “right” political views. I am tempted to call it a form of godliness that denies the power thereof, but now that I think of it, it is not even that. Instead, I am calling it an entirely different belief system that competes with Christianity that is precious little different from the deist philosophy of most of our founding fathers and the very similar naturalist – deist philosophy/religion of the ancient Greeks. Regarding the Greeks, consider Aristotle and Plato, who were monotheists, but their god was most certainly not the God of the Bible, and it is not surprising that Aristotle and Plato in their philosophy rejected the immorality, decadence and confusion of the polytheists and instead promoted a personal lifestyle and society governed by morality, civility and ethics. 

So now, we are entering our second generation of Christians whose religious worldviews have been shaped more by the political pronouncements and activism of James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins (and let’s face it, the Vatican and Zionist Jews) than by the Bible or any sound teacher thereof. Three pieces of evidence of this sad state. Billy Graham is able to state publicly that he no longer believes that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, and he and his ministry suffer absolutely no negative consequences whatsoever. George W. Bush states that Christians and Muslims worship the same God and no one bats an eye, and later states that the Bible is not literally true or the final authority, and none of the evangelical leaders who backed this fellow for eight years – even to the point of supporting George W. Bush’s war in Iraq based on the idea that Bush was a devout man given to much study and prayer whose actions and policies were being guided by the Holy Spirit and thus reflected God’s Will – didn’t say a peep. And then there is the Carrie Prejean debacle (and before her the Sarah Palin disaster, which continues to this day). 

Now regarding Prejean, I really never criticized her that much, only the people that were using her. Why? Because I honestly have a difficult time arriving at how she knew any better. Based on my own experience growing up firmly believing in A) premillennial dispensationalism, B) you can lose your salvation and C) one had to speak in tongues in order to be saved, I am fairly convinced that many Christians – especially young ones – read and interpret the Bible for themselves, but instead interpret it according to the framework given to them by their pastors, parents, teachers and other role models in the faith (which now includes televangelists, political Christians, recording artists and other Chri$tian celebritie$). So how else are we going to avoid raising a generation of Christian kids who firmly believe that evidence of the faith is not keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ, but having the right position on homosexuality and abortion? What else are we going to produce but a generation of Christian kids who believe that the Word of God became flesh and died on a cross and raised from the dead so that we could get  a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, post the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, and defeat homosexual marriage initiatives?

How many of the kids in this generation know that abortion and homosexuality were commonly practiced in the Roman Empire during the time of Jesus Christ and His apostles, yet Christ and His apostles rarely even mentioned that fact, let alone tried to change it? Read the New Testament: it only deals with the sins of the world when speaking of the world’s judgment in Revelation, the Olivet discourse, and other eschatological passages. Otherwise, the only sins that are dealt with are the sins of the people of God, the Jews in the time of Christ and the church after the coming of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament gives only two methods of dealing with the sins of the world: A) the church remaining separate from the world (which again, the religious right rejects by definition) and B) evangelizing the lost, which of course removes the sinner from the world and makes it incumbent upon him that he practice A).

Instead, the Christian conservative movement rejects the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and His apostles by trying to force the world into being partially righteous part of the time, or even being completely unrighteous all the time so long as you A) have the right beliefs and B) can cover it up. And in the process of trying to get the world to behave, Christian conservatives allow Christians – people in the church – to behave however they want and in many cases believe much of whatever they want (so long as their beliefs are “right” on abortion, homosexuality, taxes, military, etc.) And you can see the result. Abortion rates in evangelical churches are the same as they are in the overall culture, and divorce rates are even higher. (Again, so long as you “believe” something is wrong in a political sense, how you actually live your life is of little consequence or concern.)

Those are just a few indicators: there are others. So the question is: what is American Christianity going to be like 20-30 years from now, when – unless the hand of God intervenes – the current generation of evangelicals reared in what is at best a theologically shallow and doctrinally suspect Christianity and what is at worst an entirely new religion altogether are leading our churches, seminaries and Bible colleges? I believe that what Jesus Christ spoke of in Matthew 23:15 will be the result, and just as the religious leaders of that day made it very difficult for the early church (to the point of killing and driving off not a few of them) Christians who desire to learn and keep the true commandments of Jesus Christ will face extreme difficulties. A lot of Christians are talking about how Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to open the door to mistreatment of Christians, but I honestly wonder if these Christians had better look at other professed Christians! Because please recall that the Bible says that by delivering Christians over to the authorities to be killed, people will consider themselves to be doing a service to God! So, it won’t be ACLU Human Rights Campaign NAMBLA abortion rights atheist secular humanist liberals (or Muslims for that matter) doing this to us to fulfill that prophecy. It will be adherents to a Christless, cross – less, Holy Spirit – less moral and civil religion (that very much lends itself to either universalism or at the very least pluralism) that will be closely tied to the exaltation of the state and culture, and perhaps ultimately be led the beast of Revelation, the anti-Christ himself!

So Christians, take a long hard look at Scott Roeder and consider if he is precisely the sort of zealot for an external form of religion based on partial belief and adherence that persecuted Jesus Christ (falsely accusing Him and sending Him to the cross) in the past and will do the same to true members of His church in the future. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the great persecutors of the American church in the future are not Muslims, Barack HUSSEIN Obama liberals, but “Judeo-Christians”? (By the way, “Judeo-Christianity” or “Judeo-Christian values” or “Judeo-Christian culture does not exist. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, and furthermore modern Judaism and Christianity have no more to do with each other than does Christianity and Islam. So they are a contradiction. Further, Christianity has nothing to do with “values” or “culture” as those are temporal things of this world while Jesus Christ and His kingdom are spiritual and eternal. Now I must say that if you didn’t know this already and moreover are now rejecting it upon reading this, well then you are precisely one of those who is likely to either persecute the church in the future, consent to it, or do nothing to stop it that I am speaking of.)

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Gospel Superstars Mary Mary Support Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

Posted by Job on May 25, 2009

Looking at their video “God In Me”, which promotes the same Christian celebrity culture that causes people like Carrie Prejean to think that it is OK to prance around semi-nude, it is no surprise. Look, these folks know that Barack Obama will sign the most radical piece of abortion legislation in history, and will also greatly advance the homosexual agenda. But they don’t care, because to them it’s just about pleasing man, themselves.

Really, that is what the gospel scene that they are in is all about. Worship music, praise music, gospel music should be about worshiping God. The goal, the desire should be to glorify God and to please God. But the scene that they are in, the scene that invited Carrie Prejean to present at the Dove Awards, it is about pleasing man. Why? Because you have to entertain an audience in order to get airplay, video play, and sell records. That is why we need celebrity figures that look like models (and beauty pageant contestants) to “sing” this “music.” That is why they are showing a lot more leg and a lot more cleavage than in the past. As a matter of fact, defenders of Carrie Prejean’s “Christian modeling” are actually setting a precedent where Christian artists will be allowed wear bikinis (or even less) in gospel videos and take the same roles in violent or sex driven movies as any other artists with no one batting an eye.  Basically, since it is about entertainment and making people feel happy, whatever standard the world sets for entertainment and pleasure will inevitably be emulated by this industry.  It is all about making people happy and feeling good. 

Now I disagree with people like this fellow and this fellow who claim that the use of instruments in worship was fulfilled in Jesus Christ along with the tabernacle/temple, sacrifices, and rituals. However, we cannot deny … take away the instruments (as well as the secular music styles) and most contemporary Christian artists would never sell. People who have no interest in serving the Lord and only want to be entertained would have no interest in buying it. That is what you get with market-driven consumer Christianity.

This is nothing personal against Mary Mary, I actually have all their albums save their most recent one. But they are part of a scene that professes to worship God when it is actually about entertaining men in exchange for money. 

Promoting Obama:
Getting their kids to promote Obama:
Mary Mary’s God In Me:   Mary Mary hanging out with worldly friends and basically taking making music in praise of the Lord to be a joke:
But hey, they talk about traditional marriage and family in these videos, so that makes them God pleasing, right?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Regarding Carrie Prejean, Evangelicalism And The Culture War

Posted by Job on May 12, 2009

I recall a very recent incident where I purchased my first
Christian rap CD, certain that it would provide edifying entertainment for my
very young son during our frequent automobile trips. However, when the music
began to play, my son put his hands over his ears, and began yelling for me to
turn it off, the reason being “it sounds like the devil’s music.” Now
as I was very much enjoying the CD in question, I tried to explain to the child
that it was in fact Christian music. The child replied that he would much
rather listen to one of HIS CDs. So, the Christian rap went out, and one of his
several CDs of classic hymns, Negro spirituals and similar took its place,
which included “Standing On The Promises of God.” I confess to not having
learned the lyrics to this song, but I do remember something about “standing on
the promises that cannot fail.”

And now I find myself reading Pilgrim’s Progress by John
Bunyan for the first time. I not long ago passed the section where Christian
succumbed to the temptation of one Worldly Wiseman to depart from the hard path
given to him to the Celestial City by Evangelist and instead set out for what
was promised to be the easier path over Mount Sinai to Mr. Legality and his
handsome son civility in the nice village Morality. And this reminds me of the
Carrie Prejean tempest: this where beauty pageant contestant lost the Miss
America pageant (which is owned by Donald Trump, who considers twice divorced
prosperity preacher Paula White his friend and pastor) for speaking out against
homosexual marriage.

As a result, this Miss Prejean has found herself many
supporters in the evangelical Christian community for fighting the good fight
in the culture war, having had the privilege of such experiences as being
interviewed by James Dobson, speaking at a prominent evangelical Christian
university, and being a presenter for the Dove Awards. Miss Prejean’s Christian
advocates have presented her as an example of a bold Christian woman who has
risked and suffered in warfare.

While this is certainly true, as Prejean clearly lost the
Miss America title, was very nearly stripped of the Miss California title, and
has had explicit pictures (some that she acknowledges to be real, others that
she alleges are fake) released by those seeking to force the Miss California pageant
to strip her of her crown for violating her contract, I have to ask: what battle
is it that she is fighting anyway, and is it a worthwhile one?

Again, go back to “Standing On The Promises Of God.” God’s
promises cannot fail, which means that God’s battles cannot be lost, because in
God’s battles, it is not us that are fighting, but rather God Himself that
fights for us. So as long as remain obedient and faithful to scripture and
adhere to the things that Jesus Christ commanded of us, we cannot lose. Our
success is guaranteed, predetermined, predestined.

However, when we depart from the path, leave behind the
commandments of Jesus Christ, and start seeking our own agendas, failure is
inevitable. Oh, we may win a victory or two here and there, but it is only a
temporary fleeting battle won at a huge cost – not the least a great diversion
of prayers and works by well meaning Christians – in a war that will ultimately
be lost. The person who bears witness of this best is none other than James
Dobson, the very same who interviewed Prejean. Upon retiring from his leadership
of Focus On The Family, Dobson acknowledged that he, his organization and its
fellow travelers had lost every single battle, including that against
homosexual marriage, which will become legal in many parts of the country
within a few years. And let us never forget that the great legal victory that
made homosexual marriage possible was a court decision, Lawrence versus Texas,
given to us by a Supreme Court stacked with appointees of the very conservative
Republican presidents that Dobson and his peers spent a generation getting
Christians to not only vote but contribute, volunteer, fast and pray to get
elected in the first place. What do we know from this? As Jesus Christ promised
us that so long as remain faithful to Him and do His Will that we shall not
fail, the very failure of Dobson’s efforts, shows that Dobson and those like
him were never fighting the Lord’s battle to begin with.

And consider further the supreme irony: the biggest defeats
have come from the very people aligned with Dobson! Recall that Ronald Reagan,
when given the opportunity to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade,
instead put not one but two pro – abortion judges on the court, and George H.
W. Bush, who became president due to being the vice president of Reagan thanks
in no small part to people like Dobson, appointed a third pro – abortion judge,
and yes all three of those judges cast their votes in the Lawrence versus Texas
decision to pave the way for homosexual marriage as well.

So gentle Christians, what we should learn from this is that
Jesus Christ, God’s own Word and thereby God Himself, did not come to earth as
a human to be slain on a cross to pay the debt of original sin, in order to
redeem the culture. He did not do so in order to lend political support to any specific
nation, whether the United States or Israel, or any cause. The reason is that
cultures, nations, and causes are worldly things, and the result of the death
of Jesus Christ was to create the church, which is ekklesia in Greek, and
ekklesia means “called out.” What is the church called out of? The world and
worldly things. Instead of trying to change the world in some vain, idolatrous,
blasphemous quest to transform its sin and wickedness into the image of the
holiness and righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, instead of
trying to give that which is destined to die the image of that which through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ will have eternal life, the only duty that I
have seen given through Jesus Christ and His apostles and prophets to the New
Testament church is that of saving and discipling sinners. Even the good deeds
and charitable works that Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to love our
neighbors and by this way to also love Him was towards that end; acts by which
the unsaved are reached and the saved are to learn to grow in the grace and
knowledge of our only Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now let it be known that evangelical Christians are supposed
to be sola scriptura Protestants. After all, the term “evangelical” was taken
up as a self – descriptive one by the Protestant Reformers. So, I challenge any
sola scriptural Protestant to identify me the Bible verse that commands
Christians to put aside the work of evangelizing the world and discipling those
who by and according to the grace and prerogative of God the Father (those that
the Father gave to the Son) respond to the gospel and start working to give the
unregenerate masses the appearance of righteousness, a form of godliness that
denies the power thereof, show it to me and I will repent of this missive. If
no such verse exists – and I have never encountered it in the New Testament –
then those who continue with this behavior should cease to call themselves sola
scriptura, which means they should cease to call themselves Protestants, which
means that they should cease to call themselves evangelical, which means that
they should cease to call themselves Christians.

This is no mere doctrinal dispute. Again, Jesus Christ gave us in His Holy Spirit – inspired word promises that work done in His Name would
never fail. The end result of not only decades of the religious right but many
centuries of church – states and church – cultures has been nothing but massive
thoroughgoing failure. If you refuse to consider me to be one qualified to
speak to this matter, then heed Søren Kierkegaard; read his Attack Upon Christendom (that is if you can abide theistic existentialism long enough to). So by committing all of these
efforts to works, by fighting all of these battles, that we claim to be in the
Name of Jesus Christ, what witness does the church bear to the promises, the
veracity, the power, the faithfulness, the very Name of Jesus Christ by which
we are saved and are to overcome death, be resurrected from the dead, and
inherit the Celestial City when these things fail? When WE fail?

Because like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress, we have abandoned
the path to the Celestial City and Mount Zion to the Morality Village, the
abode of Mr. Legality and Civility by way of Mount Sinai, that same is the way
of death. We have abandoned the counsel of the apostles, prophets and Jesus
Christ Himself for that of Worldly Wisemen politicians and hucksters, in
addition to not a few very sincere but ultimately misguided and sincere pastors
and theologians, which unfortunately included not a few of the very same
Reformers themselves, who were not long removed from the murderous yoke of the
Roman church – states themselves began drowning Anabaptists and burning
heretics. Indeed, John Bunyan himself spent twelve years in the dark prison of
a Christian nation, separated from his church and family, for the crime of preaching
the gospel.

Morality, legality and civility. Sound like “Christian
values”, “family values”, “American values”, “Judeo – Christian values”, “Judeo
– Christian heritage” and all the other buzzwords to you? It certainly sounds like
that to me. Well, those are legalism, an external righteousness of the
Pharisees, devoid of the religion of the heart that Jesus Christ gave us. It is
darkness devoid of the Light that came to this world that the darkness does not
comprehend. Of course, a person, a group, a movement, a nation can impose
morality, legality and civility for a period of time by expending no small
amount of energy or cost. Keep in mind however: such moral societies do not
have to be Christian … homosexuality, abortion, crime, divorce etc. are very
much kept under control in not a few Muslim societies, and such was also the
case in fascist regimes like those run by Pinochet and Franco. Also, a
democracy cannot maintain “moral societies” anywhere nearly as long as a
monarchy, totalitarian regime or dictatorship.

But it is only for a time. Remember Lot’s wife. Or better
yet remember the Holy Roman Empire! When Constantine allegedly converted (but in
truth began to exploit the faith for state power – including appropriating the
symbol of the Prince of Peace for warfare, a fact that we should think of when
so many evangelicals unconditionally support the war in Iraq as well as torture)
Eusebius and many other pastors and theologians of the time insisted that the
whole thing was the work of God, that Constantine’s making Christianity the
religion of the empire was part of God’s redemptive-historic plan for mankind,
and that through the Roman Empire the whole world would be subdued for Jesus
Christ. What happened? It failed. The Holy Roman Empire broke apart, falling to
the Muslims.

The reason why is that Jesus Christ did not come to earth,
conduct His ministry, die from the cross, and rise from the dead in order to
bring such things into existence. Those things are not wrapped up within the

promises of God, so they will fail. They are works of the flesh, not of the spirit, so they are vanity. You can fight it, you can delay it, but ultimately, as a dog returns to his vomit (Proverb 26:11) that which is sinful will return to sin. A system of laws and rituals can control an unregenerate person for a time, but that sinner will ultimately go back to sin just as
Pliable, Simple, Sloth, Presumption, Formalist, Hypocrisy, Mistrust, Timorous
and all the rest abandoned the true pilgrim Christian on the straight and
narrow path to the Celestial City. And as societies are by definition going to
contain large majorities of unsaved and in many instances shall be ruled by
them, they will go the same way.

This was the failure of the doctrine of the ecclesiola within
the ecclesia, the actual church within the political and cultural church-state
that was advanced in some form by Augustine (representing as he did Catholicism),
Calvin (representing church – state Protestantism) and various others, and it
is the same failure of the various modern dominionism movements -including but
certainly not limited to the religious right and some of the more robust forms
of premillennial dispensationalism and Christian Zionism – whose adherents
proclaim themselves to be taking (or taking back) cultures, nations and
ultimately the globe for Christ.

I am reminded of the words of the pastor character in Frank
Peretti’s novel The Visitation (not exactly Pilgrim’s Progress granted,
but a good read nonetheless!) who upon hearing an inexperienced and zealous
pastor state “we are taking this town for Christ” replied “not even Christ took
a town for Christ.” As Jesus Christ’s own nation, the Jews, rejected Him, what
more evidence is there that Jesus Christ did not die for a nation, a culture, a
political agenda, or any other worldly thing, but rather to redeem the church?
Now Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection did, against all odds, succeed. The
church was born, has existed for going on 2,000 years, and will live forever.
However, the failure of all of these movements proves that no matter the
sincerity, fervency, and honorable motives of many of the people who inspire
and are caught up in them, are sadly due to fail because they have no part in
Jesus Christ’s promises and thus will have no part in His resurrection.

I keep hearing Christians speak of how this can be changed
with a revival, and have taken it upon themselves to try to initiate one. They
recall how society was transformed in America and Britain through the Great
Awakenings, and long for another to happen. I remember the claims that great
outpouring of national unity and people returning to churches after September
11th 2001 may spark just such a revival, a return of this nation to
its “Christian values and heritage.” It was easy to suffer such fantasies when
George W. Bush was in office. Well, not only did George W. Bush prove to be
someone who does not believe that the Bible is literally true and the final
authority and also that Muslims and Christians (and presumably other religions
as well) all pray to the same god, but this nation is now saddled with a
president about whom no one can entertain such delusions. Alas, it was just
another failure by people who were never seeking the true Will of Jesus Christ
to begin with.

While Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the other
revivalists of these awakenings may have had some state – church or state –
culture sympathies, the reason why their revivals as well as the missionary
revival started by William Carey and Adoniram Judson and before them Zinzendorf,
Spener and the Moravians succeeded was because their aim was to preach the
gospel and save souls! Their goals were not social or political but spiritual.
That was why they could not fail. They accomplished the results that they were
seeking because the results were the Lord adding to the church such as should
be saved (Acts 2:47). And yes, that verse does say THE LORD adding to the
church, not man through his own efforts doing so. Why? Because as stated
earlier … it was the Lord’s doing, the Lord’s work, the Lord’s battle to begin
with. Do the Lord’s will, and the Lord fights for you. Do your own will, and the
Lord fights against you. Do you deny this? Well then ask King Saul. His
kingdom, his portion was taken from him and given to another because he stopped
fighting the Lord’s battle the Lord’s way and started fighting his battles his
way. Instead of establishing God’s kingdom, it became about Saul’s kingdom.
When Saul’s son asked him for what cause did he seek the life of David, who had
never done any harm to Saul, King Saul cursed his son, calling him the son of a
dog, and asked “don’t you realize that as long as David lives you will never
have MY KINGDOM?” But it was never Saul’s kingdom to give. Saul and his sons
died, God’s kingdom went to David, and through the One Jesus Christ who
descended from David, it will last forever.

So, Christian, are you laboring for Mr. Legality with
Civility in the village Morality for things that, like the Holy Roman Empire,
the Reformed church – states, and Saul’s kingdom, will not last because they
are of this world and are things that Revelation 20 and 21 states will be
destroyed with fire and replaced with a new heaven and a new earth? Or are you
going to love Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments, and thereby laboring
for things that will last forever, in the Celestial City where the rust and
moth cannot destroy?

Gentle Christian, I sincerely entreat and implore you to
turn aside from all that which is pertaining to Mr. Legality, Civility, and the
village Morality … things of Sinai that will fail. Instead, join Pilgrim on the
narrow path to the Celestial City so that your works will last forever. In
closing, let me give you some words by Russell K. Carter, circa 1886.

  1. Standing on the promises of Christ
    my King,
    Through eternal ages let His praises ring,
    Glory in the highest, I will shout and sing,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Refrain:
    Standing, standing,
    Standing on the promises of God my Savior;
    Standing, standing,
    I’m standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises that
    cannot fail,
    When the howling storms of doubt and fear assail,
    By the living Word of God I shall prevail,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises I now can
    see
    Perfect, present cleansing in the blood for me;
    Standing in the liberty where Christ makes free,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises of Christ
    the Lord,
    Bound to Him eternally by love’s strong cord,
    Overcoming daily with the Spirit’s sword,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Standing on the promises I cannot
    fall,
    List’ning every moment to the Spirit’s call,
    Resting in my Savior as my all in all,
    Standing on the promises of God.
  • Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

    The Error That Led To COGIC Leader Charles Blake’s Joining Hands With Sodomites

    Posted by Job on April 6, 2009

    Major thanks and blessings to Pastor D. L. Foster for covering the issue of Church of God in Christ leader and head pastor of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ Charles Blake for signing the universal declaration of human rights. Many supporters of Charles Blake have gone to his website and also to my Youtube site where I posted a video of Blake speaking on the topic. Many have responded to the effect that Blake only intended to support human rights, not homosexuality, and as a matter of fact he is a leader in opposing the sin of homosexuality; that his views concerning this area are doctrinally sound. Now I know little concerning Charles Blake’s views and ministry, so I will defer to the statements of his congregants and supporters, who quite naturally are far more qualified to speak to such issues.

    Realize that the issue here is not so much Blake’s actual teachings and views on homosexuality, but the fact that Blake compromised himself by dealing with the human rights crowd in the first place. If you join with people who have anti – Biblical agendas, then you inevitably wind up being servants of that agenda. That is why the Bible makes it clear that Christians, especially pastors, are to be very careful about whom we walk with and join ourselves to. This is true of both the “Christian right” and the “Christian left.”

    You see, no Christian should ever endorse the concept of “human rights” because according to the Bible, no such thing exists. Read the Bible, and you will never see anything stating or implying that people have human, civil, or individual rights. The Bible has nothing to do with rights, which constitutes treatment and benefits that individuals and groups deserve and that others – including ultimately God – are obligated to provide them. Rather than being a text that grants humans rights, it gives us responsibilities, all of which center around believing in, obeying, and serving God. Again, the Bible speak of rights given to man, but of man’s responsibility to God.

    It is true, of course, that the Bible contains many instructions outlining ethical and moral treatment of human beings. But be not deceived: these things are in no way general, and are certainly not because humans deserve this, or have some “right” to this treatment. The idea that this is the case is the common fallacy of political and ideological liberals and conservatives. Liberals de – spiritualize the Bible, in the process removing everything about God and man’s obligation to him, and instead read it as a philosophical tract. So, for liberals the requirements for ethical behavior contained in the Bible is truthfully all the Bible is, and as a result they remove it from its intended context. Conservatives, for their part, use the Bible as a social contract for imposing laws and morality on society at large. While this does emphasize human obligation over rights, this obligation is to the state and society (the world) instead of to God, and as a result often rejects true justice and mercy (the weightier matters of the law).

    Though they are opposite ends of the political and even theological scale, in truth liberals and conservatives both create this error for the same reason: that the Bible message is not meant to govern everyone, but rather only members of the faith community in a covenant relationship with God. In the Old Testament this was Israel, in the New Testament it is the church. The exhortations to ethical behavior and treatment of humanity was only revealed to God’s elect; how they were to treat believers and everyone else. Outside of instructing believers how they were to behave towards their fellow man, the instructions that we should love one another, treat one another well, and defend the powerless have no context and application. In short, it is not because of the inherent worth or value of human existence that gives people the right to be loved, well treated, and defended. It is solely because God commands us to do so.

    And why does God tell us to do so? It is not because of the people, their value to God, and His love for them, though God certainly does value and love us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to take on sin and be slain on a cross. It is because God is a holy and righteous God, and He expects His covenant people, His elect, to reflect His holiness and righteousness in our behavior. If we are being cruel towards our fellow man, we are not reflecting God’s holy and righteous character. So again, our responsibility to treat other members of the human race with love, decency, and respect is our obligation to God and is an act of loving and serving God.

    Evidence of this is the famous statement of 1 John 4:20 “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” Now the humanist perspective on this verse only focuses on how we are to love our brother. Of course, that is wrong. The verse is not about loving your brother at all. It is about loving God. The verse is contained within a passage of 1 John concerning our loving God, and speaks of how this is accomplished. It is not a passage on how we are to love humanity, it is a passage that tells us to love, honor, and obey GOD by loving humanity.

    The same is true of Jesus Christ’s teachings about how Christians should treat widows, the poor, strangers, those in prison, orphans, etc. He did not teach that Christians should do this for the sake of people in need because they inherently deserved this behavior, had some human or civil right to this treatment. Instead, Jesus Christ stated “as you do to them, you do to me!” Again, Jesus Christ made ethical treatment of humanity an act of service to HIM, not to humanity. Again, please read Matthew 25:34-46 and you see the emphasis is on Jesus Christ, not on people. Goodness to people is presented as a way of loving Christ, not as an obligation to humanity for humanity’s sake. And again, we are to love humanity because God loves humanity, because as God’s people we are obligated to reflect God’s loving, holy, and righteous character in all that we do, including but not limited to how we treat other people.

    Of course, the liberal Christian reads that passage, despiritualizes it, and humanizes it. That results in the emphasis being removed from God and placed on man, and a reading where man inherently deserves and is obligated to receive good treatment, and other humans are obligated to give it. This, of course, comes from liberal theology’s rejection of original sin. The idea that human, civil, or individual rights exist can only be countenanced if we reject the idea that we are nothing but sinners who deserve only wrath and can only be saved by God’s grace, and that any value that we have is not inherent, but rather because God graciously gives that value to us. 

    So the question has to be asked: why is Charles Blake, the leader of a very theologically conservative denomination (it’s true, if the issue of women in ministry is removed, Pentecostal denominations are actually the most conservative) following after liberal theology to begin with? The answer: the civil rights movement. Charles Blake is black, and has bought into the belief that human rights is the logical extension, the next phase if you will, of the movement that Martin Luther King, Jr. led. To be honest, he is 100% correct. Martin Luther King, Jr. said so himself!

    The problem is that the civil rights movement was not a Christian movement at all. It was not a movement designed to bring people to the Jesus Christ of the Bible and cause them to obey and serve that Jesus Christ. Instead, the civil rights movement was about securing better treatment for humanity, and the movement merely appropriated Bible texts that were convenient to their agenda while completely ignoring others. This should come as no surprise, for most of the civil rights movement’s leaders were explicitly not Christian, and even those who professed to be Christian – like King – rejected the doctrines that actually make a person Christian. Virtually every preacher, pastor, etc. in the upper ranks of the civil rights leadership rejected the inspiration and authority of scripture, and King himself rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, seeing Him as merely a human political leader.

    Yet, because the civil rights movements gained black people in America so many temporal benefits, it is practically impossible for any black man to stand up and say that the civil rights movement was never Christian in any sense and retain the respect and support of the black community. So, black people desiring this respect and support must continue to carry water for the band of atheists, communists, homosexuals, theological liberals, Jews and other decidedly non – Christians that were the civil rights movements’ spokesmen and leaders and for their movement. This, of course, means black Christian pastors that choose to lead overwhelmingly black congregations. It is sad to say, but any pastor of a black congregation who shares with his congregation the hard truth concerning the civil rights movement will find himself no longer leading – or truth be known employed by – a black congregation in short order. So, as a pastor of a large, prominent, respected church containing many black members of some influence and reputation AND having a leadership post in a black denomination Bishop Charles Blake has to not only go along with it concerning the civil rights like everyone else, but embrace it. 

    Not only that, but because of the status that he has attained in being a clergy in, of, and for the black community, Blake finds himself under a great deal of pressure. It is not enough to merely be a black preacher, but he is under pressure to be a black leader, to take up the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other civil rights leaders and carry it forward. The narrative has long been established that black ministers cannot simply ply their trade as white, Hispanic and Asian ministers do, but have to add a social justice/social activism/civil rights component. If you are the leader of a small humble storefront congregation that has 75 members, it is easy to resist the pressure, the temptation, to be “more than just a minister” but a civil rights leader. But the more influential, the more prominent that you become as a pastor in the black community, the greater the pressure and temptation to take up Martin Luther King Jr.’s work becomes. The problem is that the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the work of Jesus Christ, not least because Martin Luther King, Jr. did not even believe in Jesus Christ, let alone serve Him. 

    So it may yet be true that Charles Blake has the Biblical view towards homosexuality. What is equally true, however, is that Charles Blake has an unBiblical behavior towards the world, and exhibited it by going along with these unbelievers with the human rights declaration despite knowing full well that these unbelievers will – as unbelievers tend to do – use the human rights declaration to support and promote sin while opposing righteousness. There are two verses that apply here. Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Well, Blake is walking with these people despite knowing full well what they are all about. Now while Pastor Foster is focusing on the homosexuality angle (which is a bit regrettable because it somewhat clouds the issue) the main problem with the universal declaration of human rights where I am concerned is that it is very much a religious universalistic – or at the very minimum religious pluralistic – effort, working to make the “many paths to heaven” lie the only acceptable language of religious discourse and bringing us closer to the day where saying that Jesus Christ is the only path to heaven is bigotry – a human rights violation! – because it offends Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, wiccans, etc.

    Second, there is James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Look, Pastor Charles Blake is a very educated, intelligent and accomplished man. He knows what these human rights people are about. He knows what the civil rights crowd is and was about. He knows that “human rights” has no place in a Biblical worldview. Yet he does this because of his position in the world and his desire to keep it. 

    So ultimately, this has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. It is all about worldiness, and what Bishop Charles Blake has allowed himself to get mixed up with is still more evidence why Christians, most of all pastors, should heed the Bible’s instructions to flee it. 

    P.S. I don’t want any of you folks coming on here quoting what some famous preacher or theologian says about human, civil, or individual rights, and I ESPECIALLY do not want to read any nonsense about “natural law” or any other perversion of what scripture teaches about common grace. Those things are not the process of a literal, exegetical reading of scripture, but notions that came to us from systematic theology. Systematic theology is the convergence of Bible doctrines (which truthfully, is not exactly the Bible itself, but is honestly one step removed) and western philosophy, and western philosophy originated and is largely rooted in pagan Hellenism. Now while systematic theology has its uses (especially for westerners and we do live in a western culture … I should point out that for non – western people systematic theology is must less useful and more problematic, and non – western Christians have been trying to communicate this fact for centuries), it has to be directly wedded to the Bible to make sense. But once you depart from the Bible, well let us just say that I am convinced that a skilled enough systematic theologian could make a compelling case that 1+1=3. If you don’t believe me, go read about how some of the great systematic theologians justified such things as torturing and killing heretics. Yep, the same folks who went around prattling about human or individual rights derived from natural law thought nothing of tying someone to a stake and burning him to death, using green wood so that the death would be as slow and painful as possible. The truth is that if you read the Bible exegetically and refrain from eisegesis (infusing the text with ideas and meanings that aren’t present), you will not find the concept of human, individual, or civil rights and liberties in the Bible, only of man’s responsibility to respond to God in faith with service, obedience, and trembling. 

    Posted in Christianity, false doctrine, false teaching | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

    Tim Conway: Do You Watch The Things That God Hates?

    Posted by Job on February 16, 2009

    Tim Conway – Do You Watch Things That God Hates?

    This reminds me of the movie “The Time Changer“, which came to the same conclusion that Tim Conway does, particularly the scene where the main character attends a movie with a group from an evangelical church!

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 15 Comments »

    Joe Farah Calls On Christians To Reject Romans 13:1-4 With Regards To Barack HUSSEIN Obama

    Posted by Job on January 20, 2009

    In it, Farah claims that Romans 13:1-4 does not apply to evil rulers, claiming that people who do so fail to look at the entire context. Well, the context that I am aware of is that Romans was written by the very same Apostle Paul whom the fascist murderous Roman Empire executed! In this same Roman Empire, homosexuality, child molestation, abortion, etc. were freely practiced. There were no free markets or personal freedom (especially if you were a noncitizen, as the overwhelming majority of the population of the Roman Empire was) and tax rates were crushing. Oh yes, and at the time the Roman emperor was also worshiped as a god in the Roman state religion. So the difference between Caesar when Paul was writing Romans and Obama right now is what exactly?

    So, Joe Farah’s application would have made Romans 13:1-4 useless and contradictory not only to the people that Paul wrote Romans to, but also to the first 300 years of Christianity. (And regarding those of us who regret and oppose Constantinism and believe that the evil of the Roman state continued long after its merger with Christianity, for hundreds of years thereafter. Of course, Farah will not take that position, for many of his writers and supporters are Roman Catholics).

    Now I do agree that Christians are to reject obedience to rulers if said obedience causes us to sin. New Testament example and the behavior of the early church bears this out. However, what Farah is calling for is civil disobedience and rebellion of the very sort that he would call evil and demonic rebellion against God were it to take place under a president that he politically agrees with such as George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

    Pray Obama fails

    “That’s why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state. It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign.”

    I do not disagree with that statement. But there is a huge difference between praying for the failure of policies, or even for the ultimate failure of the administration that seeks to enact these policies, and telling Christians that Romans 13:1-4 are situational. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, praying that Obama fails to enact his agenda and telling Christians to discard Romans 13:1-4 in the case of rulers that they do not like have nothing to do with each other. The former is resisting evil, as Christians are called to do. The latter is sedition, which the Bible calls sin, and makes clear that those who commit it are going to have their place in the lake of fire.

    Christians have to realize that the Bible was not written for modern day Americans, but for all Christians in all situations and all times until Jesus Christ comes back. The vast majority of Christians who have walked the earth, indeed perhaps the majority of Christians living yet today do so in political situations where the very idea of nation-states “anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism” were complete folly. Again, that was the very situation where Christianity was born and existed for hundreds of years and (again) the situation that the epistle to the Romans was authored to begin with: in an evil pagan Roman Empire that had absolute control, and one that became only slightly less evil, slightly less pagan, but actually MORE POWERFUL once it assumed control over Christianity.

    “I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God’s. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God’s straightforward Commandments.”

    Well Joe Farah, I say the same about you. The reason is that you are willfully creating confusion between using spiritual warfare, evangelism, foretelling and forthtelling, etc. to oppose evil rulers and their policies, and between being a sinful seditionist. Lots of Christians have spent YEARS opposing the wickedness of George W. Bush without resisting and defying to and lying on the Holy Spirit by misrepresenting Romans 13:1-4 and telling people to be seditionists. As a matter of fact, Farah, you have done the same in opposing much of what George W. Bush has done. But in doing that, Farah, you NEVER claimed that Romans 13:1-4 did not apply to people living under Bush. Why? Not because of scripture, but because of your own political preferences. Well what of Christians whose politics disagree with yours? Where in the Bible does it say that Christian unity and love extends to political policy agreements?

    Farah is showing the dangers of loving the world and being invested in it. He is bearing witness that loving the world that God will judge (read Revelation, it speaks not merely of judging people, but of nations and political and economic systems, and nowhere does it say that the “good nations” will be spared, despite what all of those endtimes movies and books that you have read that depict America somehow being spared or taking on a leading role for righteousness against the anti – Christ and other notions that are Americanity and not Christianity because they cannot be supported by scripture) means emnity with God the judge.

    Well, I will tell you someone else who Romans 13:1-4 applies to: slaves. Under Joe Farah’s logic, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and the rest who took up arms and started killing whites (including women and children) were fully justified. For that matter, so were those who took up arms and molotov cocktails and rioted in the streets of our cities in the 1960s. Because if you were living as a slave, under Jim Crow, or for that matter as a Native American or a Japanese person stuck in a World War II internment camp, then wow, wouldn’t you have every right to “change this country” according to Farah? Or claim that the commandments of man were in conflict with the commandments of God? Because I have news for you: for slaves, people under Jim Crow etc. our principles of private property, capitalism, representative and limited government etc. did not apply.

    Well, I say that Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, and the 1960s rioters were murderers like Barabbas, the scoundrel who was set free and the innocent Jesus Christ went to the cross in his place. Friendship with the world is emnity with God, and Joe Farah proves it. Because Farah knows full well that Christians aren’t going to simply start being pro – abortion and pro – homosexual and pro – state just because Obama is in office. If they didn’t under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson, why should they under Obama? Truthfully, it is REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE politicians like Reagan and especially George W. Bush that do a much better job of getting evangelical Christians to abandon the Bible, and Farah knows it. Farah knows full well that Bush was never criticized by leading or large numbers of Christians for claiming that Muslims, Christians, Jews (and ultimately everyone) prays to the same God. He was not criticized for saying that the Bible should not be interpreted literally. Bush was not even criticized for publicly saying that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, or for opposing a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, or refusing to sign an executive order to ban federal money going to Planned Parenthood, or for being a committed New World Order globalist and Skulls and Bones occultist.

    So Farah’s true aim is not to keep Christians from following Obama into apostasy, because if it was, he would not be going anywhere near the blasphemous idea that scripture  is not the final authority in all situations (of course, again, as Farah hangs out and receives much support from Roman Catholics, that was probably never his position anyway). Farah has another agenda, and for that matter he and people like him need to be watched as closely as Obama does.

    So it is fine and well to pray that Obama’s evil agenda would be hindered, and in the course of doing so recognizing that Obama is himself evil, has surrounded himself with evil people, and should not be trusted by Christians.  To me, doing such a thing qualifies as spiritual warfare. But also engage in spiritual warfare against people who tell you that it is acceptable to disobey the Bible. Sedition is a sin. Promoting sedition is a sin. Glorifying sedition and taking pleasure in those who glorify or commit sedition is a sin. This is not the case because I say so, it is the case because the Bible says so.

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 105 Comments »

    Don’t be Deceived by Political Christianity!

    Posted by Job on October 15, 2008

    Don’t be Deceived by Political Christianity

    ‘And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’

    What does Babylon the Great represent? It is a symbol that stands for all the ungodly religious-political-social-economic systems that humans have created. As John might put it in his letters, Babylon is simply “the world” (1 John 2:15). The world system depicted under this symbol would be that one that does not reflect God’s nature of love, and which in turn enslaves mankind.

    Another worthwhile message/warning posted today by Pastor Kato Mivule of Uganda at Yesu Mulungi:

    Christian Response to Secular Government

    Kato Mivule…Oct 13 2008

    It is election time in the USA and Christians are not mandated to vote or not to vote in the Bible, at least by New Testament Teachings. So, the choice to vote and not to vote is left up to the conscience and judgment of a believer.

    However, the New Testament is very clear when it comes to what a Christian’s Responses should be when governed by any secular government. We are not to engage in any type of armed rebellion or incitements just because you disagree with the Ruling Authorities…

    A lot of Christian Blogs and websites in America are so scared that Barrack Obama will become the next President of the US that they are busy sending out emails and articles that are nothing but HATE, REBELLION, and FEAR MONGERING that somehow Arab Moslems are going to overrun the US Whitehouse and install Communism.

    Many Christians, especially in the “Christian Remnant Movement” are caught up in these Hate Mongering Christian Religious Right sites that they are preparing themselves for Rebellion and in some cases joining ‘Christian Vigilante Militia’ groups so as to ‘Retake America Back’ in case Obama wins the Election…

    However, I WARN YOU to WATCH OUT and don’t be deceived into joining such foolish blood thirsty hate groups.  Regardless of who wins the November Elections, the Sky will not fall… Regardless of if McCain wins or Obama wins, the Bible is clear as to what our mandate to government should be as Christians.

    Personally, I don’t agree with the Policies of GW Bush but he is still the President of the USA and the Bible commands us that we give him due honor…

    America’s Religious Right Evangelicals are deceived and their Trust is now in Hate, Rebellion, and the Gun… Don’t follow such men, they are heading to HELL. They hide behind Pro Life, Anti Abortion, Anti Gay, Pro Marriage but are not, they are simply using Christianity as a cover for EVIL… Brethren WATCH OUT and don’t be DECEIVED by POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY!

    This is what the New Testament teaches our response should be to Secular Government….

    Romans 13:1-8
    (1)  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
    (2)  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
    (3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
    (4)  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
    (5)  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
    (6)  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
    (7)  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
    (8)  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

    1 Peter 2:13-18
    (13)  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
    (14)  Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
    (15)  For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
    (16)  As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
    (17)  Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
    (18)  Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

    Titus 3:1-2
    (1)  Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
    (2)  To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men.

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 19 Comments »

    The Early Church Fathers: Amillennialism and Universalism

    Posted by Job on October 15, 2008

    According to William J. La Due, who can hardly be considered fundamentalist (he has been a professor at St. Francis Seminary and Catholic University of America) in The Trinity Guide To Eschatology (which I do not recommend) Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were millennialists. It was those who came later, such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine who rejected it, and Origen and Augustine in particular for amillennialism.

    What happened? Simple: the influence of Greek paganism. From La Due’s writings, it is easy to connect the dots and come to the conclusion that 1) amillennialism was required for universalism and 2) universalism was needed to resolve the conflict between Christianity and Hellenism. Despite the claims of universalists that their interpretations are more consistent with the overall body of scripture, the truth is that Origen and the rest simply used a grotesquely out of context interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all) to justify their refusal to reject Greek pagan religion.

    La Due further stated that the first prominent theologian to try to merge Christianity and Hellenism was Clementine of Alexandria, who died in the early 3rd century. This Clementine was the first Christian advocate of purgatory. By this Clementine imported the Greek mythological concept of purgatory into Christianity as a key component of universalism. (The Vatican II returned to Clementine’s doctrine by using purgatory to facilitate “all religions and good people who follow them lead to heaven” pluralism as opposed to “everyone whether religious or not and good or evil goes to heaven” universalism.)

    Augustine incidentally rejected universalism. Further the Roman church did not get around to officially condemning Origenism in 543 and 553. (Augustine’s view of purgatory, by the way, were much closer to Jesus Christ’s parable of Lazarus and the rich man than they were to contemporary or historic Roman Catholic doctrine on the matter.) However, only Origen was so condemned, not Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, or the many others that played with this doctrine, including Ambrose of Milan. La Due suggests that the real reason why Origen was condemned while the many other universalists were not was Origen’s proto – Mormon doctrine of pre – existence, not universalism. Perhaps condemning universalism would have meant condemning purgatory as well?

    In any event, it certainly looks like Origen and his fellow travelers rejected the endtimes views of the early church because millennialism (and ultimately eternal punishment) made doctrines that conformed to the worldviews of the Greeks unworkable. We see the same thing going on today, with not only so many leading evangelicals following the lead of Vatican II Roman Catholics and theological liberals in adopting pluralism to please the current philosophical mindset, but many also adopting annhiliationism (the belief that sinners will simply cease to exist based on the notion that the worth of man is so great that God cannot judge mankind as He sees fit without being considered cruel and tyrannical). By contrast, Augustine taught that the reason why sinners would be resurrected and receive new incorruptible bodies on judgment day would be so that the flames of the lake of fire would never consume them!

    Alas, it is regrettable that so many Reformed evangelicals either believe in the pre – tribulation rapture (i.e. John MacArthur or Albert Pendarvis) or amillennialism (e.g. R.C. Sproul). It is even more regrettable that many Reformed amillennialists insist that amillennialism was the mainstream position of the early church. On the other hand, it does appear that my oft – proposed theory that the Constantism (the Roman imperial church and the Roman Catholic Church) adopted and promoted amillennialism to justify its goals of co – opting Christianity for political and military ambitions – dominionism or official theology – is problematic, as amillennialism has to go with the practice of worshiping saints and Mary and the doctrine of purgatory as yet another thing that cannot be blamed on Constantinism because it predated his takeover of Christianity by at least 100 years. Amillennialism is not evidence of how the Roman Empire took Christianity off its path, but rather how the Roman Empire adopted a faith that had already long veered from its apostolic foundations.

    So instead, amillennialism, purgatory, saint and angel worship, and the heresies concerning Mary were simply attempts to make the faith acceptable, conformed with, and relevant with the world. Am I exaggerating, then, to say that Clement and Origen of those days are the emergent leaders like Rick Warren, Erwin McManus, Rob Bell, and Dan Kimball or political Christians like James Dobson, Barry Lynn and Bill Moyers today? Not a whole lot, and probably not at all. Whether it is Hellenism or enlightenment rationalism or postmodernist consumerism, James 4:4 and Romans 12:1-2 still applies.

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

    Assemblies Of God Leader George Wood Calls Sarah Palin A True Judeo-Christian Candidate!

    Posted by Job on October 14, 2008

    The second example today alone of religious right false doctrines and apostasy that has happened ever since John McCain’s nomination of Sarah Palin, which I actually thought was an astute move at the time, turned into a slow moving fiasco. First off, the frenzy over Palin shows that the religious right, especially Pentecostals, are just as much on the GOP plantation, unable to act according to their own beliefs or interests, as blacks are on the Democratic one. Why? Well … REMEMBER HARRIET MIERS? This Pentecostal woman was actually much more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Sarah Palin is to be president. (By the way, she was also more qualified than was Sandra Day O’Connor, who by virtue of her votes on abortion and homosexuality was nothing short of a disaster for the religious right. Her best move was lying to Anthony Kennedy in securing his support for voting against broad abortion restrictions in return for her promise to vote against more narrow restrictions later, and when it came time for her to live up to her part of the deal by voting along with Kennedy for the more narrow restrictions, O’Connor reneged. But hey, since Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor, she is above criticism because criticizing her would be criticizing the guy who used his first major decision as president on nominating her.)

    What happened when Bush nominated her? She was subjected to the most revolting opposition by supporters of the party that nominated her ever, and it even rose to the level of character assassination. Did the Protestant evangelicals like Al Mohler or even charismatics like George Wood and J. Lee Grady rise up to defend Miers? Of course not. Only Pat Robertson did, and even there in the mildest fashion possible. Not only were Miers’ qualifications but also her intelligence and character were shredded by the very same people who … oh never mind. So Miers was pushed aside and replaced with a Roman Catholic, and not only that the third Roman Catholic Supreme Court appointee by a GOP president in a row, and the fourth out of five.

    But when John McCain made being a less than eminently qualified Pentecostal (or for that matter evangelical, for please recall how vehement the conservative opposition to Mike Huckabee was!) acceptable, then all was forgiven and the same Pentecostals and evangelicals that sat silently by reacted just the same as they did when Bill Clinton would emulate the Arkansas segregationist Democrats who trained him (NOTHING!) immediately forgot that the same set of arguments which disqualified Miers and Huckabee should have applied to Palin, and promptly began to make Palin not only their political standard bearer BUT THEIR RELIGIOUS ONE AS WELL. Seriously, religious conservatives are attaching a larger religious symbolism to Palin than they did to Reagan or George W. Bush. That is why I still think that McCain may yet pull it out. All of those “Obama is the anti – Christ” people need to consider that McCain is the guy with the wound in his head that was healed, and that would make Palin his false prophet enabler with Jezebel doctrines. I can see the comments echoing from pulpits across America and in all the Christian magazines and websites that Palin would be the strong Christian women who miraculously resurrected the John McCain campaign from the dead! 

    Now to the link with the absurd, doctrinally erroneous, even heretical statements.

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/pentecostal-church-leader-palin-true-judeo-christian-candidate/

    Opposing Views: What Pentecostal values will Sarah Palin bring to the vice presidency that America needs right now?

     George O. Wood: To my knowledge Sarah Palin has not stated she is Pentecostal. I know she has attended the Assemblies of God Church. We all want a candidate who shares our values, and a candidate like Sarah Palin who appears to have such strong Judeo-Christian beliefs is certainly someone our society needs. A candidate who is sincere in their following of Jesus Christ and is sincere in their Judeo-Christian beliefs is one we would support.


    OV: Do you believe that Sarah Palin is a sincere Judeo-Christian candidate?

     Wood: Her own words indicate that she is sincere in her following of Jesus Christ and she has certainly represented those values. Obviously she is very strong in her support for the unborn, and the Assemblies of God has a very strong commitment to the unborn, and other issues that Sarah Palin has indicated she sincerely follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    People, Judeo – Christian values do no exist. First, Judaism and Christianity are two totally separate religions. The very idea of Judeo – Christianity should be just as abhorrent as is Islamo – Christianity or Hindu – Christianity or atheist – Christianity. Judeo – Christianity should be something advanced by liberal religious pluralists and universalists, not people who claim to believe that Jesus Christ is the way and the life and the only way to the Father and eternal life. This shows how dual covenant dispensationalism (and Vatican II Roman Catholic pluralism) has come to dominate the “Protestant” religious right. With all due respect to some of the online discernment ministries, the biggest threat to undo the Protestant Reformation is not emergents like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Rick Warren but rather the religious right, and if anything the former is feeding off the latter, especially when you saw the spate of columns from the conservative media wishing that debate moderators Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, and Tom Brokaw would make McCain look as good as Rick Warren did.

    Second of all, Christianity is not a value system. It is a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ as He was revealed to creation in His incarnation and through scripture, is now sitting on the right hand of God interceding for His elect, and will be revealed to creation again at His imminent return. It is very possible to hold onto a value system without believing in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is equally possible to reject any and all western value systems while believing in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The best evidence of the latter is that Christianity is not even a western religion to begin with. It is a near eastern religion, and the Bible reflects near eastern culture and values. As a matter of fact, some of the worst doctrines have come from trying to impose western ideas on a near eastern book (see the work of the Alexandrian allegorists, Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism, and the Neo – Platonic syncretists) and from using western inventions like JAMES DOBSON FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY FOCUS ON THE FAMILY PSYCHOLOGY as a convenient construct to paint a happy modern face on the Bible’s dark primitive revelation on man’s total depravity.

    That, after all, is what the religious right is: a reinvention of the religious left. The original religious left denied the total depravity of man, stated that man was basically good (conveniently ignoring or reinterpreting inconvenient Bible passages that stated otherwise) and could be transformed through culture and education. What was the birthplace of this thinking? Why GERMANY of course. Who manipulated these doctrines and the environment created by it into thinking that he was helping transform mankind for the better by promoting German culture? Why Adolph Hitler, of course!

    You see, these people have never heard of Sarah Palin before now. She was never a member of their church. They have never been to her house at prayer meetings. They have never encountered her at a Beth Moore Christian women’s weekend retreat. They don’t even know whether the string of wild rumors about the Palin family’s behavior, virtually all of them circulating all over Alaska long before McCain thrust them into the national spotlight, made them tabloid fodder. 

    Their only evidence that this woman is a Christian is her church membership and her claims to believe. Well, excuse me, but that is different from secret society “all religions worship the same God” the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque George W. Bush how? Even better: this is better than Southern Baptists Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Jessica and Ashlee Simpson how? Methodist Hillary Clinton or Congregationalist Barack HUSSEIN Obama how? You could talk to any of them, and they would all claim to agree with 80% of the Christian creeds, just as much as do neo – evangelicals whose works are cited in many of our evangelical seminaries.

    So no, I take that back. Their evidence that Palin is born again is not her church affiliation or her confessions of faith. Again, many a liberal Democrat leader – and voter – shares those. No, their evidence is politics and culture. If you have the right beliefs and lifestyle, then it means that you are sanctified and justified! It isn’t about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, it is about preferring moose hunting to off Broadway plays. 

    Then again, why should we expect any different from a fellow that says “A candidate who is sincere in their following of Jesus Christ and is sincere in their Judeo-Christian beliefs is one we would support.” Does the leader of the Assemblies of God denomination even know that this is a contradiction? Jesus Christ is not of this world. Judeo – Christianity is a VERY RECENT (some say that the term and concept did not exist before the Holocaust and particularly before the establishment of Israel) worldly invention to describe an ill – defined social, cultural, and political movement.

    Incidentally, it is based on a lie, the idea that Jewish religion and culture significantly shaped western civilization. Not only is this idea false, but it is one that the westerners of times past that used to force Jews to live in ghettoes would have had an issue with. Case in point: our legal code is not based on the Bible, but rather British common law. Further, British common law only reflected three of the Ten Commandments – killing, stealing, and perjury – and this was so before Britain even converted to Christianity! So, if western civilization was founded on Judeo – Christianity, then so was Babylon by virue of their Code of Hammurabi. And even that is presuming that anything worldly like Judeo – Christianity can save people rather than damn them, which it cannot. 

    This is why the Bible calls it “devil’s doctrines.” And if the leader of the 3 million Assemblies of God denomination is trafficking them, then that is really disappointing. It honestly is disconcerting that so many Christians reject not only the Bible and theology, but also history and culture. I am speaking of myself, incidentally, for I was a “Judeo – Christian religious right” zombie until very late in 2006. But hey, at least I can say that I was misled. (Now according to Romans 1:18-32, being misled does not make us blameless incidentally. We are all still without excuse for rejecting the the truth and righteousness of God.)

    But if I am able to discover these lies merely by reading a few of the history and theology books that are commonly used in our evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges, then what explanation is there for the many pastors and other religious right leaders that have gone through these seminaries? Did they fall asleep in class that day? Were they preoccupied with personal difficulties that prevented them from reading the relevant sections in their textbooks? And did this happen to all of them? Did every single leader of the religious right and every single evangelical pastor that traffics this “Judeo – Christian values” nonsense somehow possess the very same omissions from their theological, doctrinal, and historical studies? Now if you can believe that, then you can believe that Barack Hussein Obama was asleep, inattentive, or absent every Sunday that Jeremiah Wright said something controversial.

    Yes, we are supposed to believe that Jeremiah Wright’s church is apostate and get so angry at its existence because it is Marxist. Since they are Marxist, they have the wrong values, and that is what makes them apostate. Note that virtually none of the “Judeo – Christian” people who thundered against the apostasy of Obama’s church over its rejection of western culture will ever in a million years say the same against Mormons, Roman Catholics, or Jews. Because with these people, it is not rejecting the Bible that makes you a sinner, it is rejecting your values. Therefore, a person is saved by embracing these values. 

    Again, how can these people have gone to Christian schools, pastored churches, and studied the Bible all these years without knowing this, and further while refusing to stand against this error? Simple: they haven’t. Which, again, makes them no different from or better than either Jeremiah Wright or Barack Hussein Obama. And that is what makes their vigorous endorsements of Sarah Palin all the more suspect.

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

    Sex Sells Especially In The Church: Bishop Thomas Weeks Now Trying To Find TV Network For His Holy Hookup Reality Relationship Counseling Show

    Posted by Job on October 7, 2008

    First, his reality show plans fall apart. Bishop Weeks’ reality dating show a no-show

    Contract negotiations postpone launch

    Bishop Thomas W. Weeks III’s leap into a reality dating show was about as problematic as his failed marriage to national evangelist Juanita Bynum.

    The first full episode of “Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks” was postponed because of incomplete contract negotiations with a reality television producer. Those who logged onto www.bishopweeks.com Tuesday saw what seemed like an infomercial about Weeks instead of the lively conversation about dating featured in the reality show’s promo. “The show was modified due to the fact of ongoing talks with network producers and network stations who are ramped up to do the first Christian reality dating program,” Weeks said.

    Technical difficulties delayed the noon launch of Weeks’ redesigned Web site and its programming. Church officials say teases from “Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks” will be released throughout the week.

    Weeks says he doesn’t date yet. But he wants to move on with his life and mend his broken heart. He and Bynum divorced in June after a 15-month separation. “I still hurt,” Weeks said. “I didn’t get married to be divorced.”

    The show’s intro features Weeks sitting on his desk in a dark suit and a bow tie while candlelight flickers in the background and soft music plays. He rattles on about upcoming events and finally, the taboos of dating his reality show will address like sex.

    ” ‘Who will be the Next Mrs. Weeks’ is an open dialogue for us to talk — good, bad or indifferent,” Weeks said. “You know in the church we really don’t talk about hot topic issues, we bury it. We become silent.”

    Other footage features Weeks working at church and talking to pastors about their relationships.

    Weeks is inviting his followers to observe his personal life so they can get a Christian perspective on dating and coping with the desire for intimacy. The Pentecostal pastor will soon release a book about the subject called “Finding Yourself While In Transition.”

    Weeks is still serving probation for attacking Bynum in August 2007 outside of the Renaissance Concourse Hotel in Atlanta. He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault as a first offender and has completed the required community service hours and anger management counseling.

    But now the plans are back on. Bishop Weeks recasts his ‘Holy Hook Up’

    Bishop Weeks recasts his ‘Holy Hook Up’

    Bishop Thomas W. Weeks IIII has resurrected his new reality show — and this time he will search for a God-fearing wife on TV instead of the Internet. Weeks said the Christian dating series, now called “The Holy Hook Up: Who Will Be The Next Mrs. Weeks?” will document his search for a new love as he performs his daily duties as leader of an international ministry.

    The 30-minute Atlanta-based reality series will include Weeks sharing the spotlight with singles and broken-hearted couples on the mend. The twice-divorced Pentecostal pastor will dole out relationship advice drawing on his experience as an author, minister and a first-time felon who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on his ex-wife, national evangelist Juanita Bynum.

    Weeks would not disclose what network he is negotiating with, but said talks are moving along.

    Casting for singles, married, separated or recently divorced couples begins Tuesday, said Weeks. Interested parties should e-mail holyhookup@bishopweeks.com or visit http://www.bishop weeks.com for more information.

    “I’m very excited about the way this is shaping up,” said Weeks, who appeared on the syndicated Tom Joyner Morning Show on radio (Kiss 104.1 locally) on Tuesday to talk about the reality series. “It is going to be a very tasteful, five-star presentation.”

    Four couples will be cast on Holy Hook Up, which will feature celebrity guest cameos. The couples will live in an Atlanta residence together for three months. Weeks will play matchmaker to singles and provide relationship counseling to determine their compatibility. Newly engaged couples and those in struggling relationships also will have their bonds examined and tested to see if their love was meant to be.

    “As Bishop Weeks counsels the four couples, he will start his search for the next Mrs. Weeks,” Weeks’ publicist Margaret Wright said in a statement. “Each week, Bishop Weeks will meet his new date and assess whether she has the potential to become a finalist for becoming the next Mrs. Weeks. This search will not be easy. Bishop Weeks is looking for someone who will share his vision of ministry and entrepreneurial spirit.”

    True to reality show formats, the wannabe wives will face challenges to determine whether their hearts are truly open to love or whether they are only in it for the fame. The challenges will range from the “basic to the outrageous,” Wright said.

    “At the end of the series there will be a wedding,” Wright said. “The union can be that of Bishop Weeks or that of his understudies.”

    Weeks’ divorce lawyer Randy Kessler also may appear on the show to dole out advice to the pastor.

    “He underwent sincere and serious emotional hardship,” Kessler said. “He learned from it …I am sure the reality show will have a positive impact on many people as Bishop Weeks is a strong leader with personal experience that he knows can help other.”

    Weeks says he is inviting his followers to observe his personal life so they can get a Christian perspective on dating and coping with the desire for intimacy. Weeks will soon release a book about the subject called “Finding Yourself While In Transition.”

    “My interest as a single individual will be to focus on a developing a godly relationship and the process it takes to do that,” Weeks said. “It is going to be quite interesting.”

    Please note this comment where one of his supporters denies a rumor that has apparently been circulating about this fellow in some circles for awhile: 

    I’m happy for him, maybe the truth will prevail and all the naysayers will find out the TRUTH of the situation that Mr. Weeks is not abusive and this his ex-wife is a psychopath and compulsive liar. Bishop Weeks is not gay nor is he abusive. I hope this time he finds a real wife and not a backstabber holding a knife! 

    Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

    Did The Pentecostal Prosperity Doctrine And TBN Cause The Financial Crisis?

    Posted by Job on October 3, 2008

    Foreward: please note that the Bible DOES NOT PROMOTE reckless financial behavior, but quite the contrary promotes hard work, frugality, and conscientiousness. Contrast the ostentatious wealth of King Solomon – who left God for syncretism – with Jesus Christ, who was born in a manger and lived the life of a pauper. And as for you prosperity preacher adherents, well, you wanted to be world changers, right? To take authority and dominion? Well, it looks like you did it. Your doctrines helped cause the international banking crisis that just may set the stage for the anti – Christ to come to power. By the way, sorry for picking on Palin, because TONS of black prosperity doctrine preachers have gotten behind Obama as well. You know, it makes for the perfect conspiracy theory.

    All of these Council on Foreign Relations – backed preachers get on TV – especially if they own networks like TBN – or dominate the book publishing market (Left Behind) or even get mainstream publicity (like TD Jakes on the cover of Time Magazine – which ironically published this article ) which exploit the poor with false promises of wealth. Then have the same Council on Foreign Relations – connected politicians (Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Gingrich at minimum) change the banking laws, requiring/forcing banks to lend to these people. And when the inevitable economic collapse occurs (which by the way was just the result of terrible economic policy dating back to at least Reagan … remember how the Democrats AND Republicans exhorted you to go buy an SUV and invest your retirement accounts in Pets.com in the 1990s … and that speaks nothing of deficit spending and free trade deals with third world countries where people will gladly work for $5 a day) then use it as an excuse to practically nationalize the banking sector and promote economic globalism. If this WASN’T a conspiracy, it certainly played out like one. In any event, now you see how massively evil false doctrines are, and the prosperity doctrine is both false and evil.

    Foreclosures: Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage? 

    or “God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house.” 

    Has the so-called Prosperity Gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That’s what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California Riverside, he realized that Prosperity’s central promise — that God would “make a way” for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, toxic expression during sub-prime boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe “God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house.” The results, he says, “were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers.”
    Others think he may be right. Says Anthea Butler, an expert in pentecostalism at the University of Rochester in New York state, “The pastor’s not gonna say ‘go down to Wachovia and get a loan’ but I have heard, ‘even if you have a poor credit rating God can still bless you — if you put some faith out there [that is, make a big donation to the church], you’ll get that house, or that car or that apartment.'” Adds J. Lee Grady, editor of the magazine Charisma, “It definitely goes on, that a preacher might say, ‘if you give this offering, God will give you a house. And if they did get the house, people did think that it was an answer to prayer, when in fact it was really bad banking policy.” If so, the situation offers a look at how an native-born faith built partially on American econoic optimism entered into a toxic symbiosis with a pathological market.

    Although a type of Pentecostalism, Prosperity theology adds a distinctive layer of supernatural positive thinking. Adherents will reap rewards if they prove their faith to God by contributing heavily to their churches, remaining mentally and verbally upbeat, and concentrating on divine promises of worldly bounty supposedly strewn throughout the bible. Critics call it a thinly disguised pastor-enrichment scam. Other experts, like Walton, note that for all its faults, it can empower people who have been taught to see themselves as financially or even culturally useless to feel they are “worthy of having more and doing more and being more.” (Sure, if you forget about the Bible says that the Holy Spirit, God the Father,and Jesus Christ are supposed to comfort and reassure us. Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.) In some cases the philosophy has matured with its practitioners, encouraging good financial habits and entrepreneurship.

    But Walton suggests that a decade’s worth of ever-easier credit acted like drug in Prosperity’s bloodstream. “The economic boom 90’s and financial over-extensions of the new millennium contributed to the success of the prosperity message,” he wrote recently. And not positively. “Narratives of how ‘God blessed me with my first house despite my credit’ were common. Sermons declaring ‘it’s your season to overflow’ supplanted messages of economic sobriety,” and “little attention was paid to.. the dangers of using one’s home equity as an ATM to subsidize cars, clothes and vacations.”

    With the bubble burst, Walton and Butler assume that prosperity congregants have taken a disproportionate hit, and are curious as to how their churches will respond. Butler thinks that some of the flashier ministries will shrink along with their congregants’ fortunes. Says Walton, “You would think that the current economic conditions would undercut their theology.” But he predicts they will perservere, since God’s earthly largesse is just as attractive when one is behind the economic eight ball.

    A recently posted testimony by a congregant at the Brownsville Assembly of God near Pensacola, Fla., seems to confirm his intuition. Brownsville is not even a classic Prosperity congregation — it relies more on the anointing of its pastors than on scriptural promises of God. But the believer’s note to his minister illustrates how magical thinking can prevail even after the mortgage blade has dropped. “Last Sunday,” it read, “You said if anyone needed a miracle to come up. So I did. I was receiving foreclosure papers, so I asked you to anoint a picture of my home and you did and your wife joined with you in prayer as I cried. I went home feeling something good was going to happen. On Friday the 5th of September I got a phone call from my mortgage company and they came up with a new payment for the next 3 months of only $200. My mortgage is usually $1020. Praise God for his Mercy & Grace.”

    And pray that the credit market doesn’t tighten any further.

    Some videos that speak of the error of these doctrines.

    Posted in Christianity, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

    Why Does Rick Warren’s Fuller Theological Seminary Have A Psychology Department? So It Can Offer Symposiums On Carl Jung And Christianity!

    Posted by Job on September 30, 2008

    When perusing a book, I noted the oddity that the famed evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary had three departments: theology (good), world missions (good) and PSYCHOLOGY (what?!?!). Not education, not engineering, not even BUSINESS but PSYCHOLOGY! So, I did a few web searches and found out what a psychology school at a leading evangelical CHRISTIAN seminary had to offer. Well, things like THIS: 

    The Living God and our Living Psyche: C. G. Jung’s Psychology and Christian Faith

    Now plenty of Christians have problems with the field of psychology as it is. See the video below. But Jungian psychology is REALLY objectionable from a Biblical standpoint. It is no accident that Frank Peretti associated it with demons and the occult in “This Present Darkness.” When you read an interview from the “Christian” Jungian psychologist who ran this symposium on PBS, you will see why Peretti felt this way. Or better yet, why not read this summary of her work and views:

    Ann Belford Ulanov, M.Div., Ph.D., L.H.D., is the Christiane Brooks Johnson Professor of Psychiatry and Religion at Union Theological Seminary, a psychoanalyst in private practice, and a supervising analyst and faculty member of the C. G. Jung Institute, New York City.  With her late husband, Barry Ulanov, she is the author of Religion and the UnconsciousPrimary Speech: A Psychology of PrayerCinderella and Her Sisters: The Envied and the Envying; The Witch and The Clown: Two Archetypes of Human Sexuality; The Healing Imagination; Transforming Sexuality: The Archetypal World of Anima and Animus; by herself she is the author of The Feminine in Christian Theology and in Jungian Psychology; Receiving Woman: Studies in the Psychology and Theology of the Feminine; Picturing God; The Wisdom of the Psyche; The Female Ancestors of Christ; The Wizards’ GateThe Functioning Transcendent; Korean edition of our Religion and the Unconscious, Fall 1996; Korean edition of Primary Speech, 2000-2001; Religion and the Spiritual in Carl Jung; Finding Space: Winnicott, God, and Psychic Reality, Attacked by Poison Ivy, A Psychological Study, 2002.

    Ann Belford Ulanov is the recipient of an honorary doctorate from Virginia Theological School; an honorary doctorate from Loyola Graduate Department in Pastoral Counseling; the Distinguished Alumna Award from the Blanton/Peale Institute; the Vision Award from the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis; the Oskar Pfister Award from the American Psychiatric Association for Distinguished Work in Depth Psychology and Religion; the Distinguished Contribution Award from the American Association of Pastoral Counselors for Distinguished Work in Depth Psychology and Religion; the Gradiva Award for best book in Psychiatry and Religion 2002 from The National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, for Finding Space: Winnicott, God, and Psychic Reality.

    Now I will grant you that the very respected John Piper attended Fuller. But so did leading emergent/New Age figures like Rob Bell and Rick Warren. For that matter, so did Bill Bright, one of the leading figures of the ecumenism movement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. By the way, the current president of Fuller, Richard Mouw, is the same fellow responsible for A) the evangelical manifesto  and B) the increasing ties between evangelicals and Mormons, including the notorious speech that he and Ravi Zacharias gave at the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. In this link, it details how Richard Mouw actually apologized for Christian opposition to Mormonism.

    Now this is not an instance of a comprehensive Christian college or university that offers psychology as part of its many offerings. Psychology is now a standard liberal arts degree, and further it is pretty much impossible to offer an accredited degree in fields like education, nursing, or counseling without having a variety of psychology courses. Instead, this is a seminary whose sole purpose is to train pastors, missionaries, and equip other people for Christian ministry. I repeat, Fuller has THREE SCHOOLS … theology, foreign missions, and psychology. So, it isn’t even a program of study or department in part of its other colleges, but one of the three pillars of the school. 

    I already mentioned in Albert Mohler’s Assessment Of The Economic Situation: An Example Of What Evangelicalism Does To The Reformed Mind how concerned I was over the seamless integration of psychology, a recent, discredited, and virtually useless invention of rebellious men who rejected God, and evangelical Christianity. But even as I was writing it, I had no idea that it was so deeply embedded that one of our leading seminaries had one of its three divisions given over to it, or that they would be promoting Jungianism. This is further evidence that we must continue to pray and intercede for God’s people, and not be fearful or slack in warning Christians against the creeping influence of humanism and syncretism. 

    Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

     
    %d bloggers like this: