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 ‘evangelical’

T.D. Jakes Exposed For The Heretical Liar That He Is And What It Means For The Church

Posted by Job on January 26, 2012

All right folks. I said that I was going to give this online discernment ministry thing up. The first reason was that there were too many false teachers and doctrines to keep track of. The second reason was that based on my interactions with those following these false preachers even after their unBiblical scandalous doctrines and behavior had been exposed that folks were going to believe what they choose to believe anyway. The third was that I had felt that I had adequately addressed the issue with the 3 years of blogging that I did dedicate to the topic. The fourth was that I felt that the best way to combat error was with the truth, so I decided to take this site in a more exegetical direction. And the last of those was also chosen for practical reasons: I no longer have the time to answer comments and interact with people that I did back when I made exposing false teachers so writing about scripture’s meaning and application seemed to be a superior use of time (and yes I do need to get back to writing about the Bible).

But the T.D. Jakes issue is timely right now due to Jakes’ recent appearance at a respected evangelical event of some estimation where he was “interviewed” by Mark Driscoll, where the topic of Jakes’ rejection of the Holy Trinity was discussed. Now I don’t mean to attack anybody, but one Christian blogger quickly proclaimed Jakes’s statement satisfies me that he is a Trinitarian and that we should celebrate that Jakes has joined the Trinitarian camp. (Which, er, makes all his time as a false preaching modalist heretic and the people that he deceived during that time “ok” I guess. The truth is that at best he was an unregenerate false teacher when he was in the pulpit before, and even if he believes in the Holy Trinity NOW and is born again NOW, he has no business in the pulpit. His previous experience and service is worthless, and he needs to take his place in the pews learning from an actual Christian pastor. Otherwise, we can go get Jewish rabbis, Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, Muslim imams, and liberal “Christians” who perform homosexual “marriage” ceremonies and put them into the pulpit immediately after they say a salvation prayer.)

Another Christian blogger made a similar – though more guarded – statement: “By far, the session that was most anticipated was the one in which T. D. Jakes was asked to clarify his position on the Trinity. Thankfully, he did so – though perhaps not in a way that would satisfy all of his critics. I believe we should celebrate his affirmation of the truth that there is one God in three Persons.”

The problem with doing so: Jakes own words on the Holy Trinity in the past and present. Now, here is a link to the transcript of the Elephant Room session, judge Jakes for yourself. But what follows is MY evaluation.

Part 1: I used to follow T.D. Jakes. Now … not so much. Without calling him a liar (while actually, you know, calling him a liar) allow me to propose that just because Jakes says something does not make it so. So … just because Jakes says that he believes “One God three Persons” DOES NOT MEAN that we should take it at face value. Jakes has been “less than forthcoming” on many issues in the past, so he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Just because Jakes is in the pulpit and calls himself a Christian does not mean that we should believe what he says. So no, listening to what he says and being “satisfied” requires a presumption that he is telling the truth, a presumption that he does not merit. Does that sound harsh, the bitter words of someone who has “church hurt” as it is called? Well keep reading.

Now in one context I can be SYMPATHETIC to Jakes’ views because I don’t like the wording or terminology used by the Cappadocian fathers myself. But this unease with the Cappadocian formulation needs to be addressed by someone other than Jakes. Why? Because Jakes has been known to be less than honest with the truth, and not merely on this issue. Recall that when Jakes was first challenged on the Trinity doctrine by Christianity Today, he submitted a modalist doctrinal statement that he insisted be accepted as Trinitarian!

Do not take my word on this: another ministry came to the same conclusion, that Jakes was dishonestly trying to pass off modalist heresy for orthodoxy. When challenged on it, he dissembled, claiming that his views on the Trinity were adapting and growing, that he was studying and learning more about it, and how Christians need to stop all this infighting and arguing about such things as minor differences in phraseology and get to the weightier matters of the kingdom, and such excuses for retaining and defending heresy as “these things are too mysterious to be comprehended or explained.” Jakes even resorted to race-baiting, stating “Christians will never agree on every theological issue any more than the colors of our skin will all suddenly match.” So, if Jakes was a liar and a demagogue on this Trinity issue in the past,why should we presume that he is any different now? What has changed to make us presume that Jakes has changed? Especially since he is still preaching heresies in other areas, such as the prosperity doctrine and trying to pass off ecstatic babbling done by mystics in many false religions as “speaking in tongues”?

Part II: From the transcript, it really does appear as if Jakes is fine with “persons” in his Trinitarian statement so long as “persons” is synonymous with “manifestations.” Basically, he says, “well, so long as I can call a ‘person’ a ‘manifestation’ then I am Trinitarian.” He says “My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word” – and Driscoll finishes his thought – “manifestations.” What he says next is a amazing.

“Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. When I read…let me show you what I’m talking about…when I read I Timothy 3:16 – I didn’t create this, Paul did.” And then he goes onto the time-honored modalist lying techniques from the pit of hell: “I think it’s important that we realize that our God is beyond our intellect. And if you can define Him and completely describe Him and say you are the end-all definition of who God is, then He ceases to be God. Because the reason Paul says it is a mystery, is that we deify the fact that God does things that don’t fit our formulas. And because people’s formulas and understandings of a description of an unbiblical God did doesn’t make them demonic.”

Let us go to his abuse of I Timothy 3:16. Yes, the King James Version that many oneness pentecostal liars claim is the only translation – and I used to be KJV-Only myself, and still today am KJV-Preferred, but not because of the translation itself but the texts used to produce the translation, as I believe text criticism used to produce the new manuscripts is a false science – reads “manifest” as its rendering of the Greek word  phaneroō. But other versions translate phaneroō to be “appeared” and “revealed!”

Another thing: phaneroō’s definitions: “to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way.”  So, rather than being a “mode” or “state” or “relationship” after the doctrines of the oneness heretics (for example, as water has a liquid, solid and gas manifestation as water, ice and vapor) phaneroō’ in this context merely meant how God was shown to men! That is revelation, after the same manner that the Greek word apokalypsis was used in Revelation 1:1. Paul could have just as easily used apokalypsis instead of phaneroō!

Further, according to the definition, what can phaneroō “reveal” or “manifest”? A PERSON! It is right here in definition 1d in a common Bible lexicon placed online via BlueletterBible.com:

1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way

a) make actual and visible, realised

b) to make known by teaching

c) to become manifest, be made known

d) of a person

1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one’s self, appear

e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood

1) who and what one is

Jakes is exposed as a liar by exegesis of the very text that he used to claim that he was telling the truth! In this Jakes fulfilled the prophecy in Psalm 10:2, which reads “The wicked in [his] pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.”

Now the dictionary entry makes the Cappadocian utilization of “Person” more justifiable in my mind and it who knows, the Cappadocian fathers might have relied heavily on 1 Timothy 3:16 when they formulated their Trinity doctrine (which would make Jakes’ abuse of that text still more ironic) because that text refers to the revelation of the Person of Jesus Christ and not the mere exhibition of a mode of existence or relationship (and moreover this revelation refers to Christ’s existence being shown to the world; for phaneroō to have the meaning that Jakes claims that it does, THE TERM WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO HIS INCARNATION IN THE WOMB OF MARY, NOT HIS EXISTENCE AND WORKS BEING WITNESSED BY MEN, WHICH IS THE TRUE CONTEXT OF 1 Peter 3:16 AS WELL AS REVELATION 1:1, WHICH AGAIN IS WHY APOKALYPSIS COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN USED INSTEAD) but I confess to still uneasy with it. But the difference between me and Jakes is that JAKES IS LYING. That is the bottom line.

But you know what? This is not truly about Jakes anyway. The reason is that anyone who goes and clicks on the T.D. Jakes category on this blog will know why no legitimate Christian pastor should touch Jakes with a 10 foot pole, unless that pastor has been instructed by God to smite Jakes with it. Instead, it is about the people that are embracing him. It is one thing for the decadent TBN (who has their own tag) Pentecostal abomination to embrace Jakes, and please recall that it was TBN who made Jakes into an international figure. TBN is run by a man who paid off a TBN employee with whom he had a homosexual encounter with, and has since been sued by another man making the same charges. These charges and the many other scandals are commonly known by those who patronize that network anyway and … well now you see why I felt that there were better uses of my time than exposing people who have already been exposed because people simply do not care!

But now, TD Jakes is being embraced by the “more respectable” corners of evangelical Christianity as represented by (ironically named) The Gospel Coalition, which includes some of the most prominent pastors and theologians in evangelical Christianity today. Now of course, there was significant “debate” over inviting Jakes. The fears of those objecting were quite founded, as it resulted in Mark Driscoll, himself a very troubling personality, doing very much to rehabilitate Jakes, largely because of Driscoll’s own desire to push his false anti-cessationist doctrines into the Reformed/Calvinistic evangelical movement. Also, those who would have challenged Jakes rather than accommodate him were not allowed to participate.  But the fact that there was even a debate at all shows how far gone the evangelical landscape is! Having Jakes in the Elephant Room should have been as much a nonstarter as having Richard Dawkins or Pope Benedict!

And that brings us to the real issue: further evidence that the evangelical church in America is veering off the rails. (It is such times that even people who MILDLY stand against Jakes and his lies are the ones to be mocked, opposed and condemned.) Is the great apostasy, the great falling away of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 upon us? This event is prophesied in scripture, and will come to pass. It is a very tragic development in and of itself, but 2 Thess 2:3 tells us that the great falling away is a precursor to – or more accurately a precondition for – the coming of the beast, the anti-Christ, the man of sin, which occurs during the great tribulation. It is my position that the church will experience this great tribulation, and not be raptured from or otherwise escape it, as many pastors and teachers propose. So as difficult as things are now for the church as evidenced by its willingness to not only suffer but endorse and promote such false teachers as Jakes, it is only paving the way for even tougher times to come. Christian, watch and discern the times. Pray. Be strengthened and encouraged in the Lord so that you will not be deceived, that you will resist temptation, and stay in the faith.

For those of you not in the faith, realize that the proliferation of false doctrines and those who gain wealth, fame and power by teaching them does not undermine Christianity, but rather is evidence that the Bible is true, for Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles predicted that such a time as this would come thousands of years ago; Christ referred to men such as Jakes as ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing. That many will follow such people is evidence that narrow is the gate that leads to salvation, and wide is that which leads to destruction!

Enter into the narrow gate. Be saved in the Name of Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins, believe in Jesus Christ. Follow

The Three Step Salvation Plan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

VeggieTales Versus Rob Bell: Not That Much Difference!

Posted by Job on March 24, 2011

First, let me say that I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book and I do not plan to ever to. The reason is that my bookshelf is so stacked with great items from legitimate Christian writers that it will take me years to go through them all, and I am yet in the process of trying to acquire more (I want a good commentary on the book of Daniel and on the gospel of Luke; I am accepting recommendations towards that end). So I don’t have the time – or the inclination – to read prattle from a known false teacher. Further, the doctrines that Bell are spreading are not new, but instead are the same abominable heresies that the church has been contending against since nearly the beginning, and then just as now are  the result of reading humanistic and pagan ideas into the Bible text. So, if you want a review of Bell’s “Love Wins”, I suggest Albert Mohler, Ken Silva (from whom I first learned of Bell and the movement that he represents), Phil Johnson, Tim Challies, The Gospel Coalition, and a host of Christian thinkers far more capable of that sort of thing than I. Meanwhile, I will continue to spend my free time reading books that actually contain truth from the likes of Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, George Whitefield and John Eadie.

Still, it is curious to note a curiosity or two. First, the postmodern hermeneutics employed by Bell, Brian McLaren, and similar are by no means new. Quite the contrary, it is reminiscent of allegorical and other techniques that have used to either ignore or alter the meaning of “inconvenient” Bible texts for hundreds of years. I won’t go into the various doctrines that these methods have been used to support or reject, but it goes without saying that using his interpretative method when it suits your own purposes makes it a lot harder to stand in the face of a blasphemer that is using it for his.

Second, it is even more difficult to hold figures like C.S. Lewis in high esteem (and for that matter Billy Graham) when Lewis, Graham, and many other giants of evangelical Christianity hold the same basic views as does Bell! Any number of evangelical Christian leaders encourage us to run out and take our children to see the “Narnia” movies because “it is oh so important to support Christian efforts in Hollywood and the mainstream culture.” As for Billy Graham, well, their “Gideon: The Tuba Warrior” episode saw fit to depict Graham (of all the preachers in history) as one raised up by God despite Graham’s publicly stating beliefs similar to those of Bell.

Speaking of VeggieTales, I recall reading the line “The evangelical “Veggie Tales” cartoons—animated Bible stories featuring talking cucumbers and tomatoes—probably shape more children in their view of scripture than any … catechism does” in the Wall Street Journal. (Note: here is a good catechism for children.) They are not alone. Quite the contrary, you are more likely to encounter an actual Biblical theme in VeggieTales than you will in any “Christian” children’s programming in your local Christian video store, or on Christian broadcasting. But evangelical and many fundamentalist parents buy things like Veggie Tales, The Horned Avenger, On The Farm, Hermie The Caterpillar, Adventures In Odyssey etc. despite the clear fact that A) most of them offer a “Christless” Christianity focused more on ethics, morals, virtues, so-called family values, than the gospel. Phil Vischer specifically stated that this is done to increase sales and make more money from Christians, and has the motto “the more you preach, the fewer you reach.” So, all of that Jesus Christ talk will mean not selling videos because Christians won’t buy it! And they know of what they speak … consider that Good Times Entertainment, whose products were often about Jesus Christ (consider the Bible series featuring Charlton Heston), went bankrupt in 2005. An example of what leaving Jesus Christ out results in? Their “The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything” movie allegorically depicting Satan as the brother of Jesus Christ. Another example? Teaching works-righteousness in “Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Noah’s Umbrella“, when the lead female character tells the lead male character (who in true feminist fashion – yes feminism has made real inroads in evangelical Christianity – in an incompetent idiot) that “Do you know what those who do the right thing are called? Righteous.” Actually, the New Testament says that righteousness comes by being imputed through Jesus Christ, and that it is impossible to be considered righteous apart from Jesus Christ. So the need to omit Jesus Christ in order to sell more DVDs results in teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ taught and denying the reason for Jesus Christ’s ministry and work! As no one raised a peep about VeggieTales’ essentially endorsing Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, modern Judaism, and every other false works-based religion, how can we be surprised when Rob Bell has such a huge audience? Bell is only reaping the fruit that that was planted and watered by others in fields that were plowed by others.

Now granted, VeggieTales does get around to mentioning Jesus Christ and even His atonement occasionally (see their Easter episodes, though typical of modern Christianity, they give Christmas much more attention than Easter, including promoting the very destructive Santa Claus works religion in two of them … telling kids that there’s no Santa Claus means not selling any DVDs though!), they and the other “Christian” entertainment rarely – if ever – mentions the other side. They will tell you “accept Jesus Christ and go to heaven.” They will not say “if you do not, you will go to hell.” Indeed, even mentions of hell are rare, and this is the case in Christian children’s entertainment, contemporary Christian and gospel music, Christian movies, Christian books, and most Christian evangelism and preaching. So, since we are in a Christian culture that leaves out this important detail, what is the basis, the justification, for getting angry when Rob Bell comes in and fills in the blanks for us?

A lot of Christians are angry at Bell for not believing orthodoxy, but the real problem is that those who believe orthodoxy will not preach orthodoxy.  Challies mentions a new book that discusses “issues pertinent to the church today” which a lot of popular contemporary writers contributed to. According to Challies, there is no chapter on hell, and there are only two references to it in the index! That is no surprise. Clark Pinnock, the Rob Bell of his day, related that when a major Christian publishing company solicited prominent evangelicals to represent the traditional, Protestant view in Four Views On Hell (which is a theological debate in published form) they found no one wanting to take the job! (Ultimately, dispensational pastor and theologian John Walvoord took the challenge.) Pinnock – and again this is nearly 20 years ago – defended his position at the time, annihilationism (this was before Pinnock discarded any remaining pretense of adhering to inerrancy and adopted views similar to Bell’s) by stating that due to the increasing unwillingness of evangelicals to preach about and defend the doctrine of hell, the result would be a widespread embrace of universalism. (Pinnock was not well versed on pluralism at the time, but after learning more about purgatory from the Roman Catholic contributor to the project, Zachary Hayes, he ultimately adopted it as his own position.)

So, Veggie Tales and its effects on children is merely symbolic for the larger Christian scene itself, whether an unwillingness to oft preach and share the whole gospel because it is not acceptable in modern humanist culture – we Christians have to keep our place in the mainstream! – or an unwillingness to confront, condemn and separate from those who preach false doctrines. Quite the contrary, Christianity Today, long the evangelical standard, published a missive aimed at Christians appropriately denouncing Bell, claiming among other things that they lacked the necessary qualifications and standing to do so, and that their actions reflected a lack of various Christian virtues. The writer calls (indirectly but very intentionally) those attacking Bell “meain-spirited”, directly accuses them of “lacking self-restraint”, and pines for the days when such debates were the exclusive domains of people like Plato and “Saint” Thomas Aquinas – in addition to Moses and Augustine – “who gained respect through a lifetime of scholarship.”

Well the respect of the world earned by “Saint” Aquinas for advancing popery and of the pagan Plato is not what we should be after in the first place. Instead, we should seek the grace given through Jesus Christ. That so many of us want the respect of those in whom the truth is not present is precisely why this great vacuum on teachings about hell exists. The problem is not that Rob Bell stepped up to fill it, for there have always been and will always be until Jesus Christ returns false teachers. No, the problem is the carnality caused by the love of this present world in the church that allows this void to exist to begin with.

The result of this void caused by the worldliness is that as many as 59% of evangelical Christians believe that salvation can be obtained outside of Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, 59% of evangelicals also have “dealing with moral breakdown” as a forefront issue; apparently the great commission can wait for another day. Again, and this should surprise who? Did you think that it was secular humanists being raised on VeggieTales, Hermie The Caterpillar, Focus On The Family etc. and buying them for their kids? Or that atheists are the ones buying Christian and gospel music that does a great job of emulating secular music (or maybe not) but oft neglects the gospel? That theological liberals are the ones heading to Christian bookstores and loading up on “devotionals” that are increasingly just Christianized pop psychology and motivational writings?

The issue is not Rob Bell. The issue is the church and its dereliction of its duty while chasing after worldly pleasures. And let Revelation 2 and 3 remind you: the church is where judgment begins. To more that is given, more is required, and the parables of Jesus Christ tell us that to those to whom more is given, more is required, and further if we are not faithful with what we have been given, then what we have will be taken from us and given to those who have been faithful. We Christians have been given the gospel, and we must avoid allowing the love of this world to prevent us from proclaiming it in its entirety.

In closing, it must be said that if you are a not a Christian, do not take comfort in the lies of the pluralists and others who claim that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Yes, the Bible does declare that love wins, but it will be love of holiness, justice, righteousness, and the only way to have those attributes is by imputation through identification with One who has those attributes, which is Jesus Christ. Unless you live in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ lives in you, there is no life and victory, but only eternal torment. So, I urge you to repent of your sins and join with Jesus Christ immediately.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Posted in Bible, child evangelism, Christian hypocrisy, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church worldliness, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ, religion, religious left, religious right, universalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Should Christians Practice Lent?

Posted by Job on March 15, 2011

This is in response to a question received in the comments area.

It appears that as the ecumenical tendencies of evangelical churches increase, they are adopting more practices associated with Catholicism. While that is a worrisome trend in general, with regards to Lent in particular I cannot find anything with this tradition that transgresses New Testament teaching. It is also true that some Protestant groups have long had this ritual in their backgrounds. Anglicans, for instance, have traditionally celebrated Lent, as have Methodists and Lutherans. Presbyterians, by contrast, generally did not until recently precisely because of its Catholic origins. Other groups and traditions (i.e. Baptists) haven’t, but more so because they aren’t liturgical than because of its origins.

The question is whether the practice of Lent can be separated from the Roman Catholic doctrine of Lent. That is the same question being asked about whether a Christian should practice yoga or other traditions that come from other religions. Apart from the Catholic doctrines, Lent is simply fasting, and moreover fasting in honor of the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certainly, there can be no law against such a thing! I have practiced fasting myself in the past, and will start back in the future, sometime later this year

However, my issue is this: if you want to fast, just fast. (And fast the way that Jesus Christ instructed us to in the gospels!) And if it is to be a corporate fast initiated by the pastor of a local congregation, and the members of that congregation touch and agree on it, even better still. Or if a group of Christians from one congregation or several congregations decide that they want to come together and devote themselves to a time of fasting and prayer without being led to do so by their pastor, again, against such thing there is no law. Indeed, such good works are praiseworthy. And we certainly should not avoid fasting during this time of year just because the Catholics are fasting.

However, in addition to avoiding Catholic doctrines regarding this ritual of theirs, what is the purpose of calling it “Lent”? Why not just call it a fast? If the reason is merely to emulate or show some sort of solidarity with Catholicism, then in my opinion, that is extremely problematic. The Bible verse that I would use is this: 2 Corinthians 6:14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” Now that verse is often improperly applied to marriage (when the opposite is true; instead the Bible states that a believing spouse can often be used by God to convert an unbelieving one, see 1 Corinthians 7:10-16). Instead, this scripture and its context obviously refers to not being in religious communion or fellowship with non-Christians. That means that we cannot and should not emulate their beliefs, ways, traditions and rituals. Of course, in this age of ecumenism, pluralism, diversity, tolerance and other forms of ecclesiastical indulgence and compromise, it is no wonder that this 2 Corinthians 6:14 is applied to an area where it was never intended (ironically, consider the evangelical Christian dating site equallyyoked.com!) and neglected where it actually applies, which is to not keep church company with false religions, apostates, heretics, cultists, and anyone else who is operating beyond the bounds of New Testament Christianity, which most certainly includes Catholics, who do not even use our same canon of scripture.

Along with the National Association of Evangelical’s outreach to Mormons, it is a sign of the times. But make no mistake, it is a time that people serious about 2 Corinthians 6:14 and scripture in general should not join! Again, if your Protestant denomination has a legitimate longstanding Lent tradition of its own apart from Roman Catholicism, that is probably legitimate. But if it is some new thing, some fad that people are joining themselves to, it is perfectly appropriate to ask “why” and turn away!

Posted in Bible, catholic, Christianity, false religion, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 32 Comments »

A Fundamentalist Or Conservative Evangelical Treatment Of The Racism Issue Is Needed

Posted by Job on July 19, 2010

I admit to being generally skeptical of common popular approach to theology (i.e. a one that attempts to address “issues and concerns”) and prefer instead to rely on exegesis, exposition, application and the wisdom of Bible-believing Christians that have run the race for us. However, some current events have me thinking that perhaps it is time for theologically conservative Christians (by this I mean fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, or “Bible-believing Christians) need to come up with a Biblical approach to the racism issue. These events include:

Now, for reasons that I will not get into because they are not particularly relevant to the topic at hand, I believe that A) Obama will win re-election and B) the economy will continue to be bad, including possibly a “double-dip” recession. That means that it is very possible race will be a point of division in our country for years to come, and that it will affect a Bible-believing American Christian community in which many blacks will continue to foolishly support Obama and many whites will continue to foolishly support the Republicans. (Similar to A. and B. above, my personal views that Bible-believing Christians have no business supporting Republicans or Democrats is beyond the scope of this topic, other than the point out the obvious fact that both parties indulge in race-baiting.) Thus, it may be in the interests of the Body of Christ for a Bible-based approach to the racism issue to be promoted and defended from our pulpits, in our media outlets, and in our educational institutions during the next few years, and possibly beyond.

But the problem is that it appears that no such program or approach exists. This is not to say that the racism issue has not been addressed in the church arena. The problem is that nearly all of the deep, broad substantial treatments of the topic by those opposed to racism have come from churches and religious movements that can fairly be described as apostate. The “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach to race is one entirely rooted in liberal theology. It is deceiving, because the language of orthodoxy is used, and so are such time-honored Christian instruments as prayer, fasting, singing, preaching and quoting scripture. However, look a little deeper and you will see that the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” approach is one that denies and rejects a Biblical view of sin. It consciously rejects what the Bible states concerning both original sin that is collective and common to humanity, and the sin nature that afflicts each individual. Liberal theology – and Barack Obama/Jeremiah Wright liberation theology even more so – goes on to deny that both collective sin and individual sin were dealt with by Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (doctrines that were rejected by Martin Luther King, Jr., as was the virgin birth), and that freedom from sins, including but not limited to racism, comes to members of the Body of Christ only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Further, that even after salvation through faith occurs, one will struggle with sins – again including racism – because of the influence of “the flesh”, “the old man”, “the body of death”, but that if we are truly penitent and confess, Jesus Christ can be faithfully counted on to forgive our sins. And finally, the ultimate victory over racism, both in a collective original sin of the human condition sense and in a personal individual sense, will only occur when Jesus Christ returns and sets up the eternal kingdom of New Jerusalem for believers, when all believers receive their mansion/place/room in His Father’s house (again all doctrines which liberal and liberation theology Christians reject and deny).

Instead, liberal and liberation theology treats racism not as what the Bible calls sin, but as a social ill or condition. Thus, the Biblical truth that until Jesus Christ returns, racism cannot be eliminated on a large scale, such as in a larger society of unregenerate people, is rejected by them. So is the truth that racism can only be dealt with in the individual believer and in a church comprised of believers by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Instead, such people believe that racism can be defeated in the individual with education, and in a society by changing laws, economic and social conditions. That is why the SCLC, NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH and the other alphabet-soup assortment of civil rights groups often led by ministers like Dr. King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and similar never attempted and do not attempt to battle racism by encouraging racists to repent of their sins and believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, they rely on the same methods as secular organizations:  educational programs, lawsuits and political campaigns. Though they rarely come out and openly admit it, such people believe that the “root cause” of racism is capitalism. In their mind, capitalism is either racism’s cause or its primary enabler.  Therefore, socialism is the ultimate solution to racism in their estimation. They do not claim that socialism would completely end racism and transform the national – and world – society into a post-racial utopia, but they do assert that socialism would render racism as a nonfactor by removing (in their minds) what is primarily responsible for fomenting racial tension and rewarding racist behavior.  In other words, it is not so much that they claim that socialism will change racists hearts, but that it will remove most reasons and opportunities for racist hearts to act, turning racism from appearing sensible and potentially lucrative to being a pointless waste of time. And the true goal of the “anti-racist education programs” that are offered – thanks to the work of pressure groups – in schools, churches and workplaces are actually geared towards getting more people to support socialism – or at least liberal politicians who enact them – than fighting racism. Example: they manipulate people into experiencing white guilt or black anger that is supposed to translate into … well you figure it out. (Please note the extreme irony that the religious right, while purporting to represent the opposite end of the theological spectrum, has resorted to the same tactics as the civil rights movement of the theological left, and also how the religious right often promotes capitalism as the cure for social ills.)

Now of course, the problem is not truly the lies of the enemy as they relate to racism. Quite simply, the enemy lies about everything. Instead, it is the lack of response from Bible-believers. Where liberal Christians have decades of doctrines and actions on the race issue, Bible-believing Christians have … well nothing comparable. Or should I say if it exists, it was often in the form of defending of segregation and slavery in times past, and now often absorbs the racial rhetoric and thinking of conservative leaders and opinion-makers who are not Christians i.e. the aforementioned Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. To make matters worse, when Bible-believing Christians attempt to address race in a “positive” way, they normally use the constructs provided by liberal Christianity. This is generally by default – because thanks to the media and the educational system it is all they know – and also because no other “positive” way of attempting to address race has been consistently articulated and applied on a large scale. As a result, many – indeed most – fundamentalist and conservative evangelical black churches fully endorse the “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” program on race, and so do not a few well-meaning theologically conservative white pastors and congregations.  The result is that race issue is used to get non-Biblical doctrines about sin, human nature and redemption into otherwise doctrinally sound churches, and the resulting confusion is used to slowly get these churches and pastors away from Biblical truth in other areas as well. I may be exaggerating were I to say “first racism, then creation care environmentalism, then supporting abortion and homosexual marriage”, but it would be only an exaggeration. A better illustration is this: before the civil rights movement, there were lots of doctrinally sound evangelical and fundamental black churches, including some entire black denominations dedicated to strong, Bible-based belief and practice. Well, take a look around and see what has happened to these churches – and especially the denominations – since. An entire book has been written on the topic.

So why deal with the racism issue at all in Bible-based Christianity? For the same reason that we deal with homosexuality, abortion, pornography, laziness, theft, adultery, murder, false religions etc.: because it is sin. We are to love God with all our heart, soul and strength and also to love our neighbor. So, we must address racism first because it is a sin that offends and dishonors God, and second because of the negative effect that it has on our neighbor. So, the problem is not the church’s addressing racism, but that it addresses it with liberal theology created by apostates and unbelievers walking in darkness. So, if we ignore the issue we ignore sin, and if we use liberal or liberation theology to address the issue, then those who are walking in the light of Jesus Christ are ignoring that light to follow those who do not have that light and are in the darkness of sin.

Now there has been some excellent treatments of this issue from black preachers over the years. Unfortunately, the civil rights rhetoric has long overtaken it, and these wise words have largely been forgotten. So, what informed, Biblical guidance do black people have to rely on when they experience the sin of racism committed against them? (Allow me to state that the reaction made popular and acceptable by civil rights community, which is “righteous” indignation, an aggrieved posture, and actions and attitude proceeding from them, are generally sinful.) And how are black people to respond to the racism – which does include anger, resentment and defense mechanisms that results from exposure to white racism – that exists in the heart of black people other than with the same repentance, confession, contrition, and reliance on Jesus Christ that is expected of white people? And yes, black people must acknowledge that the civil rights agenda of addressing racism through education, court decisions, laws, and changes to our political, economic, social and cultural systems is doomed to fail. Eliminating Jim Crow – which was unconstitutional anyway – is one thing. Changing the hearts of a mostly unregenerate population is another. Any pastor or church that teaches otherwise is acting in open defiance against the Bible, and such doctrines and the pastors and churches who teach them should be rejected just the same as should those who claim salvation by works, that homosexuality is not a sin, or that there is no Trinity should be. If we don’t accept liberal false doctrines in other areas, why should we when it comes to racism? And yes, the issue of why more blacks won’t join predominantly white churches needs to be addressed, even if it means enduring and overcoming racism. If blacks are willing to confront and overcome racism to attend mostly white schools and colleges and earn a living on mostly white workplaces, why can’t the same be done in attending mostly white churches? I dare say that this may indicate that blacks place a higher priority on getting an education and earning a living than going to church, because blacks are more willing to overcome obstacles in pursuing the first two than the last one. What you fight for is often an indication of where your heart is, and if you are willing to endure discrimination at a job that you know is worldly but not at the church were God calls you to forgive your brothers and sisters and bear their faults just as Christ bears ours, then that constitutes evidence that your heart is more willing to sacrifice for mammon than for Christ’s Body.

As far as white Bible-believing Christians go … the first step is probably severing political conservatism from theological conservatism on the race issue. (Actually, it is a good idea to do that on far more issues than race.) The reason is that the politically conservative position on race basically amounts to the notion that blacks should make all the sacrifices because blacks benefit far more from being in the presence of whites than any harm from racism. It follows from there that since whites receive no real benefits from having blacks in their presence, whites should make no sacrifices at all. Now not only is this illegal in a secular sense, but this type of thinking has no business in the church. Neither should Bible-believing white Christians emulate the apostates on the left by proposing political or economic solutions (i.e. tax cuts, free markets) for what is a spiritual problem. If socialism can’t change hearts or address sin, neither can political conservatism.

As to why theologically conservative white Christians don’t address this issue, there are no good answers. I propose the first is because racism doesn’t appear to negatively affect them personally. So, the issue is “out of sight, out of mind.” The second is likely because of the racist and segregationist history of a lot of denominations, churches and leaders. This is not an issue for the formerly racist Christian entities that have adopted liberal theology, because apparently once you reject the Bible and particularly once you join the left politically and take part in the (destined to fail) attempt to eliminate racism through enacting socialism, all is forgiven. But for those churches and denominations that remain faithful to the Bible, it is a tough situation. Even calling racism and discrimination sinful is mighty difficult, because it would mean that a lot of beloved Christian leaders (and followers) were sinners. To better understand the problem: imagine if the pastor that started your church, the group that founded your denomination or one of your favorite pastor/theologian/evangelist were branded an adulterer. (And also consider that there is a much bigger stigma in our modern society with being considered a racist than an adulterer.)

So, it is understandable that people who attended a seminary that may have been started to support segregation would want to let sleeping dogs lie. Still, how can white pastors, churches and institutions address this issue in more productive – and effective – ways than Bob Jones University’s decision to offer scholarships for “minority students”? (While I think that getting more black students into theologically conservative seminaries is something that absolutely must be done, this is another example of “the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr./racism is caused by capitalism and can be solved with socialism” approach.) Also, it simply is inappropriate to have pastors in racially homogenous churches in Dubuque, Iowa and Bismark, North Dakota to talk about racism all the time. Other things such as efforts to partner black churches with white ones, and also recruiting drives for black members have been tried before with disappointing results, and often do not address the real reasons why blacks do not fellowship with whites in the first place, a fact which truthfully has to do with black resentment against whites as much or more than white racism, and this is compounded by the erroneous thinking by so many blacks (that again are the results of decades of “civil rights movement thinking”) that A) maintaining black institutions for the purposes of using them for political and social agitation is Biblical and necessary and B) it is fine for blacks to nurse and maintain grievances against whites but not the other way around. Again, the arguments for the existence of BET, the Black Miss America pageant, black colleges, Ebony/Jet/Essence Magazines etc. knowing full well that white counterparts would never be tolerated may be fine for the secular arena but have no place in the Body of Christ, and this is a position that white pastors and theologians must boldly take and adhere to. If this means placing the responsibility for ending the fact that “Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America” primarily or disproportionately on blacks, then so be it. Again, the fact that blacks are more than willing to work for white owned and run corporations like BP, IBM, Coca-Cola etc. and attend Harvard, UCLA and Ole Miss while seeking lucre  but won’t do the same when choosing churches leaves them without excuse.

However, the primary area of involvement for white Bible-believing Christians (other than, of course, door-to-door evangelism among blacks) may be in the academy. The liberal and liberation theology people have produced volumes of scholarly work – from technical journal articles to books approachable by general audiences – on the race issue. By contrast, Bible-believing Christians have produced very little that can be used to guide people seeking a sound approach in doctrine and practice on the issue. Further, most of what does exist either attempts to shoehorn the liberal approach into Bible-believing contexts, or relates to cross-cultural missions. As racism is a sin that is manipulated to lead so many Christians – black and white – into errors in doctrine and practice, this situation cannot persist. There must be a well-developed line of discourse as well as practical strategies for confronting the race issue in theologically conservative Christianity just as there is on areas like homosexuality, abortion and feminism. Why should white theologians take the lead? There are several reasons, but the primary one is that for blacks the tendency to adhere to and defend the civil rights mindset is strong. (For example, even in conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity, finding the black pastor that is willing to discuss the theological beliefs of most civil rights leaders, acknowledge that the “civil disobedience” tactics of the civil rights movement were contrary to scripture, or that the “civil rights agenda” is rooted in ideas contrary to scripture and is destined to fail is very hard.) So, it would be far better for the Al Mohlers, Wayne Grudems, R.C. Sprouls and John MacArthurs to start the dialogue on the issue and then have their black counterparts respond. Essentially, black Christian leaders who take the Bible seriously would be required (forced) to articulate why racism should not be viewed and therefore addressed like every other sin.

It amounts to the fact that racism is going to continue to be a snare to larger society, and a major reason for this is that larger society is going to continue to view racism as a social ill that can be corrected with education, economics, government action and the simple passage of time. However, the race riots that occurred barely a week prior to the writing of this shows that it is not the case. Also, the rising numbers and influence of Islam in this country will add another dimension. The black leadership has decided to form political alliances with Islam – and indeed several influential black leaders have converted to that religion – and that will result in more white people viewing blacks as a “fifth column.” But just because race will continue to be a problem for the larger society doesn’t mean that it has to remain a stumblingblock for the church, or at least when the context is Bible-believing black and white Christians who ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE have more in common with each other than they do with the unregenerate members of their own respective races. To put it simply, just because Sean Hannity and Jesse Jackson hate each other doesn’t mean that black and white Bible-believing Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists etc. should have each other at arm’s length. Perhaps even more importantly, black and white Christians need to work together in order to close off an avenue that the world so often uses to lead us into things that range from temptation to severe errors in doctrine and practice.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

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

Evangelical Creation Care Environmentalism And Evolution

Posted by Job on January 29, 2010

Against Creation Care: Environmentalism And Evolution One And The Same

This post by brother Laz got me thinking about the common thread of thought which unites evolution and environmentalism. As far as global warming and pretty much all environmentalism goes (including “creation care” evangelicalism), it is just another way to reject the fact that God owns and controls the earth. God will determine the fate of mankind, when this cosmos comes to an end and is replaced with a heaven and a new earth. This global warming zealotry, with is religious intensity, is simply another way to reject God, and to replace the Christian belief system with another.

This is the same that motivates evolution. Evolution advocates are motivated by their determination to reject the idea that God owns creation and controls it. Now some, including a number of professed Christians, are willing to acknowledge that God accomplished creation. However, they are unwilling to acknowledge that God wholly owns it, sustains it, holds it in His hands, and is the sole determiner of its ultimate destiny. Acknowledging this fact makes man accountable to God, and requires that man live his life in service to Him. Environmentalism – the idea that man can destroy the earth either against God’s will or with God doing nothing to stop it – and evolution are merely attempts to deny that man’s purpose is nothing other than to serve, worship and glorify God. That is the sum total of the purpose and reason for man’s existence, it is the reason why God created man. Denying our imperative to serve God is the motivating factor for denying or minimizing God’s role in our creation through evolution, and the same is the goal of denying that God will determine the destiny of the earth and humankind through environmentalism.

And it explains the religious fervor attached to both, and the vehement Inquisition-like tactics that those who reject environmentalism and evolution are subjected to. Indeed, global warming dissenters are actually now
being accused of killing people (i.e. inaction on climate change because of skeptics is alleged to have caused natural disasters, diseases, famines etc.) and there are even claims that opposition to evolution is hindering medical breakthroughs that would save many lives. Such people are advancing the case that opposition to environmentalism and evolution can no longer be matters of private conscience, opinions that must be abided in a free society, but dangerous deadly notions that must be stamped out in order to save lives, or even humanity.

Of course, as evolution and environmentalism constitutes a different and competing belief system – a religion if you will – to Christianity, this should be no surprise. Why should the global warming/evolution crowd be any more accommodating to Christianity than Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or the mythology of the ancient Roman Empire? The issue, then is why so many professed evangelicals are choosing the path of syncretism by becoming anti-global warming “creation care” Christians, thereby mixing a belief system based on and motivated by denying God’s sovereignty, providence, omnipotence, ownership rights over creation, and prerogative to exercise those rights with a Christian belief system that affirms all of those as core doctrines.

It is even more curious that many of these people fully embrace the “creation care” part while rejecting the evolution part, blissfully blinded to the fact that they are one and the same. Evidence of this is the common justification for the “creation care” idea: God gave (ceded!) dominion of the earth to man (Adam) so we must use it wisely. That is merely quasi-deism which ignores a great deal of Biblical content, including but not limited to the effects of the fall of Adam (i.e. the curse on Adam and rule of the earth transferring from Adam to Satan) and of course Jesus Christ being the second Adam and creation’s current, forever and rightful ruler. But then again, when your goal is to be relevant and influential within the cultural and political mainstream, why let a little theology or syncretism get in the way? And amazing that the dispensationalists among the creation care movement seem oblivious to the fact that the global warming ideology is ultimately motivated by a desire to reject the book of Revelation and the judgment of God upon the earth that it describes!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Three Views On Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on August 29, 2009

Lordship view:

Popular with Reformed and Calvinist churches. Jesus Christ is presented primarily as ruling sovereign king. Transcendence of Jesus Christ is emphasized. A main view of the effects of His incarnation was to sanctify creation with His presence, and the emphasis of His work on the cross is that of being the giver and head of the new covenant and to transfer dominion from Israel to the church. This emphasis on Jesus Christ – as Lord and King and head of the covenant – correlates to the aim of such bodies to view themselves as extensions and agents – the Body – of Jesus Christ’s kingship and rule on earth. Because Jesus Christ sanctified the earth with His presence, that increases the prominence of natural theology and general revelation as ways of knowing, understanding and having a relationship with God. Further, it makes it fitting and appropriate for Christians to seek to subdue and rule the earth by political, economic, cultural and military means as a way of worshiping and glorifying God. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is mediated through western culture and institutions which God through His providence used and created to improve worldly conditions, spread the gospel, and prepare the world for His coming. Jesus Christ’s Lordship, kingdom and influence are spread primarily through cultural, political and military means, and such things largely take the role of personal evangelism and missionary work in infant baptism cultures. Thus, attacks on western culture and institutions are seen as direct attacks on God’s kingdom, God’s plan to redeem the world, and ultimately on Jesus Christ Himself. Due to Jesus Christ’s being depicted as Lord and King and thus viewed in the context of European and other Gentile kings (remote, detached, very difficult or impossible to directly or personally know or relate to) worship is liturgical, sacramental, even mystical with preaching de-emphasized to the point where often reading the pastor’s sermon notes is a more productive activity than being present for the sermon’s oral delivery. Very little practical attention is given to God the Father or the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ’s humanity. Eschatology: often amillennial or postmillennial.

Savior view:

Popular in free will evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Jesus Christ is presented primarily as Savior. Heavy emphasis on Jesus Christ’s humanity, particularly the very safe approachable nonthreatening imagery of a baby in a manger and other views emphasizing Jesus Christ’s immanence. Primary role of incarnation is to make Jesus Christ human in order to facilitate a personal relationship with Him: Jesus Christ as friend, buddy, confidante, parent (particularly as it relates to parents’ giving their children gifts, reassurance, and nurturing), “sounding board/venting object”, or even lover. Please note: the ability to accept or reject friendship and personal relationship with another human is always by personal discretion, and both humans have equal rights to set the relationship’s terms, including the depth and intensity of the relationship. Jesus Christ’s deity is depicted in context of His ability to work miracles and teach during His earthly ministry and His being an effective in His role in dying for sins, and His ability to live a sinless life. Jesus Christ’s role as Lord and King is practically limited to His headship of the Body of Christ and is only stated factually or doctrinally as the justification for congregational church polity. In practice, Jesus Christ’s actual rule or dominion is deferred until judgment day, the millennium, and in heaven. The role of the Holy Spirit is to comfort Christians, give Christians friendly but non-coercive and not truly binding moral advice, and to help Christians deepen their friendship and bond with Jesus Christ; to make a relationship that is in many respects little different from a one-sided self-serving relationship with another natural human into a spiritual relationship. Ultimately, friendship with Jesus Christ meets the need of the Christian, first to escape eternal damnation, and second to meet or fulfill personal or emotional needs during challenging, difficult and uncertain lives. Note: a high percentage of people adhering to this form of Christianity are children of divorced parents, people who were abused or neglected as children, low income people, and women. God the Father is depicted in terms of an ideal human father and His relationship with Jesus Christ depicted as the ideal relationship between a parent and son, which is a source of reassurance and comfort (and also a goal) of people whose lives have been affected by family dysfunction and failure to live up to the western middle class ideal family image, with the Body of Christ offering the promise of a true, real stable family that meets true and idealized emotional needs that will finally be fulfilled in heaven. Result is an outsized emphasis on good families as the solution to personal and spiritual needs, with some going so far as to claim that the family is a type of the Holy Trinity or that the Holy Trinity is the model for the family (see Wayne Grudem and James Dobson). Thus, a major goal is the creation and preservation of not only a church system but also a worldly culture (i.e. government, politics, economics, values) that is “family-friendly.” The role of worship is to meet human emotional needs, often meaning entertainment and cathartic release for lower income people and intellectual stimulation for higher income and more educated people. The goal is to relate to Jesus Christ on a personal or human level, often using the relationship with Jesus Christ  as a substitute for flawed human relationships with spouses, parents, children, friends etc. Heavy emphasis on personal evangelism and missionary work, but the driving force is often eschatological beliefs or a desire to “grow the Christian family” (meaning creating more people to enjoy relationships with) and generally rely on human initiative and methodology. Growing integration of psychology and psychiatry with Christianity to meet the emotional needs of church members. Also increasing emphasis on “personal spirituality”, to “worship God my own way” and an increasing conviction that God’s grace accommodates the desire to satisfy or fulfill personal and emotional needs, including giving license to engage in conduct forbidden by scripture. This trend includes – but is not limited to – the emergent church. Preaching  is often exhortary, entertaining or emotionally charged, with an emphasis on narratives that relate to the personal experiences and needs of the listeners that causes them to recognize their own traits – or the traits of loved ones – in the sermons. Eschatology: often dispensational.

Lord and Savior view:

Begins with the Trinity, as God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son work together to create, redeem and sustain a community of believers as the ultimate goal of accomplishing creation, and such things are done for the pleasure and glory of the Godhead as opposed to the benefit of believers, though believers do certainly benefit and are exceedingly grateful. Jesus Christ is Lord of all for times past, future and present and graciously took upon the role of Savior.  Jesus Christ’s present dominion is not extended to the political, economic, military or cultural systems of the world, but instead is limited to the church over which He is Head and whose dominion all members of the church must continually submit to. The goal of worship and praise is to glorify and honor Jesus Christ, and Christ rewards those who glorify and honor Him by using the Holy Spirit to give them joy and other gifts and fruits. Evangelism is a worship activity done to glorify Jesus Christ, to fulfill the mandates of scripture, to provide Jesus Christ with more servants, to act as God’s servants in carrying out His plan of salvation, and to give more people the benefits of salvation. Christians can appreciate general revelation and natural theology as part of their praise and worship of God, but can only know God through special revelation, which includes the Holy Scriptures and Holy Spirit illumination which reveals the Son who in turn reveals God the Father. A very personal relationship with Jesus Christ is possible, but only on Jesus Christ’s terms which cause the believer to respect Jesus Christ’s holiness and sovereignty. Thus the rules of engagement between Jesus Christ and the believer are not as equals with the focus on Jesus Christ’s meeting the believer’s needs as the believer asks (which is the believer taking the initiative) but rather a relationship where Jesus Christ takes the initiative and it is the responsibility of the believer to obediently respond. In this way, Jesus Christ is Lord and King, but not after the detached manner of human kings, but a King that one can truly know and relate with, a King who allows us to continually eat bread at His table not because He is deficient in any way and needs our company but because it is to His pleasure and glory that we accompany Him. Attacks on culture, governments and institutions are regrettable for such things are servants of God and act to restrain evil, but ultimately are not attacks on Jesus Christ Himself, whose current dominion is now spiritual over the church and whose realized dominion over the earth – one that He will exert with a rod of iron – is yet to come. Presently only attacks against believers are attacks against Jesus Christ. Relationships with other believers are based on shared beliefs, common membership in Jesus Christ’s Body, and exercise of spiritual gifts as opposed to values, family or culture. Emphasis of preaching is to inform people about God’s nature; to reveal God to hearers so that the hearers will respond to the revelation of God. Churches and pastors with this view of God are present within virtually any legitimate Protestant Christian denomination or movement, however such churches and pastors always represent a decided minority in whatever denomination or movement they are in. Eschatology: can be amillennial, postmillennial, dispensational or chiliast. Practically, eschatology is de-emphasized in favor of an emphasis on God’s eternal plan and nature.

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

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 »

    Regarding Abortion, Jesus Christ, Joseph And Mary: What If Mary Had Chosen Abortion?

    Posted by Job on February 23, 2009

    This powerful post on the topic of abortion from brother Laz caused me to ponder on the whole anti – abortion political movement and its influence on evangelical Christianity, particularly the fact that a great deal of tolerance is bestowed by evangelical political leaders upon those who profess to be Christian so long as they are sufficiently pro – life no matter what other flaws these “Christian pro – lifers” have in their doctrinal systems and lifestyles. Truthfully, other than perhaps the work of Billy Graham (and before him John Wesley), nothing has been more effective at uniting evangelical Protestants with Roman Catholics and (lately) Mormons and not to mention the wealthy, powerful decadent “Christian in name only” personalities active in politics and politiically driven media than the pro – life movement, which itself is but a part of the “family values theology” which again is part of the “Christian culture/Christian nation theology.”  

    So, I recounted during Election 2008 that presidential candidate John Edwards (who despite his support for abortion and homosexuality and – more important – his personally being an adulterer, making him no different from plenty of abortion and gay rights opponents who are also adulterers and fornicators, claims to be a devout Christian of Southern Baptist leanings) hired viciously anti – Christian atheist Amanda Marcotte to publicize his campaign. Among many of the “witty gems” that Marcotte produced was something to the effect of: what if Mary was on Plan B (the abortion pill) when Jesus Christ was conceived. (Actually, Marcotte’s words were much more mocking of God and vulgar.) Yet, this evil woman’s point was a good one: that the agenda of the “religious right” was not religious at all, but a cultural and political agenda. Now it is true that many of these people have indeed integrated culture and politics into their theological worldview, but the result is something that teeters on being a false religion that rejects the reason why Jesus Christ came (to die on the cross for our sins) and before then why Israel and Judaism were formed (so that Jesus Christ could come to die on the cross for our sins) in the first place. 

    After all, Marcotte was somewhat correct in her mocking: abortion pills and other modern forms of contraception were not available to Mary at the time that Jesus Christ was conceived and in the nation and culture that Jesus Christ was born into. Now from the perspective of a political (worldly and carnal by definition) Christian, the response would be to imagine if it had been and gasp with horror at what might have been were our abortion pill culture had been in existence in Mary’s Roman Empire, and had Mary availed herself of it. And you know what? That is not only a perspective that rejects faith, but also history.

    For the Roman Empire that Jesus Christ was born into was not a “Christian nation” and it was also not a “moral family values” one. Instead, there were multitudes of religions and bizarre abominable practices. For instance, homosexuality was commonly practiced, and if a man did not want his family, not only could he easily receive a divorce, but if he did not want to bother with divorce proceedings provided that he was a Roman citizen he could simply have the entire family –  his wife and children and everyone living in his house – killed. So, the world, the western culture that Jesus Christ was born into was not a family values culture. Furthermore, it was still not a family values culture when He finished His work and ascended into heaven. It was wicked before Jesus Christ came, was wicked when He departed, and will be wicked when He returns. Jesus Christ stated that this world and its cultures would always reject Him and those who truly know and represent Him. The “family values/Christian culture” theologians get around this by claiming “oh, Jesus Christ wasn’t talking about OUR culture and nation when He said that … He was only talking about the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and the rest of those wicked Jews.”

    And so, in the decidedly “anti – family” that was the Roman Empire, do you know what else was available? A primitive form of abortion, along with infanticide and primitive contraception. So what if Mary had decided to avail herself of what was available and commonly practiced in the culture and gotten an abortion? After all, though betrothed, she was still technically single. She was also impoverished, belonged to a marginal class even among Jews, and her being pregnant would ruin practically any chance of getting married, which was her only practical hope of financial security and/or social mobility. Oh yes, there was also the fact that under Jewish law, she could have been killed by stoning. So, Mary had every reason to furtively seek out the Romans to receive an abortion, a decision which of our last several presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have stated that they would have fully supported. (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush made no such statements, but Bush was on record as opposing the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Reagan for his part signed America’s most liberal abortion bill into law as governor of California, and, as he himself was a divorcee, signed a no – fault divorce bill into law as well.) But Mary did not.

    Joseph for his part had his options as well. He could have handed Mary over to be stoned. Or he could have divorced and abandoned her and the child. And keep in mind: there is no scriptural evidence that Joseph had the full benefit of knowledge that Mary did. The Bible does not relate Joseph being told that Mary’s child was the Son of God and the Messiah. The Bible only records Joseph being told that the child was of the Holy Spirit. (And keep in mind this context: Judaism taught that ALL conceptions were the work of the Holy Spirit.) Also, Joseph was not given this information in an awesome angelic visitation as was Mary. It came to him in a dream that would have been very easy to later deny and reject as part of justifying his decision to rid himself of responsibility for a child that was not his, and of the woman who became impregnated with such a child while she was engaged to him. After all, consider this fellow’s plight. The fact that Mary was pregnant before they were officially married with a child that was not his … how do you keep something like that secret, and prevent being the subject of gossip, scorn, ridicule and rejection, especially from your own family? But like Mary, Joseph did the right thing. 

    And why did Mary and Joseph both do the right thing concerning Jesus Christ, ensuring not only His birth, but that His birth that would fulfill prophecies that would demonstrate to the Jews and to the world His identity? Simple: they were righteous people that obeyed God. Their righteousness was not the product of growing up in a “Christ honoring culture in a Christian nation with Christian values encoded in their system of laws.” In other words, it was not due to abortion being unavailable to Mary, not an option for her legally or practically. Mary had every opportunity to do wrong, but chose to do right.

    For Joseph, the opposite was actually true. For him, the right thing to do according to the Torah would have been to take Mary to the priests and other religious and legal authorities to be stoned to death. Even though many who have studied Jewish history during the period state that stonings for adultery and other violations of the Sinai code had become exceedingly rare during that time, by taking Mary to the priests, Joseph would have fulfilled his own responsibility under the law. And further, it can be argued that Joseph’s plans to divorce Mary secretly without exposing her to public shame – or threat of death – qualified as his understanding Jesus Christ’s teachings of the weightier matters of the law, which are judgment, mercy, and faith.

    But instead, Joseph and Mary did the right thing, which was to trust and obey God. Mary did not need a “Judeo – Christian set of laws” or a  “values based society” in order to keep her from sinning by abortion or anything else. She merely needed to be righteous, to love God by keeping His commandments. And Joseph would have actually been conforming to his Jewish legal and cultural context, righteous according to the externals of the law, by turning Mary over the authorities. The fact that he was pondering how to exceed the external righteousness of his religious and cultural systems in the first place, that he was trying to do more than what was required of him to be counted as righteous and just in the eyes of man, was evidence of his love for God, and the fact that he heeded the dream and made Mary and the child his responsibility was evidence of his faith. 

    Mary and Joseph did not obtain their righteousness and faith from being born into a nation that loved and honored Yahweh and had a system of laws that reflected His nature. This would not have been possible, as the nation and culture that was the Roman Empire was as bad as our own of today, if not worse. Instead, they obtained their righteousness and faith from God. Consider the plight of Elijah, who was running from Jezebel and Ahab, the latter two of whom had led Israel into pagan idolatrous apostasy and killed the prophets. God’s statement to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:18: Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

    In the midst of the wickedness of the nation and culture, God preserved for Himself a people for His Name. These people were not righteous because of the world, because they were called out of the world, just as Israel was chosen from among the nations. They were called by God, predestined and elected to righteousness by God, and placed in that particular place and time by God for the purposes of serving Him and bringing glory to His Name.

    The same is true of this Mary and Joseph. No matter what sort of culture or nation that they were born in, they would have still fulfilled their duties that came with bringing Jesus Christ into the world. Regardless of whether their external environment was good or evil according to its laws, culture and religion, Mary and Joseph were inevitably going to do the right thing because they were righteous. The reason is that their righteousness was not due to governments and cultures – which are the works of men – because if they were, then men should be able to boast about contributing to their own justification. Instead, their righteousness was due to God’s making them so, and predestining that they would be so. And where man’s nations and systems will inevitably fail, God’s divine sovereign decrees cannot and will not fail. This is with respect to man’s salvation and everything else. That is the meaning of the doctrines of grace.

    Make no mistake. Abortion is a great abomination, a great evil, that should be outlawed in any society that considers itself civilized. The same is true of homosexual marriage. However, it was not the absence of legal abortion that prevented Mary from aborting Jesus Christ. (And as stated earlier, Joseph actually opposed the religious and cultural views of the day to obey his dream from God to make Mary his wife and to adopt Jesus Christ as his son.) Instead, it was the fact that Mary – and Joseph – was righteous. Mary and Joseph were not righteous because they were born in a Christian nation. They were not righteous because they were born to a church going family. They were not righteous because they were baptized as infants. They were not righteous because they raised their hands or came forward in response to an altar call (not that I in any way oppose invitations; I support them 100%!), said a prayer, or had their names added to a church roll. Instead, they were righteous because God made them so by virtue of His divine predestination and election. They were righteous because God called them out of this world to be part of His ekklesia. And their righteousness was not demonstrated or proven by their nationality, religious or political affiliation, cultural norms, or even their stated beliefs, but by their behavior, which was unyielding obedience to God and His Word in the face of all obstacles and in spite of all opposition. 

    So, despite the evil that goes on in the world (or perhaps because of it) our goal is not to transform the world, to change the culture. In “The Visitation”, the Frank Peretti novel, the protagonist informed a young naive pastor that the job of the church was not to “take the town for Christ” because not even Christ Himself “took a town for Christ!” No, not only did Jerusalem reject Jesus Christ, but the place where Jesus Christ had the least honor, the fewest followers and believers, was His own country, and even His own brothers born in His house did not believe in Him! Instead, our job is to evangelize. To spread the gospel. To preach, teach, minister, disciple, and to baptize. Our job is to be the vessels for the sovereign God to use to call others out of this wicked world just as He called us out of it. And anything that distracts or hinders or redirects us from that task is just that: a barrier erected that opposes the will and righteousness of God. It must, by definition then, be considered sinful, evil, a work of Satan, the adversary, and not of God. 

    Christians are not called to transform the world into Christ’s image. Christians are called to reject the world so that we might be fully effective in being used by Jesus Christ to go after His lost sheep. The sad fact that this world is sinful, that people are born in sin, and that people are going to sin. However, the joyful fact that opposes this is that if we would just obey God, He will use us to bring people out of sin and into salvation so that He will transform them, transform His people, transform His church, into righteousness. The issue is not to transform a sinful world, but rather to go after the people that God will conform into the image of His Son. If you profess yourself to be a Christian, please, go about the business of that issue today and every day. Maranantha!

    Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, Christianity, Jesus Christ, politics, pro choice, pro life, religious right, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach | Tagged: , , , , , , | 37 Comments »

    Albert Mohler’s Assessment Of The Economic Situation: An Example Of What Evangelicalism Does To The Reformed Mind

    Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

    Please consider Albert Mohler’s A Christian View of the Economic Crisis. Now I generally agree with Mohler on matters related to religion and culture, but I am increasingly disagreeing with him in other areas. First I was disappointed by his embrace of Sarah Palin – the most depressing part of which is how even serious intelligent Christians like Mohler choose to be willfully ignorant of such matters as the influence of freemasonry on our political system – and now I must diverge with his view on the economy. 

    Mohler most prominently repeats the usual western evangelical theological approach on the merits of being an eager and fully engaged participant in capitalism with the only restraint being biblical admonitions of greed. While his views are not Biblically wrong, it is with issues like this – and again with Palin – that I am reminded that in many cases with Reformed evangelicals, the key term is not Reformed but evangelical. Now while the meaning of “evangelical” has evolved over time, but its basic meaning in the current context is a Christian who professes to adhere to both orthodox theology (or Bible based doctrine) and a modernist worldview simultaneously. (More conservative evangelicals detest postmodernism, but more modern and liberal evangelicals find postmodern constructs quite useful, and Rick Warren is an excellent example of a postmodern evangelical.)

    With evangelicals, it is not so much that when the inevitable conflicts between modernism (the creation of Enlightenment philosophers, many of whom were atheists, deists, unitarians, and theological liberals) and orthodoxy arises, many evangelicals consciously choose modernism. (I am not going to list any examples of how because if I did it would be “hot button issues” like feminism, abortion, homosexuality, divorce which, by the usually shallow nature of the debate – which often concerns the issue itself or at times even the legal, political, and rhetorical maneuverings of the debate rather than the theological or spiritual truths at stake -conceals the true nature of the issue. ) Instead, the bigger problem is how often evangelical Christianity seems to choose modernism over Biblical doctrine with no considerations whatsoever. Often this does not even need to happen on some “subconscious” level because modernist tools (i.e. systems of logic and analysis), presuppositions, and worldviews are purposefully integrated within evangelical theology just as economic, political, and cultural Marxism is often (but not always!) integrated within liberal theology. 

    This is not to say that there is no difference between a John Stott and a John Shelby Spong. The former presupposes the Bible to be true and authoritative based on it being the inspired Word of God and the latter does not. Instead, it means that those such as Stott will in many cases inevitably interpret and apply Biblical truth and authority in a modernist manner. Contradicting my earlier promise not to pick an example, perhaps the best illustration of this is the nearly wholesale internalization of mind sciences (psychology and psychiatry) within Christian thought, creating this bizarre situation where the holy Word of God is scripture and primary, but the long discredited ideas of atheists and perverts like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey comprise a secondary and authoritative tradition that is actually used to interpret the Bible in a similar manner that Jews use the Talmud and Roman Catholics use their tradition. In fairness to evangelicals, to whom I am not opposed, this is not nearly a new phenomenon as the pre – modern church used Greek philosophy in a similar fashion (although I should point out that figures ranging from Tertullian to reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin despised philosophy). Still, have you noticed how common it has become in the more recent evangelical devotionals and even commentaries to use psychoanalysis (in addition to social and behavioral sciences) to try to determine why certain Bible characters made the choices that they did? Small wonder that so many sermons now seem like a social science lecture or a self – help seminar. 

    So going back to how the key term is often not “Reformed” but “evangelical”, where I once felt that Reformed theology was a bulwark against modernism, it is apparent that in many instances being Reformed makes an evangelical a more confident and steadfast modernist! There perhaps is no better example of this than how the very Reformed Francis Schaeffer was one of the most prominent founding and guiding figures of the religious right with all that entails, including being a prominent supporter and enabler of the anti – Christ wickedness of Ronald Reagan. 

    So reading Mohler’s political statements on Palin and the economy (as well as going after Obama on bioethics while praising McCain for allegedly “moving in the right direction on this issue” and defending Sarah Palin’s pastor), it is another reminder of why I so often tend to align myself with legalistic Arminian premillennial dispensational fundamentalists! Mohler makes these statements:

    Comparisons to the Great Depression are inevitable, but today’s crisis bears little resemblance to the total economic collapse of the late 1920s. Capitalism is not in crisis and the fundamentals of the American economy remain strong.  When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the nation faced a genuine crisis and economic collapse. For the most part, the banks were closed and the nation was out of business. The fundamentals of the economy remain intact. These include American innovation, a dedicated labor force, strong consumer demand, vast natural resources, and unlimited intellectual capital. More than anything else, this crisis has to do with what happens when the markets come to term with excessive valuations. Put bluntly, wildly inflated valuations led to risky financial adventures and worse. The sub-prime mortgage collapse came as more realistic real estate valuations forced market corrections. The vast global financial system has accepted the inflated valuations as real and traded in the risky mortgages as if the game would go on forever. This was a fool’s errand.

    This is typical neoconservative economics, virtually indistinguishable from what you would read on the pages of the Roman Catholic – Jewish dominated National Review and Weekly Standard, or hear Phil Gramm say. First, it is probably the effects of my premillennial rapturist doctrines (now renounced) that causes me to think that the vast global financial system is the problem to begin with! Read about the mystery Babylon global economic system in Revelation 17 and 18. Know that we are not only full participants but LEADERS in this system. Please recall that George W. Bush, especially in his first term, sought mightily to bribe and coerce reluctant third world governments into participating in this system using the carrot (debt relief, favorable trade terms, and foreign aid) and the stick (threats of economic and political isolation that make such nations ripe for internal strife and the aggressive designs of foreign enemies, especially Islam). And what does the Bible say about this global financial system? A) It is evil and B) it will fall. So why on earth does Mohler say “Capitalism is not in crisis and the fundamentals of the American economy remain strong”? Well that is what you get when you use neoconservatism to do your theology.

    Even if you remove the overt Bible overtones, this is why what Mohler states is so problematic. At the time of the Great Depression, America had more tangible capital and wealth producing capacity. There was a gold standard for one thing (fatally wounded by Franklin Roosevelt before being finally killed by Richard Nixon), and our economy was based largely on what our farms, mines, and factories produced. Look at us now. Instead of an objective gold standard, our wealth valuation is subject to the decisions of a cadre of international bankers and NGOs along with the governments that they prop up. Instead of agricultural and industrial output, we have an “information and services” economy … if there is anything worse than the size and persistence of our trade deficits is the fact that neither neoliberal or neoconservative economists and politicians care about it. Our economy does not even produce its own vital raw materials but instead relies on other nations for it, especially in the case of energy. And worst of all, a nation whose economic wealth was largely based on populations that adhered to John Calvin’s doctrines of hard work, savings, and frugal modest living (please note that Calvin never intended to be an economist but was only giving practical advise to Christians based on the Bible that addressed their local situations … in other words not economic theory or philosophy but rather biblical theology) is now one that celebrates idleness and excess and thinks nothing of running up large debts while walking away from our responsibilities to creditors. If you think that our government’s debt to the domestic and international holders of its bonds is huge – and it is – please consider the aggregate amounts of the debts of private individuals AND the debts of our businesses.

    That is one of the reasons why banks are so unwilling to lend money. It is not merely because of a shortage of cash (which Mohler does not acknowledge exists). It is because banks are dealing with 1) a society where people simply refuse to pay back their loans if it inconveniences them and 2) rising inflation and declining values of real estate and goods which makes any collateral that a bank would use to insure the loan worthless. In the past, it was worthwhile to use collateral because of the presumption that the value of the collateral at least keep up with the rate of inflation during the life of the loan. Now, even if a lender is able to actually deprive a borrower of his collateral (which is becoming increasingly difficult to do) there is a great chance that the bank will still lose a lot of money on the loan. 

    I will grant you, Albert Mohler is not an economist. So what … neither am I! As a matter of fact, Mohler’s education and experience in this area almost certainly far exceeds my own. So why on earth is Mohler claiming that we have “vast natural resources” knowing full well that those are hamstrung by the global warming Gaia worshiping environmentalists that John McCain supports, and “unlimited intellectual capital” when America has been having to use foreigners to fill the high tech jobs for decades because our educational system is not producing nearly enough qualified people, and now companies are outsourcing even low level management work (i.e. things done by near entry level employees with bachelor’s degrees in accounting, marketing and finance) overseas?

    This is not to pick on Mohler, whom I greatly respect and am only using him as an example. But please understand that seeing him recite the neoconservative economic discourse on his religious blog reminds me of the many sermons that I am familiar with where the sinful actions of some Bible character is attributed to problems with self – esteem. Even were this true, the Bible refers to “self – esteem problems” as  weaknesses of the flesh that are the result of a man’s fallen nature. It is a lot easier to tell a teenager prone to shoplifting “you have self – esteem problems resulting from your father’s abandoning your family and your mother’s having to work two jobs to support the family, depriving you of the critical bonding time with her that you needed to form a healthy emotional self image” than it is to say “you steal because you are a sinner, and if you repent of your sins and believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ, not only will you cease shoplifting but God will heal your broken heart.” 

    Now quite honestly, I am certain that Mohler would take the latter approach rather than the former one in preaching, teaching, and counseling. He rejects modernist evangelicalism in that area. The problem is that with he embraces them in his economic views by refusing to acknowledge that we have a mystery Babylon globalist economic system, that the system will fall, and that Republicans are as much a part of it as Democrats are.

    Would a biblical theology movement address this? It is hard to know for sure. It is true that one biblical theology movement gave us the Protestant Reformation. It is also true that a second major biblical theology movement gave us “neo – orthodoxy”, which even Billy Graham rejected. Current Biblical theology efforts diverge. John MacArthur and several evangelical Reformed fellow travelers promote exegetical/expositional theology to combat the most negative effects of evangelicalism. Meanwhile, some free will Christians – both evangelical and fundamentalist – are investigating “biblicism” to produce a better foundation for rejecting double predestination than the one offered by Arminianism. We must pray that it is the Will of God that these and other movements result in a larger number of Christians more willing and able to reject worldly ideas in order to interpret, promote, apply, and live Biblical truths, especially when confronted with difficult circumstances, bad facts, and intense opposition.

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

    John McCain: Evolutionist! Sarah Palin: WILL NOT SAY! Hear That Evangelicals?

    Posted by Job on September 5, 2008

    Do evangelicals actually care that the position of McCain on evolution (and many other issues for that matter including gay marriage) is not substantially different from that of Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Of course not, because for them it is all about winning so they can hold onto some power and the idea that someone who respects, identifies with, and represents their culture and traditions gets in the White House. And that would be TOTALLY FINE if we were talking about secular leaders backing and promoting politicians in the secular arena. But no, in this instance we are talking about pastors and leaders of allegedly Christian organizations claiming that their madness somehow represents or advances the will of God. 

    McCain And Palin on Evolution

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

    Sarah Palin’s Corporate Welfare Proposal For Gigantic Natural Gas Pipeline

    Posted by Job on August 29, 2008

    As one who recognizes that we would never have nuclear power or much of anything else in our modern lifestyle were it not for government (or government funded) research, I have little principled opposition to this. Instead, I just find it odd how global economic interests keep popping up with people running for the White House. In this case, soon to be vice president Sarah Palin tried to give $500 million to a CANADIAN company to build a natural gas pipeline through her state. Another story on this called the pipeline project the biggest public works project in the history of this country! 

    This is a pretty good indication that Palin is cut from the same cloth as Bush, Bush II, Clinton, and Reagan in being willing to transfer our tax dollars and natural resources and control thereof into the hands of the global economic and political conglomerates. As a matter of fact, this article compares her with Hugo Chavez

    Now connect the dots here. There is this big push to get us off oil though we have enough proven oil reserves to last for at least the next 70 years. What are they trying to get us to transfer to? Natural gas in our cars. So here pops up this T. Boone Pickens fellow to run ads from now to November “from his own money” to promote windmills to create electricity instead of natural gas so that we can instead start putting the natural gas in cars. Why? To reduce our dependency on foreign oil. When we have PLENTY of our own oil!?!? And so the future vice president cut this deal to provide this huge conduit for natural gas through her state that will be of great strategic importance. But instead of paying $650 million to help an AMERICAN company do it, she pays $500 million to help a CANADIAN company do it? Will the CANADIANS have a stake, a controlling interest, in this pipeline as well? If so, this sounds very “North American Union” ish to you, doesn’t it? (See this story by a CANADIAN paper titled North American union warrants discussion) I suppose that the social conservatives and evangelical Christians that so in love with McCain over his Rick Warren performance and picking a woman with five kids are ready to start spending their ameros? 

    Well you evangelicals, you might want to reconsider. The economic and political union of Canada would mean our assimilating certain points of Canadian law. Well, right now, Christians are being sued and thrown in jail in Canada for stating that homosexuality is a sin and Islam is false. Evangelicals, do not think that Palin will have your side, because she supports gay rights. This article states: Although she’s a social conservative who opposes abortion and gay marriage, Palin signed into law a state bill giving benefits to same-sex couples. Since social conservatives supported the 100% pro homosexual George W. Bush administration, that should be changed from “although she is a social conservative” to BECAUSE she’s a social conservative. Seriously, homosexuals have advanced further in the GOP than blacks have. 

    So, evangelical Christians fattening frogs for the anti – Christ snake by rushing to support this Palin woman (I heard the folks on Christian talk radio embracing her already … one fellow called in to say that Obama is not a true Christian, while that is factually accurate the context should be AS IF THE BACKSTABBING LYING CHEAT MCCAIN IS!?!?), do not think that she will advocate you when in order to conform to the global consensus it becomes illegal to repeat what the Bible says about homosexuality or about law and order (the illegal immigrant invasion from Mexico) or about economic justice. Nope, she and her boss McCain will turn the lot of you in and sell you out just as quickly as Obama will.

    Christians, I recall a former Republican state representative hosting a Christian radio political show; the fellow was betrayed and turned out of office by his party mates for standing up to and exposing the wickedness of his party (including their clear collusion with the other side). The fellow stated that he believes that the new world order globalists really don’t care which party wins the White House … so long as they get to pick the nominees. The people who control the media and the purse strings made sure that the nominees would be limited to people like Clinton, Romney, McCain, and Obama. After that field was set, they just sat back and watched the show as if it were a professional wrestling match or football game. I suppose that it was compelling and entertaining in an odd sort of way, to see the pathetic spectacle of people falling over themselves, selling their bodies and souls for a title and a little bit of power. But since Judas Iscariot sold God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, for a few pieces of silver why should be surprised at what man will do in his totally depraved state? 

    But what is surprising and sad is how so many people with the title “Bible – believing born again Christians” are like Saul when they are consenting to this madness. I go back to the scene of Stephen’s stoning in Acts. The narrative never stated that Saul himself threw a stone. It merely said that Saul was consenting to the death of Stephen. So, while these evangelical Christians are not going to be committing the evil acts of McCain, Biden, Palin, or Obama, they will be consenting to it with their votes and other measures of support. That is why we must intercede, people. We must intercede with our prayers. We must intercede with our works. We must intercede with our words. We must intercede with our love. We must stop our born again Christian brothers and sisters from furthering the anti – Christ agenda with their actions and hearts. 

    Christianity was indeed born in the Roman Empire. Paul, the very same one that consented to the death of the first Christian martyr, acting as Christianity’s first systematic theologian did tell us to submit to proper authorities in Romans 13. But Christians in the early church refrained from burning incense to Caesar even under the pain of torture and death! Let us pray that people such as the ones below open their eyes to the wickedness that is going on and stop rooting for it. I am of the opinion that choosing sides between Obama and McCain and supporting one or the other is the same as deciding which director, movie, or actor to support in the awards ceremony that they have for the pornographic movie industry and then going out and buying whatever movie wins. How ironic that the very Christians that would never go near the “best adult movie” award winner are going to gladly willingly go pull the the lever for people whose hearts (with their words and works as evidence thereof) are just as wicked in November. And yes, this applies to you Christians planning on supporting idolator in chief anti – Christ superstar wannabe Barack HUSSEIN Obama as well. 

    Wow! Palin is great! I just became a McCain supporter!

    Update: turns out that the fight between Georgia and Russia where we so quickly intervened because of our commitment to human rights, freedom, and humanitarianism (yeah right) was actually over control of a huge NATURAL GAS pipeline. So Russia (and Georgia) knows what is up even if our own citizens, including Christians that are supposed to be discerning of the times, are clueless.

    Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

    George Bush Lifts Offshore Drilling Ban While Preserving Funding For Planned Parenthood Genocide!

    Posted by Job on July 15, 2008

    www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382541,00.html

    So, Bush uses his executive power to aid big oil, eh? He could have used that same executive power at any time to stop federally funding Planned Parenthood. Yet he has never done so, and what is more there has never been any real pressure on him to do so from the allegedly pro – life religious right. That George W. Bush fights on behalf of the oil industry while ignoring the screams of pain – and yes, it is a proven medical fact that babies experience pain while they are being murdered – by the unborn shows where his heart is, and it also shows where the heart of the people that continue to support this fellow despite all of the evidence of all of his opposition to Christianity! And by the way … John McCain is no better – and is almost certainly worse – and do not even talk to me about Barack Hussein Obama. None of them will defund Planned Parenthood of tax revenue, while all of them will continue to press the agenda of big business, militarism, new world order globalism, and all manners of sin and perversion.

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

    John McCain’s First Wife: Insight For EVANGELICALS On Why He Left Her

    Posted by Job on June 9, 2008

    First off, the Daily Telegraph, a liberal British paper, made the headline, not me. But since the religious right media isn’t going to tell you about this, we have to get our news from somewhere. By the way: this is merely the first of a bunch of stories about McCain’s personal background that is going to come out. And you can bet that none of the Christian news services or outlets that are wedded to and bought and owned by the Republican Party, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center For National Policy, and similar groups are going to be the ones to tell their evangelical charges about it, just as you have never heard from any of those people about the things that George W. Bush really does.

    The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

    Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain. 

    While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

    McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

    But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

    And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

    She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

    But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

    When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

    Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self. Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

    For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

    Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’ she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce. ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.’ 

    Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

    McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

    He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.

    But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’. His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.

    Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain. It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.

    ‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.

    The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.

    He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin. What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake. Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

    It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house. It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen. After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’

    H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care. When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again. But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

    He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water. ‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles. 

    Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing. But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg. 

    McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis. He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

    In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage. Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide. ‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

    Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’ Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

    Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed. McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

    A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’ Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate. 

    And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife. Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

    ‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. ‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

    ‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

    One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’ 

    Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her. Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

    But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics. ‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said. ‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’

    Keep in mind: these same liberals held these details from the American people during the eight years that they were building him up as the foil for George W. Bush. Now that the globalist elite wants Obama to follow in the footsteps of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, they are letting the cat out of the bag. It will be curious to see what the “conservatives” that spent eight years oh so offended at the behavior of one William Jefferson Clinton despite knowing full well that Washington D.C. is nothing but one big bathhouse and cesspool are going to say now.

    Posted in Christianity, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

     
    %d bloggers like this: