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 ‘gay rights’

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

Posted by Job on April 6, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cause Of Homosexuality In Animals Discovered: Corporate Pollution!

Posted by Job on February 19, 2009

For years, homosexual rights advocates have used the occurrence of homosexuality in animals as part of the “God made us this way so we have to reject what the Bible says” argument. Well, see the article below, which contains, among other things, this blurb: “In California researchers found what came to be known in the press as “gay gulls”: same-sex seagull couples shacking up together in the nest, protecting eggs with abnormally thin shells that often harbored dead chicks. DDT was the suspected culprit.” Still more proof that the Bible is right: homosexuality is an unnatural abomination that was never part of God’s plan.

However, if this article is correct, because of pollution, homosexuality is only one of the many unnatural things caused by pollution. It is still more evidence that we are living in the last days, and that we need Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior.

Is One Very Tough Rat a Very Big Risk to Human Health?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 21 Comments »

What Is The Gospel Of Jesus Christ Supposed To Transform?

Posted by Job on December 23, 2008

Well, the news breaks from Apprising Ministries that James Dobson and Focus on the Family is promoting  Mormonism. (And that they also denounce people who oppose Roman Catholicism.) Really, this is no surprise. Allow me to explain why by asking a question: what is the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is it to transform lives by saving souls? Or is it to transform nations and cultures by spreading values and norms? Many would say that either/or is a false choice when the answer is both. What those people ignore is that so often those two goals find themselves in conflict, and when they do it is much easier and more expedient to “focus on” transforming the nation and the culture than it is getting people saved. Tending to the nation and culture is far less difficult and produces quicker, more broad based results than crawling on your belly and face over the sharp rocks on craggy cliffsides and through the thick briars and brambles trying to find that one lost sheep, and then discipling that sheep so that he doesn’t run off again. It would imagine that it pays a lot better too, even if Focus on the Family has had to resort to layoffs lately. It is easier to focus on the family than to focus on Jesus Christ and Him crucified, so any offense that results from fighting false cultural battles will be far less.

So, when the time comes that the path to salvation is not through the false gospel of Mormonism or through a Roman Catholic Church that is now teaching religious pluralism, Dobson must stand down and count such people as his allies. Why? Because Mormons and Roman Catholics have good values, and are too useful allies in the culture wars over gay marriage and abortion to turn your backs on. So instead of telling Glen Beck that he needs to repent or spend eternity in the lake of fire, Focus on the Family promotes his allegedly Christian testimony

So in times like these, the truth be told: it is not the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ to transform the world, which includes cultures and nations. Instead, the purpose of the gospel is to save God’s elect from the world. Evidence of this is found in the very book of Revelation that amillennialists and dominionists love to reject with a “spiritual interpretation.” Even upon His return, Jesus Christ does not transform the world. Instead, He smites it and rules it with a rod of iron. See Revelation 19:15. Why does He do this? Because the world does not submit to His rule. The world is still trying to rebel, still trying to reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Sovereignty of God. That is why when Satan is released, he has no problem finding allies for his final and futile effort as recorded in Revelation 20:7-9

Even after the final rebellion of Satan is crushed and this accuser is cast into the lake of fire, Jesus Christ does not set about transforming the nations and cultures. Instead, Jesus Christ judges them, they are destroyed with fire, and there is a new heaven and a new earth. Revelation 21:1 – “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” Now the Roman Catholics have the statement which goes to the effect “world without end amen amen.” But that is not what the Bible says. The Bible clearly states in Revelation and in the other eschatological passages that this world is coming to an end. So why bother trying to transform it? Why polish the brassware of a sinking ship? That would only divert the energies from getting as many people as you can off the ship and into lifeboats. The gospel is the lifeboat. It cannot be meant as both a lifeboat and some attempt to plug the leak in the boat. Why? Because those are two aims at cross purposes. If the gospel was meant to transform the world, there would be no need to save men from it. Also, make no mistake: it was God who put the hole in the boat to begin with. Indeed, it is God Himself that will judge the world for its wickedness. 

Also, if the role of the gospel is to transform the world, then the Bible itself would declare the gospel to be a failure. Why? Because the Bible makes it clear: the world is never transformed. It is never subdued. It remains wicked and rebellious to the very end. So if the gospel fails at the goal of transforming the world and the culture, of say, making the government respect the Ten Commandments and making the culture respect traditional family values, then why should the gospel succeed in saving any Christian from the eternity in the lake of fire? 

This is not some bold new theological innovation here. Instead, it can be found in a simple Frank Peretti novel “The Visitation.” In it, the protagonist, a burned out pastor, is confronted with his new, eager, inexperienced replacement, and the latter states “we are taking this town for Christ.” To which, the protagonist replied “how are you going to take any town for Christ when not even Christ took a town for Christ. Have you ever asked this town if it wants to be taken for Christ?” Taking towns for Christ was never Christ’s job. Thus, transforming the world and culture was never the job of the gospel or of the church. The very Bible itself declares that the world and culture will not be transformed, so if that was ever the goal of the gospel, then the Bible which declares the gospel would declare that gospel to be a failure, making the Word of God a failure, and Jesus Christ’s going to the cross to be in vain. 

The idea that it we should be trying to use the gospel to give life to things that are doomed to die instead of using the gospel so that people could be born again is a great deception. It transforms the unchangeable truth of God into a lie, and takes the all powerful all knowing God and uses His own revelation to declare Him to be weak, a failure, as if Revelation depicts God as destroying the world only after being frustrated by His many attempts to save it; that not even sacrificing His own Son on a cross and sending that Son to Personally rule the world was enough. And what could be more Satanic, more anti – Christ, than that? 

So we are left with the truth that the purpose of the gospel was to transform lives, to save souls, and to spare them the judgment that awaits the nations and their cultures. And we should reject anyone who comes promoting a different aim using a different gospel that represents a different Jesus.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments »

On What Authority Rests Your Faith? And Whose Business Is It?

Posted by Job on December 23, 2008

This is another attempt to get a handle on the controversy surrounding Rick Warren’s speaking at Barack Obama’s inauguration. First, let me get something out of the way. As to my opinion of Rick Warren’s speaking at Obama’s inauguration, let me say that truthfully I have no opinion. Why should I? Rick Warren is a self – admitted member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and openly advocates the idea that the work that he does for this body makes him a better pastor, a better Christian, and the world a better place. Barack Obama? His wife is a former leader of the Chicago chapter of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members and/or people knowingly and willingly working to advance their agenda include such people representing the right as Newt Gingrich and George H. W. Bush, such people representing the right as Clinton and the aforementioned Michelle Obama, celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie, and pastors such as Rick Warren and T. D. Jakes. 

Also, consider that one of Barack Obama’s early advocates: Rupert Murdoch, whose entire career as a pro – business race – baiting conservative would seem to have made him an Obama opponent. Well, Murdoch, actually 100% literally the world’s biggest pornographer in that no one, not Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt or the mafia, more widely distributes or makes more money off pornography than does Murdoch, has lucrative and mutually beneficial business ties with Rick Warren. So now, right on the heels of the release of Rick Warren’s new book, already a bestseller, which Warren calls “the most clear definition of Christianity – of what it means to follow Jesus, what it means to be saved – of anything I’ve ever written“, comes the announcement that Obama is making Warren his inauguration speaker. So I ask of you … what is there to think of this other than to say that for Warren and Obama this is just business as usual?

Now this could have been an opportunity for a great many Christians to take a longer, deeper look at Rick Warren, his theology, and his associations. In other words, apply the same to Rick Warren as so many conservative Christians did to Barack Obama’s liberal and black liberation theology, and with Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Michael Pfleger, ACORN etc. Really, the Council on Foreign Relations and Rupert Murdoch are just part of a much larger picture with Warren, which tends to indicate that he – and Obama – are merely players in a much larger game. So, then, who are the game masters and ultimately the puppet masters? And who is ultimately the head behind the puppet masters? These are questions that Obama’s tapping Rick Warren – and Rick Warren’s accepting – should raise.

But instead, we had this convenient explosion of protests from angry homosexuals and their advocates. The result has been a great many conservative Christians to take the position that if the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, ACT UP, People for the American Way, and other such groups are attacking Rick Warren, then he can’t be all bad. “The enemy of the enemy is my friend”, right? Well, I should remind you that this slogan originated in the Middle East, and radical Islam opposes homosexuality (and abortion and rock music and pornography and separation between church and state) too.  

So, we have Obama able to use Rick Warren to advance his agenda, and Warren to use Obama to advance his. And, of course, whoever is using both Obama and Warren to advance their own agenda is getting what they want too. The reason for this is that similar to Billy Graham before him, a complete and total lack of prominent people, people of position, esteem, influence, and reputation, willing to criticize Rick Warren. Whether they are conservative, evangelical, traditionalist, or fundamentalist, you cannot find a single Christian leader willing to incontrovertibly and without qualification oppose the fellow. Oh they will criticize him from time to time when they are forced to confront something disturbing that Warren does or says. But they will not ever deal with the fact that Warren as a matter of routine procedure does and says disturbing things.

They also will not apply what scripture says about Christians, especially pastors, who routinely say and do things that are unscriptural, Christians who glorify and revel in their things unscriptural, and take pleasure in others who do unscriptural things just as they do. Scripture calls those people in need of severe rebuke at the very best, and on balance false Christians and heretics and those allied with them synagogues of Satan.

Now I admit, I had a glimmer of hope that Republican – leaning Christians would start to closely examine any pastor who aligns himself with a president that has stated that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. But the very convenient Proposition 8 homosexual marriage controversy rendered that moot. And as I mentioned earlier, the lack of well known Christian pastors and theologians willing to publicly and directly take on the Rick Warren problem is exactly what allows a sort of “jury nullification” to be applied to Warren and his theology. Which, of course, leaves us right back where we started. Which is that I have no opinion on Warren giving the inauguration blessing other than “business as usual.” 

My main problem with Rick Warren’s theology? It is simple. Who is Jesus Christ? Our Lord and Savior. Not only is Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Lord comes first. Jesus Christ was our Lord before He ever was our Savior. And even if Jesus Christ had never been our Savior, indeed had God decided never to redeem mankind (or perhaps had mankind never needed redeeming) He would still be our Lord. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, indeed the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ, is spiritually and logically prior. The authority of Jesus Christ comes not from being Savior. It comes from His being Lord. It is because Jesus Christ is Lord that we can call upon His Name and be saved.

The problem with Warren and those like him is that they offer a Jesus Christ that is Savior without truly being Lord. They offer an incomplete picture of Jesus Christ which results in being a false Christ. Jesus Christ is only the helper, provider, and friend, sort of like a best buddy. Jesus Christ the Ruler, Leader, and Judge is left out. (So if Jesus Christ is only the lamb, who is the lion? America’s economic and military machine perhaps?) It is so easy to look at Revelation and see how chapters 4 – 20 apply to the overt non – Christians, the world that is, who rejects Jesus Christ as Savior and say “none of that is going to happen to me” if you are a Christian. But in doing so, are you forgetting that Revelation chapters 1 – 3 applies to the church? Those three chapters lead Revelation because judgment starts in the church. It does not start in the world. And that fits the gospels and the epistles that precede Revelation, and also the Old Testament before the New Testament. Those things were not given as warnings to the world. The Old Testament was given to God’s people Israel. The gospels and the epistles were given to God’s people the church. The warnings, judgments, etc. in the Old Testament, gospels, and epistles were to the Old and New Testament saints, not to the heathen.

So the only purpose of Revelation 4-20 is to show what will happen to the heathen. The rest of the Bible is for believers – or should I say partial believers – who fail to obey. It is for Ephesians who have left their first love. It is for those in Pergamos who follow Balaam and the Nicolataines. It is for Thyatirans who follow the Jezebel doctrines. It is far those in Sardis who do not repent and strengthen the things which remain before they die. And it is for the lukewarm Laodiceans. These are all people who profess Jesus Christ as Savior but who by word or action reject Him as Lord. As a result, the professed Christians that reject the Lordship of Christ in Revelation 1-3 will receive Revelation 4-20 and miss out on Revelation 21-22. For them, it will be as if they never professed Jesus Christ as Savior at all. And in truth, they never will have, because Jesus Christ is not your Savior if He is not your Lord.

And the result of doctrines, theologies, movements etc. that profess Jesus Christ as Savior without making Him Lord? For such people the Bible is no longer the authority. For these people, the Bible is only AN authority. It is a reference. A source. Something from which to draw footnotes. But it is not THE authority. Such people may reject the notion of the Bible being the singular authority in all things out of hand. Others may profess it while not living it. And there are the many shades in between. But the root is the same: Jesus Christ is their Savior without being their Lord. For those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord have seared in their minds and hearts John 14:15, and diligently study, meditate, and strive to heed the Bible to live up to John 14:15, and when they discover that doing so is impossible, they have no choice but to take refuge in the cross to relieve, cover, and fix up their brokenness in light of their failure. Those are the Romans 7:7-25 people.

Otherwise, where does the authority come from? In trying to categorize the Protestant Christian landscape (and for the most part exempting the largely liberal mainline denominations) there seems to be three basic groups. Fundamentalists are basically known by their rejection of modernism (the intellectual and ideological movement that began with the Englightenment and ended with World War II, or as others say began with the French Revolution and ended with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the age of reason, science, and rationality). For them, the authority appears to be received tradition. That old time religion is good enough for them! What if the old timers were wrong on things like, say, consuming wine in moderation as Jesus Christ incontrovertibly did? Or even ideas that really aren’t that old like dispensational premillennialism, or didn’t even originate with fundamental Christianity such as trying to use religiosity or religious – tinged secular activism to transform an unregenerate society into a society that they perceive to be more like the one which gave them their tradition? Well it is still good enough! 

Evangelicals are known for their embrace of modernism. After all, God is a God of order, God made creation to reflect His orderly nature, which makes the faith by which we come to know and experience God entirely rational. Right? I am not going to attempt to belittle evangelicalism by making flailing attempts to point out where this thinking leads.  (I will, however, say to open practically any major work of evangelical systematic theology written after 1970 and see for yourself!) I have to ask this question, however:  is it an issue of whether a member of a church shows no interest in theological things, or if they have no interest in spiritual things? Or are theological things, especially if this theology is propositional and deductive in nature, and spiritual things one and the same? It would appear that for evangelicalism, then, the ultimate authority is reason and rationality, even if for no reason other than mainstream evangelicalism is hesitant to deal with Biblical matters that do not lend themselves to reasonable or rational discourse. For messy things like that, concepts like “Christian values” step up and fill the void. Failing that, you have “the proper meaning of this Bible text must necessarily be limited to the single meaning that the speaker intended the hearers to understand in that day and time, and the single meaning that the hearers understood the speaker to be communicating in their cultural context.” Or for that matter “those things were only for the apostolic era forthe church’s  foundational purposes and were not meant for Christians coming thereafter.” (Never mind that there is not a single Bible verse that anyone can point to that actually says this!) For what are we supposed to be contending? For the jargon now delivered to the saints, or for the faith once delivered to us?

As for emergents or the emerging church? It is known for its embrace of postmodernity. Among postmodernity’s claims is the idea that definite truth either does not exist or is unknowable. All that exists is perception, and perception is basically the product of one’s cultural background, preconceived notions, and other biases, and as a result one person’s opinion is as good as another. (Of course, no postmodernist actually believes this insofar as they actually go about pretending as if 1+1 may or may not be 2, and they certainly believe their own opinions and values to be true, so in truth postmodernism is actually more of a place of first and permanent resort when challenged.) So what is the authority? Me. What I believe. What I believe to be true, or more accurately what I believe to be right. And even when I am proven wrong, it is no big deal because hey, no one’s perfect anyway. It isn’t as if it makes me a bad person or anything!

Now consider that one of postmodernism’s criticisms of modernity is that it is individualistic. Postmodernity claims to be about building, indeed restoring, the sense of human community. So it is not merely individuals running around with their own individual human opinions. Rather, postmodernism gives groups of people the ability to more or less coalesce around the same truth, meaning, or interpretation. (You believe the same thing that I do? Sweet! Let’s hang out!) Now the truths of various communities will inevitably diverge, but that is not what is important. What is important is the shared consensus of these communities, which is that there exists no single truth that can be imposed upon them, and more importantly no authority with the right to impose it. This authority may have the power, mind you. But they don’t have the right. Any authority that exercises its power to impose a definite truth on any person or group is by nature totalitarian, oppressive, and illegitimate. 

So, then, can the postmodern Christian still be conservative, evangelical, or orthodox? I am going to leave aside the games that postmodernists play with language, their tactic of co – opting vocabulary by giving words different meanings to make people believe that they agree with them (sort of like how when Christians and Mormons refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God both groups mean totally different things!) for a minute.

Instead, to strictly deal with the question, the answer is yes, the postmodern Christian can have almost entire points of agreement on evangelical and fundamentalist Christians on theology and doctrine. However, this is only because the postmodern Christian personally chooses to. The postmodern Christian is totally free to pick and choose based on his own ideas of interpretation, his own ideas of true and untrue, his own ideas of right and wrong, which Bible interpretations to accept and reject, which doctrines are true and false, what things to emphasize or ignore. The rule of faith? Nay, the rule of what I think is right. Which ultimately becomes the rule of what I and my community of like – minded believers think is right. (The community of like minded believers is extremely important, because there is indeed strength in numbers.) And anyone who comes around and says different, anyone who tries to impose their personal notions of truth on me, is a small minded hypocritical judgmental Pharisee. 

So this brings us back to the many evangelicals, fundamentalists, and other theologically conservative Christians who are willing to allow Rick Warren to reside within the sphere of what they consider to be acceptable merely because Warren professes the historic creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, and moreover his social and cultural beliefs are well within the conservative Christian consensus. They are looking at the fact that Rick Warren professes the right beliefs alone while overlooking – willfully I might add – that Warren’s authority for his beliefs are none other than Warren himself. (And yes, that does explain why despite his profession of orthodox beliefs his actions are so disturbing.) They do this because in their evaluating Warren – and more importantly their deciding what to do (or what not to do) about him – their authority is the fundamentalist or evangelical consensus. They are already tolerating things that are abiblical or questionably Biblical within their own spheres. So long as it remains in their sphere, it is fine. So Warren is just something else. Admit it: Warren falls right within the fundamental or evangelical spectrum. And as long as he does, there is no need for anyone whose authority is the fundamental or evangelical consensus instead of or in addition to the Bible to oppose him in any meaningful way.

Here is the irony. Suppose Warren were to come out and say that abortion and homosexuality are the state’s business or the culture’s business that have nothing to do with the church. That the church should mind its own affairs, which is to win converts and disciple new members, and let the state and culture manage theirs. Now such a position would be far closer to the New Testament writings and what the New Testament figures actually seems to have practiced than the many peculiarities of fundamental or evangelical Christianity. Yet, were Warren to start promoting such an idea, that would be when some prominent Christians would have occasion to oppose the fellow. Why? Because the idea that Christians should find some active means of opposing the drift and tide of our government and culture away from the traditions and norms of the past is well within the fundamental or evangelical mainstream, so stating that the Body of Christ should concentrate its energies on Jesus Christ’s sheep, both lost and found, would place Warren out of this mainstream despite the very real possibility that such a position may be Biblical. (At the very least, the position would be worthy of serious reflection, study of scriptures, and doctrinal debate.) So, by remaining nominally anti – abortion and anti – homosexuality (nominal in that he makes public statements to that effect, but don’t expect to see him at a pro – life rally or handing out gospel tracts at a gay pride event very often) Warren basically remains in the evangelical or fundamental good graces no matter what else he does. How can fundamentalists and evangelicals oppose Warren’s deviations when they have or suffer other ones? It is only if your final authority is the Bible that you have the position to consistently oppose deviations, no matter who exhibits them and or what area the deviations exist. This is not to say that you will go around using that position on a constant basis because there is such a thing as Christian charity, humility, and a desire for unity that will cover a multitude of faults. But these things do not apply to people who because of a multitude of consistent errors in their statements and practices cannot truly be called Christians, and this is certainly the case with one Rick Warren.

That is why the little criticism of Warren that exists concerns his embrace of such things as environmentalism and global warming. Pardon me, but can you show me the Bible verses that command Christians to be anti – abortion anti – homosexuality activists and not anti – poverty pro – environmental activists? I have been through the Bible several times and seem to have overlooked them. Maybe the reason is that I mostly adhere to the King James Version, perhaps? Because what I have seen in my readings of the New Testament is Jesus Christ and the epistle writers speaking to the issues among believers. Their dealing with unbelievers was limited to sharing the gospel with them so that they might become believers. For homosexuality, disposing of unwanted children, and other forms of sin and immorality were pervasive throughout the heathen Roman Empire, yet the only thing that the New Testament manages to say about the world outside the church is Romans 13’s commandment to generally respect the government. Not transform the government (or the culture), mind you, just to respect it, as the Bible calls lawlessness and sedition sin.

Again, in this Warren is no different from the last generation’s Billy Graham. Around the time of the Vatican Council II, Billy Graham just up and decided that Roman Catholicism was perfectly fine. After that came a flood of other pronouncements from Graham, culminating in his statement to a major newsmagazine that he was no longer certain that Jesus Christ was the only way to heaven. (Please realize that such has been the position of the Roman Catholic Church since the Vatican Council II; Roman Catholicism is officially pluralist, even if conservative Catholics don’t like talking about it much.) So many fundamentalists and evangelicals declared themselves shocked at Graham’s statements. Why were they? Like Warren today, Graham had long been saying and doing worrisome things. And like Warren today, no one of any prominence was willing to rise up and take Graham on. So, Graham’s attack on the exclusivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ was just swept under the rug, just as everything else Graham said and did in rejection of the fact that the Bible declares Jesus Christ to be Lord. After all, can it be denied that the position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the church is lord on earth, and the pope is the head of the church? 

So really, this is not about Rick Warren or Barack Obama. It is about you. On what authority rests your faith? Is it based on received tradition? Is it based on reason, rationality, and proposition? Is it based on what you believe and decide to be right? Or is it based on the Bible? Now of course, I am fully aware that we worship God and not a book. (After all, the “New Testament church” – meaning the early, apostolic church – didn’t even have the complete New Testament in canonical form, but they most certainly had God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit!) But are not God’s Commandments to us contained within this book? And how can we say that God is Lord of our lives if we make His Commandments subservient to tradition, reason, or the imaginations and high things that exalts themselves against the knowledge of God of our own desperately wicked and deceitful above all things hearts? 

So worship a book? No. Worship and praise God by striving to obey the Bible? Yes. So what, then, are we to make of people who refuse to even try? Who make excuses for this refusal for themselves and for others? Well, to be honest, that is just business as usual, as most of the epistles were indeed letters describing how to view and deal just such people in local congregations, and before those the law, the prophets, and the writings of the Old Testament addressed those very same such people in Israel. 

So then, Christian, what business is yours? Is it the business of your God, your Savior, your Creator, your Lord? Or is it the business of the world, that is, business as usual? The answer to this question is determined by whether the Word of God is your ultimate authority.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Logical Conclusion Of The Civil Rights Movement: Homosexual Activists Attack Mount Hope Church of Lansing Michigan

Posted by Job on November 11, 2008

It has been commonly asserted that the election of Barack Hussein Obama is the fulfillment of the civil rights movement. If that is so, Christians, this is what the future holds. Make no mistake, though the civil rights movement exploited the church and cloaked itself in religious rhetoric, it was not Christian. The movement’s ultimate originator was W.E.B Du Bois, a communist atheist. Those who followed in his path were cut from the same cloth, including Martin Luther King, Jr., who rejected the sound doctrines of his Baptist father to go after a liberal (liberation theology) abomination that denied the divinity, virgin birth, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and turned the message of scripture into a political tract. Make no mistake, despite the attempts to domesticate the image of the civil rights movement by making it look like something high minded and genteel, it was a subversive radical movement whose aims and tactics were rooted in Marxism. The civil rights movement made revolting tactics like these acceptable to mainstream society, and now we have a huge subset of the population who believes that the way to affect “change” is not through using the gospel of Jesus Christ to build people but radicalism that destroys them. Keep in mind: the civil rights movement is not only a rejection of special grace, but also common grace by declaring legitimate institutions to be oppressive and invalid.

What does this have to do with Obama? Well first this fellow in his various speeches has all but declared himself to be the fulfillment and successor to King and his movement. Second, please do not forget about Obama’s radical background. William Ayers, Saul Alinksy, Jeremiah Wright, his Marxist Ivy League intellectual circles: these are Obama’s people. Obama is so good at these tactics that he, a professional, left the amateur agitators, the Clintons and the Republicans, in the dust. I marveled at how Obama’s community organizing background gave him the tactics needed to beat Hillary Clinton before she even knew that she was in trouble, and how his techniques of media and personal manipulation allowed him to basically coast from there.

Now of course, the people at Mount Hope Church would oppose my using the events that happened at their church in this type of rhetoric. The best evidence is that these people were doing as the Bible commands them to and praying for Obama on the very Sunday that they were attacked! And the behavior of the church people was a clear contradiction to and judgment upon their vile protesters. (Right now, I happen to be playing a “Bibleman” episode for my child where the demon villain is called “the wacky protester” and his primary tactics are to sow subversion and rebellion among kids. At first, my response to the character was “what is so wrong with protesting?” because like everyone else public schools and the media had conditioned me to regard protest and radical activity, “civil disobedience”, which is more disobedient than civil” as honorable. Now I see Bibleman’s point.) The evil men and women in this instance brought cameras, and then acted as vile as they could in order to bait the church people into a violent and profane response. Why? So they could plaster it all over the mainstream media, on YouTube, used it to do teach – ins at college campuses, etc.

Now, of course, there are some Biblical justifications for getting up and casting the people causing the confusion out. But these people did not go that route. They remained calm in the face of attempts to bait them with blasphemous behavior, disruption and vandalism and waited for church security and later the police to remove the protesters, denying them their precious footage. In other words, the actions of real church people who were obeying what Jesus Christ taught on the sermon on the mount can be contrasted not so much with the homosexual radicals in this instance, but the so – called civil rights preachers like Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. who trained a generation of people in the black church to sin, to reject being conformed into the image of Jesus Christ and instead conform themselves to the image of Satan and how he has worked through radicals, subversives, and anarchists from the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden thanks to Adam. Satan was a murderer from the beginning, as what Cain demonstrated when he slew righteous Abel, and his tactics were on display in the civil rights and other radical movements in the 1960s, which were then normalized and sanitized by the educational system and media (with the clergy largely compliant, now most evangelical Christians speak lovingly of King and his “accomplishments”), is evidenced by attacks like this. And what was amazing is not only how the mainstream media has not covered this incident (although had these people achieved their desired melee it would have just as much as every spurious “racial controversy” around Obama has been), but how the police did not arrest the protesters, not even for vandalism or disturbing the peace. Will more attacks like this happen, especially in light of the fury of the homosexuals over Proposition 8 passing in California?

By the way, Obama is not the first “radical son” in the White House. That was Bill Clinton. It was disgusting how so many “conservatives”, including evangelical Christians, were trying to paint Bill and Hillary Clinton as middle class moderates with no ties to subversive or radical politics and tactics as part of a desperate attempt to get suburban and rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida Democrats to vote for John McCain. It was a lie and they knew it, but that is what happens when you pick sides and decide that an “ends justifies the means” approach to get “your team” in. But again, the fellow who dodged the draft, ran off to Oxford, and took part in antiwar rallies and whatever else was and is an amateur, just as is his wife with her genteel suburban high income feminist activism. (Hillary Clinton for her part had the obligatory ties to the Black Panthers and other radical groups that her chosen profession required but was never one of them.) Obama is a professional. Remember that for the next four years. Or perhaps the next eight. Just as George W. Bush was far worse than George H. W. Bush who for his part who managed to outdo Reagan who similarly surpassed Nixon, Bill Clinton was more damaging than Jimmy Carter, and Obama will outdo Bill Clinton. But in the course of these events remember one thing: they all serve the same master, and we can tell this by their works. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who honored the subversive radical King with a federal holiday.

That is why we must not compromise. We must hold fast to Jesus Christ, the Bible and the Holy Spirit that reveals Him to us, and the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Gay Activists disrupt Church in Michigan

A sign of things to come?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Homosexual Activists Attack Michigan Church

Posted by Job on November 11, 2008

I wonder if we are going to see more of this in the future. Of course, the major media is ignoring this.

Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams Compares Homosexuality to Marriage

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

Seriously, why continue to affiliate with this synagogue of Satan?

Anglican Head Compared ‘Faithful’ Gay Relationships to Marriage

LONDON – The spotlight is back on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams today after letters emerged in which the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion says gay relationships could “reflect the love of God” in a way comparable to marriage, according to media reports. Williams allegedly affirmed his liberal position on homosexuality in a leaked exchange of letters between 2000 and 2001 with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical living in his former archdiocese in south Wales.

According to media reports, Williams asserts in the letters his belief that parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality were addressed “to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience” rather than gay people in a relationship.

“I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” one letter was quoted as saying.

As a theologian, Williams is liberal on the issue of homosexuality but adopts a more conservative position as leader of the Anglican Communion, which officially regards homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture. (So … they are willing to allow people whom they know to be heretical and apostate run their church?)

The archbishop’s comments come just days after the conclusion of the once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference, which reaffirmed the Anglican Communion’s official line on homosexuality. (Which means that this church feels that it is OK to lie for expediency’s sake.) Bishops at the conference, which ended on Sunday, called for an immediate halt to same-sex consecrations and blessings, and the suspension of cross-border interventions.

Williams said at the end of the conference that the Anglican Communion would be in “grave peril” if member churches failed to observe the moratorium.

The 77-million member Anglican Communion has been wracked with division, particularly since the 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. More than 200 conservative bishops boycotted the Lambeth Conference in protest of the presence of pro-gay bishops, including some of those involved in the consecration of Robinson. They held their own meeting, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), in Jerusalem in June.

In his strongest public acknowledgement of GAFCON to date, Williams had said he would look for ways to “build bridges” with bishops in the movement, who include Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi, Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, and a number of UK bishops, including the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. (Please. The Bible forbids building bridges to apostasy.)

Williams said he would send out a pastoral letter to each of the GAFCON bishops as a first step, but added that the bridge-building process would need some “teasing out” in the coming months

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

Southern Baptist Convention Association Head: Love the Homosexual, Hate OUR Sin

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

SBC Head: Love the Homosexual, Hate OUR Sin

Christians often say “love the sinner, hate the sin” when expressing their stance on homosexuality. But the new leader of the Southern Baptist Convention wants to offer something different. “Why don’t we love the homosexual and hate OUR sin?” said Georgia pastor Johnny M. Hunt as he cited Jay Strack, founder of Student Leadership University.

When the public views Southern Baptists and how they deal with the issue of homosexuality, Hunt hopes people will see how they love the homosexual. (Did Jesus Christ have this attitude towards the Sadducees?) Hunt was elected last week to lead the largest Protestant denomination in the country. (Didn’t take him long, did it?) His election by nearly 53 percent of the votes of Southern Baptist messengers, or delegates, reflected a tide-turning moment for the denomination as it has begun to move away from bantering and toward encouragement. (Against opposing sin and towards encouraging it? Besides, this is not true, as Hunt has been more than willing to bash Calvinist Baptists.)

“There seemed to be … less of what we’re fighting against and more of what we all stand for,” said Sam Rainer, a pastor and president of Rainer Research, in his latest blog post, as he reflected on last week’s annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The 16 million-member convention is growing its ministry to help those in the gay and lesbian lifestyle and train churches in how to respond to homosexuality. Bob Stith, who heads SBC’s Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force, says the ministry has received “tremendous support” from the denominational leadership. But he’s having some trouble with the local SBC churches.

According to Stith, less than 8 percent of SBC churches have received training on the issue of homosexuality – training that encourages believers to reach out to those with same-sex attractions and give a compassionate yet biblical response to the matter.

Only 22 percent of SBC pastors believe Southern Baptists are sufficiently ministering to persons with same-sex attractions, indicating that most desire to reach out.

“I think the Christian faith has not done as good a job as we ought to of reacting redemptively toward people who are caught in the web of the homosexual lifestyle,” said Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, during an informal dialogue at the annual meeting. “These people are not beyond the grace of God and they need the grace of God. We need to reach out to them.”

While reaching out, Southern Baptists continue to stand firm on the stance that homosexual behavior is a sin.

A recent survey by LifeWay Research showed that 100 percent of SBC pastors said they believe homosexual behavior is sinful. Among a small sample of SBC messengers at the annual meeting in Indianapolis, 91 percent agreed.

Their unified stance was also reflected when they overwhelmingly adopted a resolution that rejected the California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex “marriage.” The resolution calls Southern Baptists to support a ballot initiative defending traditional marriage, encourages pastors to speak “strongly, prophetically and redemptively concerning the sinful nature of homosexuality,” and reaffirms the denomination’s “consistent support of the biblical definition of marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman.”

Darrell Orman, pastor of First Baptist Church in Stuart, Fla., and chairman of the resolutions committee, praised the Southern Baptist Convention for its strong stance especially at a time when many Protestant groups are debating over whether homosexual behavior is sinful or not.

Still, Southern Baptists are distancing themselves from the view that homosexuality is the worst sin.

“I never preach against homosexuality [without also] saying ‘let me talk to you heterosexuals that are violating God’s principles,'” said SBC president Hunt.

“But I still think anyone that’s in any type of sin is oftentimes a person in bondage that would like to be set free,” he continued, “would like to know that someone can love them like they are but believe that God loves them so much that He’s not willing to leave them like they are.”

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

$1.2 Million Grant Available To Bribe Churches Into Accepting Homosexuality!

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

Grant Aims to Expand Pro-Gay Churches

A $1.2 million grant has been awarded to expand the efforts of gay and lesbian groups in increasing the number of churches that fully welcome and affirm homosexuals. (So … is this reflective of the editorial stance of the Christian Post? If you read below, it would appear that it is so. This article takes a more aggressively abiblical stance on the issue than would a secular magazine)

The grant from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund was given to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation’s Institute for Welcoming Resources and five partner organizations for a joint collaboration on strengthening the capacity and voice of Christian organizations that support gays and lesbians.

For Kermit Rainman, social research analyst for Focus on the Family, the move violates Scripture. (So does backing sinful politicians and syncretizing Christianity with psychology and New Age, you Dobson backer. Please recall that Dobson initially endorsed Harry Potter.)

“Gay activists and their allies have made no secret of their strategy to convince Bible-believing Christians and Jews that homosexual behavior is no longer sinful in God’s eyes,” said Rainman, according to Citizenlink, a publication of Focus on the Family. “This false doctrine is playing out in denomination after denomination, with increasing discord.”

“Christians are not called to rewrite the Bible in order to love our gay friends and neighbors. True love does not sacrifice the truth,” he added.

The initiative includes the pro-gay “welcoming church movement” in which congregations, through a formal vote, offer “an unconditional welcome to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.”

Currently, more than 3,100 congregations throughout the country have explicitly welcomed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to full inclusion, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which merged with the Institute for Welcoming Resources in 2006 in efforts to “increase the number of people of faith supporting equality for LGBT people.”

“The more than 2.5 million individuals in the 3,100 congregations supported by the Institute for Welcoming Resources and these partner organizations are some of our movement’s most valuable advocates in promoting understanding, reclaiming what unfortunately has become a narrow view of ‘moral values’ espoused by those who seek to divide, and advancing LGBT equality,” Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement this week.

More and more churches are moving away from judgmental attitudes toward homosexuality and making efforts to respond to gays and lesbians with compassion and redemptive love. But they are doing it while still affirming homosexuality as sin.

Many churches are still ill-equipped in terms of ministry to homosexuals, but progress is being made, including within the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the country. After establishing a task force in 2001 that would inform, educate and encourage Southern Baptists to be proactive and redemptive in reaching out to homosexuals, the denomination shifted their homosexual outreach into higher gear this past June.

“Our biblically-based opposition to the normalization of homosexuality and the affirmation of homosexual behavior should not hinder us from ministering to homosexuals and offering them the love and healing environment they need to leave this destructive and unbiblical lifestyle,” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, earlier. (So says the guy who gave advice to Mitt Romney and now backs John McCain. Oh well … what good does supporting the Bible on homosexuality while opposing it elsewhere do?) The Institute for Welcoming Resources currently works with the “welcoming church movement” in 30 Christian denominations including The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ.

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

Sex Sells Especially In The Church: Hannah Montana Miley Cyrus Does Everything For Jesus Christ Including Kissing Katy Perry And Liking It

Posted by Job on September 18, 2008

I have tried to ignore this Miley Cyrus thing, even after her proclamations of not only being a Christian celebrity, but doing everything for Jesus Christ. The reason is that I had already dealt with the trend -beginning with Aaliyah, Destiny’s Child, and Anna Kournikova in the 1990s but becoming a major part of our cultural landscape with Britney Spears – of making teenage (and even younger looking) girls into overt sex objects for not only teenage boys but also adult males in the past. Even that Miley Cyrus would be able to get away with the added dimension of claiming to serve Jesus Christ by being an underaged sex fantasy object was only a minor development. After all, Jessica Simpson’s father is a former Southern Baptist minister. Britney Spears made claims of being a Southern Baptist virgin a huge part of her original public relations profile. Destiny’s Child oft claimed Christianity. Mandy Moore went from singer to actress in the evangelical Christian film “A Walk To Remember.”  And lest we forget, the father of Miley Cyrus, after his country music career evaporated, did the common tactic of using Chri$tian capitali$m to stay in show business, even being given a TV series on “Christian family values” PaxNet (Doc, in which Miley Cyrus appeared in an episode). 

But Slice of Laodicea’s revealing the extent to which Miley Cyrus is mocking the very Christians that she is professing herself to be a role model for AND how some Christians are STILL DEFENDING HER (see link) made me decide that this topic was worth revisiting: Miley Cyrus kissing Katy Perry, who wrote the lesbian anthem “I Kissed A Girl”, at some MTV awards event. Cyrus says that she does everything for Jesus Christ … so apparently emulating Perry’s promotion of lesbianism was her way of spreading the gospel? 

Let me state that my position is that a Christian can pursue a career in secular music so long as said Christian’s music and betrayal does not transgress the Bible. So no, I am not objecting to Cyrus’ going on heathen MTV and being photographed with Perry. If there is no justification for me having a ‘holier than thou’ attitude when I at work, I also have no justification for demanding that she act that way just because she is a celebrity. Instead, my issue is with how so many entertainers are able to claim Christianity so that they can rake in even more money while still meeting the desires and expectations of their supporters who hate Jesus Christ.

And how does Miley Cyrus meet the expectations of these people? Kissing Katy Perry, something that people will remember when Cyrus inevitably attempts to make the leap from child entertainer to adult singer (more on that later) is just a tiny part of it, and why not let someone who does not claim to be Christian (but does acknowledge having and acting on lesbian desires),  actress Megan Fox explain:

Fox also defended Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgens regarding their racy photo scandals and said that she doesn’t like Disney because they take “these little girls, and they put them through entertainment school and teach them to sing and dance, and make them wear belly shirts …”

What Fox is speaking of is Disney’s game of turning little girls into sex objects. Why did I use Fox’s words instead of a Christian who said the same? Well show me a single prominent Christian that is taking up this battle (even if it is only in the context of saying “Miley Cyrus is not a suitable role model for Christian girls”) and I will use his or her words. As our “Christian leaders” are being preoccupied with wanting and hoping Cyrus, Spears, and their daughters and church members grow up to be beauty queen Sarah Palin, it appears that no such statements are forthcoming and the non – Christian Megan Fox has provided the most truthful words on this matter!

Miley Cyrus is part and parcel of the Disney “use kids for sexual fantasies” game. The tight skimpy outfits, makeup, clothes, dancing … Cyrus is one of many young girls that Disney uses to market sexual fantasies to both teen boys and also grown men with the emotional development of teen boys. How do we know this “grown men” part? Because when racy photos of Cyrus were published in Vanity Fair, it created so much traffic that their servers crashed. Thirteen year old boys are not Vanity Fair’s demographic! And no, it is not teen boys that create the vast majority of the many websites on the Internet dedicated to racy pictures of teenage (and again, often preteen looking) girls. It is grown men who not only create those sites, but grown men who visit them, often paying money to do so! 

And Cyrus is in no way unique. Quite the contrary, sexuality using and aimed at teens and preteens pervades virtually every Disney show, even the cartoons, and has for years. So, when Miley Cyrus agreed to the Disney show, she knew what it would involve, and so did her father. And even if Miley Cyrus was somehow unaware at this Internet subculture based on trading images of underaged girls when she agreed to do the show A) her father knew and B) Cyrus certainly knows now, because she is the latest in a long line of “oh my goodness how and why did someone violate my privacy by stealing and publishing these racy photos!” young starlets that use that Internet subculture to enhance their fame. 

Is this as bad as when Kanye West was actually nominated for a gospel music award for recording “Jesus Walks”, or when Destiny’s Child received good publicity for putting gospel songs on an album, and one of their members released a gospel album? I still remember the video for “Survivor” … one of the “singers” claimed to have overcome persecution in Hollywood for refusing to compromise their Christianity, and right after the word “Christianity” was, er, “sung”, the video cut to the grind – dancing bikinied crotch (something straight out of the strip club) of the “singer”, either overtly mocking Jesus Christ or their Christian supporters buying their albums. If any Christians denounced that video (or Destiny’s Child’s claims to be in any way Christian), I missed it. 

The younger Cyrus knows what she is doing. So does the older Cyrus. Evidence of this is how they handled the mild criticism from Christians over the Vanity Fair photo shoot: Miley Cyrus made the typical claim of being exploited and taken advantage of by the worldly heathens at the Noo Yawk magazine, and Billy Ray Cyrus claimed that it happened because he trusted the Vanity Fair people with his daughter and was off somewhere on business instead of protecting his daughter’s virtue. Now Vanity Fair’s version of the story was entirely different. Quite frankly, anyone who has ever watched the excessive makeup, skin tight clothes, and suggestive dancing that takes place on a typical episode of Hannah Montana (let alone Cyrus’ increasingly notorious private behavior) would find the Vanity Fair New York heathens to be much more credible than the professing Christians from evangelical entertainment and publishing capital Franklin, Tennessee. 

Now Britney Spears dropped the Christian pretensions once she decided to leave the teeny bopper scene behind and aim for a more adult sound and a wider more lucrative audience. Miley Cyrus’ far edgier public profile lately, plus her public statements that she wants to stop doing Hannah Montana, indicates that she is ready to follow Spears’ path. And why not? If it works, why try to fix it? But the issue is not the younger Cyrus, who will succeed or fail on her own merits. (Since she isn’t much of an actress, dancer, singer or songwriter those merits will consist of being able to get males older than 15 to look at her. Well, good luck with that.) It is not the older Cyrus, who has gleefully used his daughter to extend what is left of his fame. (The Disney Channel actually plays his songs and videos … probably because their contract with his daughter compels them to.) The issue is with Christians so desperate to have an entertainer in the secular arena that they can call their own. The common justification is that “we need to be represented in mainstream culture.” Fine. If a Christian can use their mainstream soapbox to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ so that sinners can come to repentance, fine. But show me a shred of evidence that Cyrus, Spears, Destiny’s Child, West, etc. have done this or even tried to (the solo gospel album of Destiny’s Child’s Michelle Williams as an exception). Instead, what is these people truly mean is that “we need THEM to represent US in mainstream culture so WE won’t feel so strange, different, and alone!” 

Now this is not an endorsement of theologian Soren Kierkegaard, but his goal of making Christianity hard and uncomfortable for those in his homeland that had made Christianity easy by marrying the church with the state (or in our context marrying the church to the culture) should be considered. In this context, Christians are not even allowing themselves to be used and exploited by God – mockers like Spears and Cyrus. Instead, Christians are the users and exploiters. They are sacrificing these little girls to the child porn (in the sense that Jesus Christ used the term “pornea”, which means sexual immorality) monster so they can avoid what the Bible says about rejecting the world and being rejected by it. It is because of their own need to be accepted and loved by and have a place in the world that they could care less how many young girls Hollywood chews up and spits out. They could care less how many young girls develop eating disorders or disfigure themselves because they think that if they can just look like Britney or Miley someone will love them (because hey, it isn’t as if Britney or Miley interrupts their shimmy pole dancing and selling merchandise long enough to tell these girls – or boys – that JESUS CHRIST LOVES THEM … if they did Disney would rip up their contracts overnight).

They could care less how many husbands become emotionally detached from their wives because they are committing adultery (again according to Jesus Christ’s definition of it) by surfing the web looking for pictures of Miley, Britney, Lindsay Lohan (another Disney product) to feed their fantasies, which many find much easier than emotionally relating to their living breathing adult spouse. And no, they could care less about how many little boys that grow up socialized by Disney’s (and Nickelodeon’s) sexuality go on to become rapists, and how many of those men that crashed Vanity Fair’s servers go on to molest their daughters. And they could care less about how the carnage of human emotion that causes will lead to suicides and murders (including but certainly not limited to abortions). “Being represented” in the world so that they don’t have to reject it or be rejected by it is so valuable to these Christians that they are very much willing to sacrifice what happens to everyone else, even when that everyone includes the Savior Jesus Christ that is being mocked. But be not deceived … God is not mocked. Thus saith scripture. And on judgment day, all will see precisely how and why God’s Name shall not be the subject of shame. The ones who will behold this will not only be the artists purporting to be Christian, but the purported Christians that created the environment where such artists could successfully employ this tactic. 

The Three Step Salvation Plan

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

How Could Sarah Palin Have Attended An Evangelical Church All Those Years Without Being Able To Say That Homosexuality Is A Sin?

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Remember the religious right and conservatives in general proclaiming “How could Barack Obama have spent all those years in Jeremiah Wright’s church without hearing anything racist or anti – American?” Well evangelicals, right back at you! Second … Palin is a member of “the church of judge not.” By the way, Palin calls homosexuality “diversity.” As a black man, let me say that a person’s decision to abuse and defile himself and another person with unnatural sex acts IS NOT DIVERSITY. Is claiming that being homosexual and being black are basically the same part the new GOP strategy to increase their share of the nowhite vote? But that is just part of it.

Please recall my great disappointment in serious Christian leaders like Albert Mohler rushing to endorse a woman that they knew nothing about! This is the issue. Had Palin been a leader in the religious right and social conservative movement she would have been well known to Christian political circles. Had she, say, tried to outlaw abortion on the state level to challenge Roe v. Wade (as John Ashcroft attempted to do in the 1990s and Republicans in Idaho did in 2006), attempted to pass a law opposing gay marriage (as several states have done) or tried to post the Ten Commandments on state buildings (a la Alabama state judge Roy Moore) these folks would have already known about this woman and had a very positive opinion of her based on it. This is not to say that had Palin embarked on these political crusades that she would have been doing the right thing Biblically. Rather, I am merely stating that her doing so would have justified the religious right’s support of this woman in the political context (if not quite justifying Al Mohler’s support of her for more theological reasons or J. Lee Grady calling her God’s prophet with the Deborah anointing). 

As it is, Palin was none of these things. Instead, she was endorsed and is being promoted by not only the religious right but people like Mohler, Grady, etc. because she is from Alaska (as opposed to one of the dirty places with all the liberals and minorities on welfare), she hunts (as opposed to, you know, windsurfing like Harvard elites or playing basketball with inner city welfare minorities or whatever it is those people do with each other in those dirty places), and has five children (because, you know, having trouble conceiving or being married to a man with fertility problems before fasting and praying and finally being blessed with ONE CHILD that you desperately love and make sacrifices for in order to raise him in the faith sounds like something those dirty people from dirty places like Abraham and Sarah or Hannah and Elkanah in Canaan/Israel!) and chose not to abort her child (which, you know, so doesn’t count when any one of the millions of those dirty people from those dirty places made the exact same decision). 

But say this person were a born again Christian from one of those dirty places like inner city Miami or Detroit who was childless (because scripture says some women will be barren) or single (because scripture says that God will not suffer all to get married) or even had received an abortion (before getting born again and becoming a new creation) but ran a hospice for those dirty people like AIDS victims or a youth center to try and keep some of these young dirty males off the streets and from being locked up and the key from being thrown away with these three strikes laws before entering politics and proving herself over a long period of time of being a wise, capable, effective, and honest public servant (the sort of leader that the Bible praises i.e. Cyrus the Mede, the pharoah in the time of Joseph, etc). Would there be this level of excitement? Of course not. She would received nothing but faint, backhanded, feigned “praise” and there would be grumbling that McCain proved his liberal stripes after all.

The religious right types do not support Palin because of Jesus Christ. They support Palin because in their eyes, her background and lifestyle makes her the ideal HUMAN woman! It is HUMAN worship, idolatry, no different from how artists in times past would sculpt and paint images of gods and goddesses from Nordic and Greek mythology to represent their ideal of humanity. She is nothing more than a symbol, an object, to them. In other words, an idol that represents not the gospel of Jesus Christ, but their ideal of human virtue. A single woman born to a family on public assistance, got pregnant at age 16 and took advantage of Ronald Reagan’s most liberal abortion laws in the nation to kill her child, but then gave her life to Jesus Christ, began an outreach ministry to help the dirty people, and went from that background into public service where she served with competence and justice as the Bible requires? Well hey, such a woman would receive some praise from the right I guess. They might even send her as a delegate to the Republican National Convention! (Assuming that she is a Republican to begin with, and that she doesn’t spent any of her time doing what the Bible says by using her position to advocate for, you know, dirty people like widows, orphans, the poor, etc. Of course, the religious right believes in fresh oil, fresh fire, and new revelation where the the contents of the Bible have been replaced by the anointed prophets of neoconservatism.) But this frenzied feverish reaction? Of course not! Because while such a woman may be born again, loving Jesus Christ, and advancing the kingdom of heaven, she simply isn’t cut out to be a religious right idol of cultural virtue and family values. Why? BECAUSE SHE WOULDN’T FIT THE PROFILE! (By the way, any of you remember Joe Biden saying that Barack Obama was “clean”? As opposed to what? DIRTY?)

So it is left to people like IndependentConservative, people who actually are thinking about Jesus Christ, to expose the facade for all who are willing to face the truth because their trust is not in the things of this world but rather in Jesus Christ and His rule to come. Sadly, most seem to want to be deceived because their heart is in this world. Now do not mistake me. In criticizing Palin, it is not because I am seeking some notion of perfection according to my own eyes. No, all I want is a decent, honest, capable, qualified person. Neither Obama, Biden, McCain, or Palin fits the bill. We see this in the case of Palin, who was a member for years at a Pentecostal church that runs a “be saved from homosexuality” conference (and yes, Palin is now subtly distancing herself from that church) and is now a member at an evangelical Bible church, tapdance around the issue of homosexuality. The people who asked “how could Barack Obama have sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for all those years without knowing Wright’s Marxist views” need to ask “how could Sarah Palin have sat in Wasilla Assembly of God Church all those years without being able to boldly, directly, and unconditionally claim that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, and an abomination to God and that people who practice it need salvation and deliverance through Jesus Christ? Look at the video below and consider the answer. Look at the video and see why Christians must flee idolatry. 

By the way: do I need to say that Adolph Hitler took the statues of Nordic gods that represented ideal humanity, placed them in churches, and used them to come up with this neo – Pagan religion based on the worship and promotion of the ideal man? Well, keep following your Alaskan bear shooting mooseburger eating beauty queen with 5 kids because of WHAT SHE REPRESENTS rather than WHO SHE IS and see if that path takes you to the strait gate or the wide gate.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

I Kissed A Girl. I Liked It. Then I Went To Hell!

Posted by Job on September 9, 2008

Saying It Like It Is?

Here’s a church sign put up by a congregation in Blacklick, Ohio in response to the hit single I Kissed A Girl (And Liked It) by Katy Perry(WARNING: site opens in a new window and plays songs from her album automatically).

ABC reports:

KATY PERRY’S SONG USED AS CHURCH WARNING TO TEENS

BLACKLICK, Ohio (AP) — A church near Columbus, Ohio, is using Katy Perry as a bad example. A sign outside Havens Corners Church in Blacklick has the lyrics from her song, “I kissed a girl and I liked it” — but it adds, “Then I went to hell.” Church pastor Reverend Dave Allison says the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, so the sign is intended as a loving warning to teens. He says it’s confused some people who either don’t know the song or don’t understand the message. Lynne Bowman of the gay rights group Equality Ohio says the sign indicates the church isn’t very accepting. Perry has not responded to calls for comment.

Obviously, those who come across the sign would have to have some inkling of the song and what its lyrics glorify to understand why kissing a girl would send someone to hell. It’s no wonder, too, that the world, and I presume, (perhaps) a section of Christians who are liberal in their outlook, is up in arms over this “offensive” message. 

What do you think? Good or bad call on the part of the pastor? Is this a case of “tell it like it is” or can the message about homosexuality as a sin be better put forward?

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , | 57 Comments »

Wasilla Bible Church Promoting Conversion of Gays to Heterosexuals!

Posted by Job on September 6, 2008

Pursuant to the policy of this site, if people do wrong, I criticize them. But if they do well, I praise them. I have criticized Palin and her former church recently for words and actions that I perceive to be wrong. But this article depicts the church boldly having a controversial ministry that I support (I choose to ignore the ties to Dobson) and Palin’s doing the right thing on a domestic partner bill. On Palin specifically … let me mention again that I am not among those that criticize the woman for her daughter getting pregnant (her daughter is 17, old enough to know right from wrong herself) or for her choosing to be a career woman (as many women, including but not limited to single parents, have to work to keep roofs over heads and food on the table). I repeat: I was only criticizing the hypocrisy of people like Bill O’Reilly, who was so incensed at being called on his hypocrisy that he sent a squad of goons to harass a liberal oped writer (see link). Please note the comments of evil people who are doing their best to run from the hypocrisy of O’Reilly (and their own hypocrisy) in this matter … people who know good and well what O’Reilly would say – and what THEY would say – were it Obama’s daughter pregnant. Isn’t it amazing that we live in a Christian environment where Christians do not believe that they or anyone else has to be responsible for being just, fair, consistent, equitable, and responsible for what they say and do? We are now witnessing how thanks to the politics of the religious right and the religious left, it is perfectly acceptable to be a hypocrite, to hate others for doing the very same things that you or that people “on your side” do. Since James Dobson is incontrovertibly one of these people, is his “straight camp conference” going to be effectual, or is he going to make them twice the sons of hell that they were before?

My answer to that rhetorical question is “No.” Even though they will be using Dobson’s materials, it will be the church that is running this conference, not Dobson, and yes there is a huge difference. Despite the general tone of this website (primarily dictated by the subject matter that I choose to deal with), I am a positive person, and believe that this effort by Palin’s former church will bring lost sinners into the kingdom of God, and I thank them for taking on a difficult controversial ministry that most people will not touch, either for their hatred of homosexuals or their fear of persecution. So let us pray for this church as they do this ministry, and the people that they will be ministering to as well. The work of Jesus Christ is bigger than any one person or any local church, and I have no doubt that there are people in this church that despite their flaws – and I say this as a VERY flawed person myself! – love Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments and are true and sincere believers. Did I believe this before I found out that it was running a straight camp? Yes. Should I have said so? Yes. Evidence that I myself am flawed!

Palin’s Church Promoting Conversion of Gays to Heterosexuals

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

“You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,” according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.

Palin’s conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain’s candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the “Love Won Out” Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla. (Focus On the Family is NOT fundamentalist.)

Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called “pray away the gay” movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin’s church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name.

Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court. (The state is not the church, so I fully support Palin not using the the power of the state to impose her views on people.)

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional. But her reluctant support didn’t win fans among Alaska’s gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage. (Still say that she did the right thing in this matter. The state is not the church.)

“Less than 1 percent of state employees would even apply for benefits, so why make a big deal out of such a small number?” he said.

“I think gay Republicans are going to run away” if Palin supports efforts like the prayers to convert gays, said Wayne Besen, founder of the New York-based Truth Wins Out, a gay rights advocacy group. Besen called on Palin to publicly express her views now that she’s a vice presidential nominee. (I would trade the entire Republican Party for one born again Christian in half a heartbeat.)

“People are looking at Sarah Palin as someone who might feasibly be in the White House,” he said.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 30 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: