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 ‘liberation theology’

Solomon, Egypt, Democracy, Folly And Liberation Theology

Posted by Job on February 25, 2011

At the time of this writing, for the past several weeks have seen “democracy protests” in the Middle East and in Arab and Muslim nations. They apparently began in Tunisia, have resulted in the demise of at least two governments (Tunisia and Egypt), seem to have Libya at the point of crisis, and show signs of spreading to other nations like Iran, Iraq and Jordan, and have seemed to inspire political demonstrations and rallies in many various places of the world. I haven’t had the spare time required to follow these events with any intensity and detail – whether over the Internet or on TV – as I most certainly would have in years past. Also, I haven’t attempted any detailed speculation to these events “from a Biblical perspective”, especially as it relates to prophecy and eschatology (such as the endtimes, Israel and the coming one world government and religion). So, other than a  personal suspicion totally lacking in factual basis than the American intelligence community (CIA et. al.) has had a hand in coordinating and driving this, with regards to specifics I don’t have much to say.

However, in terms of the general issues that these protests raise, I can and will contribute a little bit, primarily about how so many people, including not a few Christians, are absolutely, totally convinced that these protests are a good idea, that the general wishes of the protesters should be respected, and that it has the potential to lead to good, positive changes in the Middle East. This honestly does seem to be the consensus opinion. Further, the primary basis for dissent from the main opinion – that these protests are good and positive – is that these developments are negative only because it may lead to violent anti-western groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian government to step into the leadership vacuum and assert themselves. Based on this, we can presume that even the dissenters would be supportive of this massive movement to overthrow civil governments if the new governments that resulted were more to their personal liking.

So, most people believe that these protests are a positive development, and most of the rest would also if they could be assured a “pro-western” ultimate outcome. And to me, that is absolutely incredible, and not in a good way. It is appalling, shocking, disturbing, frightening, and any number of “bad ings”. That most people apparently do not share this view – or if they share it, they do so for reasons of self interest – shows just how deep the 1960s protest ideology has embedded itself in our modern culture, so deep that it is no longer oft directly challenged even by Christians. And that is evidence of how our modern culture has so thoroughly embraced a humanistic mindset marked by a complete and total rejection of God and a Biblical worldview.

Let it be known that the Bible does not not endorse rebellion or anarchy. Quite the contrary, the Bible refers to those as evil and sinful, and judges the men and ideologies who promote them the same. And if rebellion, anarchy, lawlessness and violence isn’t what happened on the streets of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and what have you, what is? Also, we are told what a “great thing” it is that this protest movement is being led by young people in their 20s and 30s, just as was our own 1960s counterculture. Are we not aware that the Bible says that the young should be instructed, trained and led by elders who are prudent and wise, and that societies where the prideful, vain and presumptuous youths cast off and usurp the place of the older, more tested leaders are those that are going to soon collapse? Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from the turmoil in the Old Testament, such as in the time of the Judges, or in Israel (the Northern Kingdom) when they rebelled against the Davidic monarchy in Judah?

And no, the fact that these people are rebelling against authoritarian regimes in favor of democracy does not make things any better. It must be clearly stated: the Bible at no point advocates democracy. Quite the contrary, when the Bible appears to deal with the general concept, it lends a negative judgment to it, as if it is the product of proud people who reject God’s governance in favor of self-rule. I am reading through the late Merrill Tenney’s “Interpreting Revelation” right now, and the author did note the tendency to desire to rule oneself apart from God’s guidance or law was evident in both Cain’s building a city and in the building of Babylon and the Tower of Babel.

Make no mistake: when the Bible calls civil government “the servant of God” in Romans 13 and instructs us to be render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to be subject to and pray for our leaders elsewhere in the New Testament, there was no “so long as the governments in question are democracies” caveat. Quite the contrary, the governments in view – and the only governments that the ancient world that produced the Bible were aware of – were regimes that by our modern western standards would be considered brutal, authoritarian, repressive etc. and begging to be overthrown and replaced with a modern, progressive one with a representative parliament, a constitution guaranteeing individual rights and separation of powers, and of course consenting to the ultimate overlordship of the United Nations.

And consider another angle: the Bible clearly speaks of and declares the absolute monarchy of Jesus Christ over the church (and ultimately creation) with pastors as His representatives and the Bible as His ruling document. What better method of subverting this model than promoting a mindset where individual human free will agency is the highest, most cherished prize, and that anything that would tend to limit this – such as a monarchy – is evil and oppressive? Far better to cast off ideas of “organized religion” in favor of self-styled “spirituality” where each person is his own ultimate authority (imagine no pastors, and no authoritative canon of scripture or interpretation thereof!). Or alternatively, ecclesiastical bodies with elected representatives can sit as judges. Women pastors? Won by majority vote! Homosexual church officers! The majority carries the day! Many paths to heaven? The majority sided with the newer, more inclusive hermeneutics. The inerrancy and authority of scripture? Sorry, that idea didn’t get to 50% among the delegates to the convention!

But let us go back to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and these other places where these brave young democrats are willing to die – and kill – for these new societies, where Twitter and Facebook are apparently changing the world (with the help of . First off, apply this to our own countries in the west … America, France, Canada, Germany, Great Britain etc. Imagine if all of a sudden our own young people took to the streets for a week, a month, a year, or five years and demanded that OUR governments be replaced. Imagine if it were our own high school and college students (helped by the government of Iran or Russia) creating some Facebook page about how we need to get rid of our oppressive, restrictive uncool governments in favor of something proposed by George Clooney and Lady Gaga. And imagine if the other governments of the world – and the United Nations – sided with these kids and told us that we should hand over our own perfectly legitimate and functional governments … or else. Sound like a good idea to you? Of course not. So what on earth makes it a good idea for Egypt or anyplace else? Either the people who are backing this actually WANT the mass confusion (which just may be the case) or we in these last days actually have gotten this far removed from concepts of right and wrong, order and disorder, propriety and impropriety, decency and vulgarity that we now believe that pressuring sovereign nations to hand over control of their governments to a bunch of violent seditious kids somehow represents progress.

And it wouldn’t shock me the least if there wasn’t at least one preacher or pastor out there who would call it just that. And I am not just talking about the liberation theology pastors who believe that overthrowing authoritarian regimes and powerful corporations in order to provide economic, political and social benefits to oppressed populations is the aim of the Bible. Instead, not a few conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christian pastors would fully support what is happening in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq etc. so long as the result is a pro-western democracy rather than a sharia law state that sponsors terrorism. That is because so many western Christians have wedded and melded representative democracy, capitalism, individual human rights, and other western ideas into their view of the Bible. Romans 13 and similar? Situational. Open to interpretation. Not the highest or final authority in every society in all times!

In order to try, challenge and prove this “democracy revolution”, we need to go to the streets – or the Twitter pages – and ask these bold revolutionaries what they want. Many will say “We want freedom.” I say “fine, but what is freedom? How will you exercise this freedom? What is it that you want the freedom to do? And the things that you have not been free to do before today, what effect does their absence really have on your life?” How many of these 28 year old men and women that have been willing to face down folks toting guns (or should I say, the legitimate representatives of their legitimate governments!) would be willing to give a satisfactory answer to these questions? I will tell you the answer to: none of them. Why? Because none exists. The reason is that outside of Jesus Christ, no freedom exists. Instead, all there exists is a soul’s bondage to sin, and the soul that sinneth shall die.

OK, so forget about freedom. What else do these MTV generation revolutionaries (assuming that anyone even watches MTV anymore, so I guess I should say “YouTube generation”, and that’s assuming that’s still popular either) care about? They’ll tell you that they want money. Class mobility. The ability to earn money, to earn even more money, to keep and invest it. OK, fine. How much money do you need? $1,000? If I give you $1,000, will you get out of the streets and stop doing your part to allow the United Nations to take over your country? Oh, you want more than that. You want $5,000 and a car. Or maybe $15,000 and a house. Maybe you want $50,000 and a college education. Or $1 million, a yacht, a summer home in Dubai, and VIP status in Las Vegas. Will that make you happy? Truthfully, of course not. Money doesn’t make people happy. You can find more miserable people in an expensive American gated community with million dollar homes than you can in some third world village where everyone is living in tiny mud huts. The reason is that true riches, true wealth, is only through identification with Jesus Christ. Everything else is something that rust can corrupt and thieves can steal. Or something that won’t make a bit of difference to you if you are lying on your deathbed with a few hours to live. I guess in such an instance, a few dollars for drugs to ease the pain in your last moments on earth would have some merit, but we all know that the folks on the streets working to overthrow their governments don’t have that on their minds. Instead, they are convinced that they are going to live forever – or at least a very long time – and want more money to do it with, thinking that it will make them happier with their lot if they do. The prosperity doctrine according to Middle Eastern street revolutionaries. Well, the true gospel of Jesus Christ says that godliness and contentment are great gain.

Or what about the principle of the matter? What about simply wanting a better, more honest, more open system of government? What about justice, fairness and truth? To the revolutionary allow me to ask you the same question that Pilate asked Jesus Christ: “What is truth?” What piece of knowledge or system of knowledge is there that will satisfy you? Will make you truly happy? Will answer all your questions? Will meet all your needs? The answer is simple: outside of Jesus Christ, there is none. All else is an inadequate partial truth at best, or a delusion and a lie.

It is inescapable, then, that this battle for democracy in the Middle East is the same as is all worldly battles: vanity. We know this from Solomon. Freedom? Solomon had it, for he was king. Truth? Solomon had it, for he was the wisest man that ever lived. Wealth? Solomon had it, for he was the richest man in the world. All of those things and more Solomon had, and they didn’t make him happy. Instead, Solomon found them to be vanity. Why? Because God’s Holy Spirit had departed from him because of his idolatry and apostasy. Despite having everything in his hands what these people in the Middle East are killing and dying for and more, Solomon was unhappy. As a result, everything that he had and possessed, everything that he even wanted and aspired to, was worthless. They were worthless precisely because of their very temporal and therefore attainable (at least for some) nature. By contrast, the things of Jesus Christ are the things that truly matter, and they last forever.

So, liberation theology and other religious movements that are primarily concerned with ideas and other things of this world, are vanity. The same can be said with any number of economic, social and political movements: vain, light limited and flawed things that will not last the test of time. Or, as it were, things that will no longer be when time is no more. And that is why despite living in an evil, authoritarian repressive pagan Roman Empire that was wicked to the core, Jesus Christ, Paul and Peter were still able to tell us to be subject to our government and leaders, and even to pray for them. The reason is that these governments only have rule over us for a time. We should be able to endure their inefficiencies, their imperfections, and even their outright wickedness because these things are only for a time. When that time – our time on earth – is at its end, they have no more rule or power over us. Instead, that is when we pass from the temporary, limited flawed rule of man to the permanent, unlimited and perfect rule of Jesus Christ. How is it that we can be counted worthy to enjoy the benefits of the latter if we so reject and despise the cost of the former, even if that cost is persecution unto death?

And this is not merely New Testament doctrine. Remember David as he was being persecuted by the wicked government of his day as embodied by King Saul and his soldiers as they hunted and sought to kill him, and later by Absalom and those loyal to him when they rebelled against David and tried to do the same. It was in the power of David to personally overthrow the wicked human government of Saul and institute a new government to his own liking by killing Saul and becoming king instead. But David refused to do such a thing, because David knew that by doing so, he was not actually rebelling against a wicked government, but against God. David knew that his own miserable circumstances did not justify taking matters into his own hands to correct them.

Instead, David was willing to let God deal with the problem in God’s time and in God’s manner. As David was a man after God’s own heart, should we not do the same in response to our own turmoils and crises? That is not a popular idea in an American society that glorifies our own Revolutionary War with its tea party and “no taxation without representation” and Declaration of Independence and George Washington, but that is just more evidence that human ideas, Cain and Babylon inventions, are always going to be more popular than what the Bible says. That is why our duty as Christians isn’t to do what is popular with the people as King Saul wanted to do, but instead to do what God commands us as King David did! We are to do what God commands as opposed to what feels good and seems right in our own eyes! What a radical concept!

And allow me to point out with regards to democracy, that Absalom nearly succeeded in deposing and murdering King David because he gained popularity with the people. And that Jeroboam was able to keep the Northern Kingdom of Israel from rejoining the house of David in Judah by appealing to the people. And that during the time of Israel’s apostasy there were a multitude of false prophets who were very popular with the people. And the children of Israel in the desert provoked God to wrath by receiving the wicked report of the ten spies that was popular with the people.

So after all, what is democracy but power to the people who want to seek their own way instead of God’s? Just as it was in the days of the Old Testament, it is so in the Middle East, that very same region of the world today. And just as King Rehoboam rejected the wise counsel of the elders in favor of the foolish counsel of the young when confronted with the first crisis in his kingdom, and had ten of the twelve tribes rebel against him as a result, the rulers of the world are siding with the foolish young leaders in the Middle East today. And how many Christian churches today are following the young because they are desperate to be hip and relevant? As it was then, it is today, and as they are, far too many of us are because we are worldly and carnal.

I cannot speak to the long term results of this Middle East turmoil. Its direct implications on issues like the church, Israel, the world governments and economy I do not know, and those are things that God knows and controls. For now, it is enough to say that the very fact that these demonstrations are being embraced, supported and promoted by so many people all over the world is a very troubling thing. It is evidence of how many rulers, leaders and people of this current world order have completely given themselves over to a strange, evil and wicked mindset that rejects order, decency and propriety in favor of presumptuous decadent confusion. I do not know what age or time this Middle East crisis is leading us into, but it is sufficient to say that the reaction to and support of the rebellious demonstrators in the streets over and against the legitimate rulers and governments of these nations is a judgment of the wickedness, depravity, hypocrisy and moral vacancy of our own times. And all such evil and wickedness is not just against man but also against God, and this is the same God that one day will judge all wickedness.

All one needs to do is read Revelation and realize that this judgment and punishment is a serious matter indeed. What a person must do is come out of this wickedness so that they will not be part of this judgment. When that time of judgment comes, do not be counted among the riotous, the seditious, the rebellious, and of the people who have vicarious pleasure in those who do such things. Instead, be counted among those who love the order and peace, which are those who love and trust Jesus Christ, who when He comes into His kingdom will not suffer any such rebellions but instead will rule the nations with the rod of iron. When Jesus Christ returns for His friends, even the last enemy of God’s system of order and stability, death, will be defeated and cast into the lake of fire. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Advertisements

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

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

Posted by Job on July 19, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

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

Does Calvinism Hinder Evangelism? Yes And No …

Posted by Job on July 18, 2010

Saw this Calvinism & Evangelism: A Baptist Conversation and regretted not being able to participate in the discussion like I wished, so I will address some points here. First off, it is not Calvinism that hinders evangelism. It is doctrinal error. For example, plenty of liberal or “moderate” free will/Arminian churches (i.e. Methodist, Baptist) have adopted a “many paths to heaven” pluralistic theology, and others have given themselves over to the social gospel. In the former camp, such people reject evangelism and especially missions, believing the former to be a bigoted example of asserting one religious tradition’s superiority to another, and the latter to be religious and cultural imperialism. Among the latter, they believe that evangelism diverts energies, resources and passions from helping the poor, fighting injustice and working towards a more equal society. Now free will Christians PRACTICALLY NEVER address the beam in their own eye by associating their soteriology with the anti-evangelism stances of, say, the liberal/social gospel Methodists like Hillary Clinton that take John Wesley’s zeal for evangelizing the lost and redirect it towards improving society. Instead, they focus on the mote in the eyes of Calvinists whose hearts are hardened towards the gospel because they believe the false implications, applications and conclusions that they draw from the Biblical doctrines of predestination, election and limited atonement. Now it is just as easy to draw distinctions between Calvinists who follow after error and legitimate, Bible-based Calvinism as it is to do the same between a strong, solid free will salvation preacher and the “Methodists” that are performing homosexual marriages. It is just that the anti-Calvinist crowd chooses to make those distinctions when it comes to those who share their soteriology while (in a most unprincipled fashion) refusing to distinguish between John Ryland, Sr. and William Carey.

Now most anti-Calvinists address the success of Calvinist evangelists like Carey with the dishonest claim that “they successfully spread the gospel in spite of Calvinism” and then go on to produce statements and writings from such people that purport to show them conflicted, grieved and double-minded over their love for the lost and their love for predestination/limited atonement doctrines, and attribute any evangelistic success on their part to the former love’s being greater than the latter. First, even if they were conflicted in this manner, it is to their CREDIT that they struggled to try to reconcile seemingly conflicting scriptural doctrines, as opposed to the practice of the Wesleyan of either pretending that the scriptures pertaining to, say, predestination either don’t exist or don’t mean what the words in them say that they do. Second, BIBLICAL Calvinists know that the same BIBLE which contains T.U.L.I.P. also contains the Great Commission. Thus, the duty is to believe both, keep both and let God work out the details. When one accepts the full implications of the doctrine that it is God Himself who converts people and not man, and that man’s role is to be the instrument that God wishes to use bring conversion about, then in practice (orthopraxy) it works out any contradictions in speculative theology. Men preach, God saves, and it is simple as that. So, any problems are due to the unwillingness to simply obey God and preach and not any existential philosophical conundrum conflicts over “if a preacher preaches and no one is converted because there are no objects of God’s predestination and limited atonement in the audience, then has he really preached?”

Further, the motivation for our preaching should not – or at least not solely – be so that God can save. Instead, the motivation for preaching should be that God told us to. If we don’t preach, witness, evangelize or do missions, we knowingly commit high-handed sin against God, which is bad enough in and of itself without the consideration that people aren’t getting saved. After all, which is worse … that God is being disobeyed and sinned against or that people aren’t getting saved? If you pick the latter, then your doctrine and practice is man-centered and hence flawed. But Calvinists pick the former. A God centered approach means that God is being obeyed and hence worshiped and glorified regardless of the results. So while the free will Christian grieves over people not being saved, the Calvinist grieves over God not being glorified. In the latter approach, God is glorified and the people follow. But with the former, the interests of people are being served, and God is expected or presumed to follow. Which is better?

Well by now you might be wondering “he said Yes AND No, but so far we have only heard the NO. What about the YES”? Well allow me to say that Calvinism DOES make evangelism HARDER. And as well it should. If the primary purpose of evangelism is to glorify and worship God rather than to save men and to suit the purposes of the evangelist, then that will place a premium on doing evangelism correctly, and by that I mean in a reverent, God-honoring fashion by God-honoring people. We are supposed to serve God – and this includes evangelism – in the way that we are to work out our own salvation, which is with fear and trembling. (Note that the free will Christian sees no contradiction between salvation through faith and salvation with some combination of faith and works in Philemon 2:12. The reason is that when that verse is properly interpreted, no such contradiction exists. The same is true of the contradictions that allegedly exist between the doctrine of limited atonement and John 3:16 … they don’t).  Hebrews 12:28 (and yes I do rely on BlueLetterBible.org, a free will site) commands us to “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear”, and this applies to service to God through evangelism just like everything else.

The perspective whereby we must seek to honor, serve and glorify God first makes it harder to do self-serving, self-seeking, flesh-pleasing “evangelism” because we are driven by results (conversions, baptisms, church growth, church plants, numbers numbers numbers). It removes us from the capitalist, big business fast food approach to evangelism where we logically conclude that since we are securing human decisions for Jesus Christ, then if people don’t choose Jesus Christ, then the problem is either with the evangelist trying to make the sale or the packaging that the evangelist has adorned the gospel of Jesus Christ with. Instead, it accepts the idea that since a sovereign God is drawing people unto Himself USING evangelists, then playing the numbers game presumes to know God’s plan for a particular church, or the believers in a particular time and place. All the Great Commission promises is that the gospel will be preached in every nation, and that people from every tribe and tongue will be converted. The great commission does not promise that a particular church will always grow, or that a particular nation will have a certain percentage of its population as born-again believers. So, the “seeker-sensitive/emergent” efforts to “repackage the gospel”, to “rebrand the church” or even to “take back our country politically and legally and return it to its Christian heritage” is based on a set of assumptions that cannot be supported in scripture. For instance, even as we are mourning the declining numbers in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist churches in America and the west (and in the instance of the Southern Baptist Convention, scapegoating Calvinists for it!), church growth is booming in third world countries, which in some cases have gone from being evangelized by missionaries barely 100 years ago to sending out their own missionaries, including in some instances back to the west! (Yes, I am aware that most of this is due to free will missionaries. However, it is equally true that a lot of that is due to PENTECOSTAL missionaries. So I will begin to complain about the gospel being spread by free will Christians when the Baptists and Methodists start complaining about the gospel being spread by Pentecostals. My position is that God uses born-again people to preach the gospel, not people who adhere to a particular denomination or system of soteriology.) So if the sovereign God has decided that the time for the west’s dominance of Christianity has passed, and it is now time for Asia, Africa and Latin America to rise to the forefront, who are we to say otherwise? Especially as the church was born not in the west but in the near east to begin with? So it can and should be said that Calvinism DOES hinder BAD EVANGELISM DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES THAT DISHONOR GOD AND DENY HIS SOVEREIGNTY IN FAVOR OF APPEALING TO THE BASE INSTINCTS OF MAN’S FLESH THAT SHOULDN’T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, and that’s a good thing.

Also, we must wonder why this charge, that “Calvinism hinders evangelism” is so effective in the first place; why it wounds and hurts. To start, we must address why it is used to begin with. One should acknowledge that the Calvinism/free will debate is basically unwinnable by either side. Both sides have a good amount of scriptural evidence at their disposal, but no matter where one stands on the Calvin/Wesley divide it is impossible to in good conscience be dogmatic because scripture texts reasonably interpreted to support the other side do in fact exist and cannot be ignored. That being said, there is clearly, undeniably MORE EVIDENCE on the Calvinist side than on the free will side. Being faced with that reality, the “Calvinism hinders evangelism” charge is used to tip the scales. The person thinks “well, there is a lot in the Bible that supports Calvinism, but I don’t want to stand against winning the lost!” and makes what appears to be the safe, moral God honoring position out of a love for God’s lost sheep.

While that is admirable on the surface, allow me to point out two things. First, the charge is not that Calvinism STOPS evangelism, only that Calvinism HINDERS it. In addition to my modifier above, that Calvinism hinders GOD-DISHONORING evangelism, realize even apart from that context that there is a huge difference between HINDERING something and STOPPING IT ALTOGETHER. If it could be said that Calvinism STOPS evangelism, then again that would put Calvinism against God and His Commandments by causing its adherents to reject the Great Commission. As stated earlier, that only applies to so-called Christians in BOTH Calvinist AND free will traditions, who disobey God in that area. But hindering evangelism only means making it go slower, and perhaps less than certain people want it to or think that it should. And I have already mentioned that the presumption of perpetual church growth is a bad one. So then, why is it such a strong, effective charge?

The reason is that a lot of people have a distorted view of evangelism and its importance in Christian life. Some of this is due to emotionalism, but some of it is also due to the evangelistic fervor injected into Christianity first by Wesleyanism and then by premillennial dispensational fundamentalism. And they are actually somewhat related. Wesley, coming from the Church of England as he was, adhered to an amillennial background. Hence, it is not by accident that the liberal social gospel doctrines originated with Wesleyan Methodism. Wesley believed that by winning as many converts as quickly as possible, the church could first renew and transform society and then pave the way for and speed the return of Jesus Christ. The difference between Wesleyanism and the social gospel is that liberal theologians simply allegorize (deny) the literal return of Jesus Christ, claiming that the return of Jesus Christ and New Jerusalem are only metaphors for an ideal society where things such as poverty, hunger, disease and war have practically been eliminated thanks to the good works of Christians. (Again, Hillary Clinton adheres to this system, which is itself a forerunner to the even more secular and radical liberation theology.) Premillennial dispensational Christians for their part are driven to prioritize evangelism because of the beliefs that A) getting the gospel to every nation will speed the rapture and return of Jesus Christ and B) a desire to reduce the number of people who never hear the gospel and hence enter into eternity without ever being afforded the privilege of being able to make a free will decision for Jesus Christ.

Allow me to state that having an unbalanced view of any area of Christian life is harmful and can lead to error. For instance, emphasizing sanctification too much leads to legalism. Emphasizing ethics and good works too much leads to the social gospel. Emphasizing prophecy and eschatology too much harms our ability to live in the here and now. Emphasizing grace and eternal security too much leads to antinomianism. And even fundamentalists have questioned if their emphasis on evangelism has come at the expense of discipleship. Thus, if Calvinism’s hindering of evangelism means not making evangelism the head of Christian practice and the primary goal and reason for existence for every church, then again Calvinism is a good thing. If you have the idea that Christians must primarily be concerned about saving other people from the lake of fire because going to the lake of fire is such a terrible and horrible thing for people, then that is man-centered theology and practice rearing its ugly head again. But if you have the idea that Christians must be concerned about evangelism because it is one of the many things that Christians must do to serve, obey and glorify God, then evangelism can take a balanced, proper role in the life of every Christian assembly and individual believer.

Allow me to provide a metaphor, example, allegory, illustration or whatever: people who work in engineering or technology. Most such people want to do so because of their passion and aptitude for inventing and creating. So, they go about acquiring the education and training required to enter such fields and then obtain employment expecting to spend their days building better mousetraps. However, upon obtaining employment, they find that most of their time is dedicated to reading reports, writing documentation, giving presentations, meeting with clients, fixing things that break, and making slight improvements to things that already work. Opportunities to work on or create something that is wholly new are few and far between, and even when they come, it is usually not something spectacular like inventing the light bulb, airplane or telephone like Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers or Alexander Graham Bell (who themselves, incidentally needed to build upon other discoveries to make those) but rather something that appears to be mundane that anyone could have done. What adds to the frustration of the erstwhile Eli Whitneys and George Washington Carvers is that there are plenty of people who are actually terrible at engineering, science and technology but great at “the other stuff” who have no problem not only retaining employment, but getting high salaries and promotions. Meanwhile, people with great skills and ideas who lack the ability or desire to excel at analyzing reports or giving presentations find their careers stymied, even ended. However, over time, these people realize that meeting with clients (who have a real business need) and giving them mundane products (which meets their need and is all that they can afford) is what keeps the business going. If you keep the business going long enough and do a good job on the routine tasks, then eventually you will get the opportunity to work on something new and exciting! But if you despise the routine tasks, you get fired and as a result never get to work on what is near and dear to your heart. Instead, that opportunity goes to the lesser talented person who did the mundane stuff the best that he could because he appreciated his job and his opportunity. And if EVERYONE despises the routine tasks, then the company goes broke, everyone loses their job and NO ONE gets a chance to work in something exciting or special. Also, it is by working hard, reading reports, meeting clients, giving presentations etc. that you LEARN how to make something NEW that people actually WANT, NEED and CAN USE. There have been lots of fascinating inventions created by people who had great technical skills but no knowledge of people or markets, and such inventions usually wind up being things that no one needs, wants, knows how to use or care to learn. The reason is that the inventors were more motivated in satisfying their own desire to invent than they were to invent something that people want and need.

This example can apply to Christian life. Effective, God-honoring evangelism can only be consistently done – whether individually or corporately – by people who live and honor the whole counsel of God, by people who know all the things that Jesus Christ did and taught as it is recorded in the Bible. Basically, effective, God-honoring evangelism is best done by people who do everything else that God tells them to do also, because it is those people who know what God wants in an evangelist. What is it that God wants in an evangelist? Simply, someone who is aware of his own worthlessness, his own uselessness, his own limitations and therefore relies totally on God. It is the evangelists who prioritize evangelism above all else and declare themselves to be “great soul-winners” that ultimately wind up building human monuments and institutions to their own greatness. Well, those people have their rewards on earth, and what they build and create won’t last the test of time, because they are like the self-absorbed inventors who create things that have no practical use described earlier. Or, such people will be frustrated with not getting the opportunity to do what they want to do, what matters to them, and what in their opinion fits their great skills and talents and leave. But the people who recognize that they aren’t really that smart or brilliant, and the people who LIKE doing the difficult unglamorous things because they are glad simply to have a place in God’s kingdom and dwell in God’s presence are the ones that God will raise up to do His Will, whether it is evangelism or other tasks to His glory.

And as far as the “mundane things”? Well most evangelism simply is – or seems to be – mundane. Now we all may admire the great revivals and missions started by Wesley, Carey, Edwards etc. However, those events – great moves of God – are not routine but rare and spectacular that few people will ever even take part in, let alone lead. So, instead of the spectacular – and while we are waiting on the spectacular – then things like leading our children to Christ, leading our friends and neighbors to Christ, leading our relatives to Christ should not be despised. And yet, many of the very free will Christians who accuse Calvinists of hindering evangelism aren’t even doing that. Ironic, isn’t it?

Not really. The reason is that there are two principles involved that often get overlooked. The first is that God is sovereign. God controls not only who gets saved, but when. Consider Philip the Evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. The narrative makes clear that the Holy Spirit had both Philip and the eunuch in the right place at the right time, and also had the hearts and minds of both prepared: Philip to give the gospel and the eunuch to receive it. Philip was among those driven from Jerusalem by persecution, and the eunuch was in the area to fulfill religious obligations, attempting to understand the meaning of a passage from Isaiah. Without God, it wouldn’t have happened. Without God, it couldn’t have happened.

And the persecution that caused Philip to meet the Ethiopian eunuch? It was caused by Paul, the same who was saved by God as he was heading to Damascus. God chose the time and place, not Paul.

Another thing: the Bible makes it clear that before God entrusts us with great things and many things, we must prove faithful in fewer, smaller things. So, how are we going to succeed in big evangelistic efforts like the Southern Baptist Convention’s Great Commission Resurgence if we are not doing door to door evangelism? And how can we do door to door evangelism of strangers if we aren’t telling our friends and neighbors about Jesus Christ? And how can we tell our friends and neighbors about Jesus Christ if we are not living balanced, obedient Christian lives that results from good discipleship and leads to spiritual maturity? If these were not the case, then it would turn the parable of the talents on its head. Again, consider Paul. He did not begin his missionary travels until YEARS after his conversion, and even then he was initially an UNDERSTUDY of Barnabas, who had been in the faith longer.

So, it is not Calvinism, dear Christian, that hinders evangelism. If anything hinders evangelism within a Christian, it is spiritual immaturity that results from either a lack of right belief (orthodoxy), or a failure to translate right belief into right practice (orthopraxy) and to do so consistently in all areas of Christian living, not just those which appeal to us and earn us the praise of men. Now if our free will/Arminian brothers and sisters in the faith wish to make the case that Calvinism causes spiritual immaturity, then go ahead, I am all ears. Otherwise, their false charge against Calvinism is based on false assumptions (i.e. that churches should always grow, instead of the historically proven fact that churches and movements spread, wax and wane) and presuppositions (that evangelism should be man-focused like consumer marketing instead of God-centered like true worship) and should be rejected as spurious.

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

Who Is The Real Jesus Christ?

Posted by Job on January 26, 2010

The thesis: Jesus Christ did not come to change the world, but to save those who were lost from it.

If Jesus Christ came to save the world by addressing political, cultural, social, economic or military ills, then He was an utter failure, a misguided political and social leader who was betrayed by His own friends, rejected by His own people, and given an humiliating death on the cross by His political and social enemies, even to the point of dying faster than the two thieves that He was crucified with while a mocking “The King of the Jews” sign above His head and a “crown” of thorns on it. Honestly, who in their right minds would follow such a person, a complete and total abject failure in every way, who was betrayed by His own followers and killed before He changed a single thing about either His own Jewish society or the larger Roman Empire? So clearly, such a Jesus Christ is a false one, the invention of human imagination.
 
Evidence of this: the false messiah of liberation theology. Why follow him, be inspired by him, practice what he lived and preached, or pay attention to anything that all that he said, did or even existed when this liberation theology messiah did not liberate anyone? Again, in a political or economic context, Jesus Christ did not liberate a single person. For that matter, nor did He even try. Jesus Christ told His followers to generally submit to and respect the Roman rulers, to pay taxes into an unjust economic and political system that left so many poor and deprived the vast majority of Roman subjects so much as the benefits of citizenship. Jesus Christ denounced and criticized the Jewish rebels and subversives against Rome, calling them robbers and murderers, and instead socialized with tax collectors, who were Roman collaborators. Jesus Christ even worked miracles at the request of Roman officials, including at least one Roman centurion.
But those were the Romans. What about among his own Jewish people? Jesus Christ never challenged the authority of the priests, He only exposed their lack of righteousness. Jesus Christ instructed the people to generally obey the rulings of the Pharisees because of their position of authority “in the seat of Moses”, only warned them not to follow their hypocritical ways. Jesus Christ never led a rebellion or even told people to defy or resist King Herod. He did not try get his own cousin, John the Baptist, out of jail to save him from getting executed by that same King Herod. Jesus Christ did not attempt to do away with the temple tax, only drove the moneychangers from the temple to fulfill the prophecy (and also because they weren’t supposed to be there in the first place). And when Jesus Christ was arrested by the Jewish leaders to be delivered to the Romans to be crucified, He made no defense. He did not defend Himself or even allow others to fight on His behalf in the Garden of Gethsemane, instead telling Peter to put away his sword and healing one of those who came to arrest Him. He did not say a word to defend Himself during His trial, completely respecting the authority of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, not even mentioning that the trial was  a sham and that Caiaphas was corrupt. And when Jesus Christ was given to Pontius Pilate to be crucified, He never denied, opposed or resisted Pilate’s power over Him (after an earthly, civil fashion) but rather affirmed its legitimacy! And while Jesus Christ was dying on the cross an innocent victim of a corrupt, repressive religious and political regime, rather than curse His enemies and yell out some exhortation for His followers to continue the revolution, He prayed for the forgiveness of the Romans and Jews! So tell me, what manner of liberation theology or any other liberal, radical or “fight the power, fight the system” can be given from Jesus Christ? At every turn, Jesus Christ submitted to the proper human authorities, religious and civil, Roman and Jewish, even though those authorities generally gave Him and His followers nothing but cruel oppressive unfair treatment. So rather than being the creator of some liberationist movement, Jesus Christ Himself modeled Paul’s controversial Romans 13:1-7, the main passage that the political (false) messiah followers claim was the prime example of Paul’s abandoning the “true message of the true Jesus” in order to gain favor with the power elite.
The problem is that there is nothing in Romans 13:1-7 that contradicts a thing that the actual Jesus Christ ever said or did. That’s why people who insist that Jesus Christ was a radical executed by Rome (or even the Jews) for His political beliefs ignore the fact that both the Roman AND the Jewish leaders declared Jesus Christ to be innocent. Caiaphas the high priest did so by stating that Jesus Christ should die in order to appease the anger of the Roman empire against the FALSE MESSIAHS that were leading insurrections, and sought false witnesses against Him. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him, proclaimed Jesus Christ innocent when he tried to return the blood money to the priests, and the priests by their words and behavior (“what is that to us, that is your problem!”) confirmed that they knew that Judas Iscariot was correct rather than objecting to any untruth in his statement. And the Roman official in charge, Pontius Pilate, declared Jesus Christ to be innocent. What was Jesus Christ innocent of according to Pilate? Quite simply, being a radical, subversive or any sort of the political leader that worldly “Christianity”, whether of the liberal or conservative sort, wanted to make Him out to be. After all, what did Pilate care if Jesus Christ called Himself equal to God and would be seated on the right hand of God in heaven? What concern was that to the Roman Empire, which did not even respect, let alone practice, the Jewish religion? That was why Pilate attempted to get the Jews to deal with Jesus Christ according to Jewish law … whatever Jesus Christ was accused of was of no interest to Rome because Jesus Christ WAS NOT a rebel, either in the violent armed revolutionary or nonviolent subversive resistance sense. Had the Jews any evidence that Jesus Christ was either, they would have given it to Pilate, who would have declared Jesus Christ guilty and deserving of death on the spot. That Pilate declared Christ’s innocence is proof that all ideas of a political messiah are false, flying in the face of both the Biblical evidence and the common sense logic that a worldwide religious movement would never have been started by someone who was so utterly and spectacularly a failure.
 
The real Jesus Christ, meanwhile, is the one that the Bible speaks of, the one who was already Lord and came as Servant and Savior, and who actually SUCCEEDED in His mission. It is THIS Jesus Christ who rose from the dead. After all, had Jesus Christ come as a social reformer or political leader, to what effect was the resurrection? What did it mean? What did it change? And do not be deceived. When the apostles, still misunderstanding because the Holy Spirit had not yet come, asked Jesus Christ when He was to take the physical throne of David over the human political entity of Israel, defeat the Romans in a battle for Israel’s sovereignty, and then subdue the entire world to bring about the Messianic age, thereby bringing the political and social reforms that the apostles wanted, how did Jesus Christ reply?

With the classic “now and not yet” futurist and realized eschatology. The spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ is now in our hearts. The church, which is present on earth, is Jesus Christ’s body. Jesus Christ Himself as the Head of the church. Jesus Christ indwells the church through the Holy Spirit, and every member of the church is “in Christ”, not only merely through identification with Him via baptism, but as a part of His Body. Thus, as Jesus Christ is seated on His throne on the right hand of God the Father, we are seated with Him. So, we are with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of heaven, not in His place, not right beside Him as the mother of James and John asked, but as a part of Him.

But do not ignore the “not yet” part. That refers to the physical manifestation of Jesus Christ’s reign, the evidence of Jesus Christ’s Lordship being realized on the natural plane. It was the expectation of the apostles for this to happen in the form of a Messianic age that Jesus Christ was going to physically bring to pass in the form of a worldwide earthly kingdom that He would rule from Jerusalem. That expecation, in the immediate sense, was dashed when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven. Jesus Christ told the disciples to wait on the Holy Spirit’s coming to reveal more truths to them, and they did.

And when the Holy Spirit came, more truths about Jesus Christ and His kingdom were in fact revealed to them. And what did the apostles do based on this truth? Well, it is more interesting what they DID NOT do. What the apostles and the early church DID NOT do, did not even TRY to do, was embark on a mission of social, economic, military, cultural or political reform. To do so would have been to carry on the mission of some false failed messiah defeated just as many other pretenders who led doomed Jewish uprisings against Rome were. It would have been to carry on the mission of those who came in their own names, who were not God in the flesh, and who did not rise again from the dead.

Instead, the Holy Spirit pressed the early church onward to perform the work of the true Jesus Christ. The One who actually was born of a virgin, who did reveal Himself to the world through His works and teachings, and by this revelation of Himself who also revealed the God the Father, whose will alone He did. The One who died on the cross in our place for our sins, and the One who conquered death and the grave and rose again on the third day. The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost bearing witness of the true Jesus Christ who succeeded, not of some false messiah who failed. And the message of those who received that witness in that time was to repent of their sins, believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized, to live lives of faith and obedience, to pass from death to life, to leave the kingdom of Satan – which is death and destruction – for the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is life everlasting. After the person has joined the spiritual kingdom of heaven NOW by believing the gospel, they were to await the coming of the physical kingdom that is NOT YET here with the return of the King, Jesus Christ.

And we are not to spend the time waiting for the return of the actual, living true King by pursuing the work of the many dead imposters and pretenders, which is pursuing social and political reform, trying to make society better, trying to redeem a fallen and soon to be judged earth with our good works. Be not mistaken, we are to perform good works, for the Bible does tell us that faith without works is dead. But the point of our works is the gospel which leads people to the spiritual kingdom of heaven of the true Messiah, not the earthly aims of the dead frauds. Whether the reform agenda is a liberal one (ending poverty, improving the environment) or a conservative one (opposing abortion and gay marriage) it is the earthly agenda of the false messiahs who died and are still cold and dead in their graves. It is not the agenda of the true Messiah who was raised from the dead and is alive forevermore.

So, which Messiah are you following? Whose agenda are you seeking? If you are following a dead, false messiah, why? What profit is there in this world? Riches of wealth and of good feeling? Those are things that the moths and rust corrupt and thieves can steal. Those things are going to come to an end when time is no more and will not be carried over into eternity. They are corruptible, and therefore there is no profit in them. It is only if you are following a living true Messiah, doing the things that this Messiah and His apostles told you to do as is recorded in the Bible, His New Testament, that you are reaping the true riches.

They may leave you indigent, marginalized and despised in this life, even among a great many of those who are after a fashion pious and religious. After all, the pious and religious people rejected Jesus Christ, so why shouldn’t they reject you, who serve Jesus Christ also? Is the servant better than His master? But you will have riches in eternity, New Jerusalem, and they will endure forever.

What should be remembered is that those who are trading the true living Jesus Christ for a false messiah are as Esau, trading something truly valuable, their birthright, for something of no value, a bowl of soup. Had Esau simply waited, he would have gotten something to eat. If nothing else, his mother would have fed him! And the same is true with Christians. Read the book of Revelation and the other eschatological passages, and also what Jesus Christ said to His apostles in the prologue of Acts. In the prologue of Acts, Jesus Christ didn’t say that their Messianic age expectations were wrong. He did not say “Never.” He simply said “Not yet.”

Because let it be known: if your desire is reform, if it is defeat of the wicked worldly systems that cause poverty, oppression, bigotry and whatever other ill that you imagine, that is most certainly going to happen. Jesus Christ has promised to return, defeat all evil, and rule the nations with the rod of iron. Satan, death, the grave … all will be defeated. It is there in the Bible, particularly Revelation, so please read it! We just have to be patient enough to wait until it happens!

The true Jesus Christ, the one actually spoken of in the Bible, holds promises of both a spiritual kingdom and a physical one, the former now and the latter at the time of the new heaven and the new earth after the resurrection. By contrast, the false messiahs, the liberation theology, liberal theology, black theology, feminist theology, antiwar theology, social justice theology, religious right theology models, can’t deliver salvation, real hope and change, in this world OR the next. Why? BECAUSE HE IS A FAKE! HE IS A FRAUD! AN IMPOSTER! Only the real Jesus Christ of the Bible can do these things, and it is this Jesus Christ that we should serve.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 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 »

The Black Value System Is A Different Gospel!

Posted by Job on October 8, 2008

From I’m Speaking Truth

The Black Value System Vs. The Bible

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

Barack HUSSEIN Obama On The Bible

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

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

Jeremiah Wright’s Adultery With A White Woman Is An Example Of 1 Timothy 6 False Doctrine Leads To Sexual Immorality!

Posted by Job on September 11, 2008

My position is that 1 Timothy 6:1-10 can be interpreted as stating that false doctrines lead to sexual immorality in those that preach the doctrines and those that hear them. In my opinion, false doctrines are one of the main reasons why there are all these sex scandals in the church, and evidence of correlation between devil’s doctrines and sexual immorality is present in the New Testament, in the church at Corinth in particular

So here is the text of 1 Timothy 6:1-10:

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved Teach and preach these principles. If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 

Now I first made the correlation between sexual immorality and the prosperity doctrine after reading this passage after radio minister/teacher Bob George referenced 1 Timothy 6 in response to a question whether it was acceptable to listen to Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, and other prosperity doctrine teachers (of course George’s answer was an emphatic no) on his nationwide call in radio show. How does this relate to Jeremiah Wright? Well first of all, Wright’s liberation theology teachings are really no different from the prosperity doctrine. Both center around getting Christians to de – emphasize the promise of spiritual blessings and eternal life in favor of an emphasis of earthly things, whether wealth and health in the prosperity doctrine or seeking political changes that will result in favorable economic conditions for minorities and workers via liberation theology. Just as the extreme version of the prosperity doctrine, the Word of Faith, teaches that God has abdicated His throne with respect to the rule of creation to man, first to Adam and then to the church, the true version of liberation theology denies the actual existence of heaven and the lake of fire, claiming that they are metaphors for political, economic, and social conditions on earth. It is no small coincidence then that liberation theology thought that is so prominent among the religious left that is so influential in the Democratic Party (please remember that Bill Clinton hosted Jeremiah Wright at the White House!) in both the white left as represented by mainline Protestant denominations and liberal Roman Catholics and the black left as represented by the civil rights movement (please recall that Martin Luther King, Jr. rejectd the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and hence cannot be considered as having been a Christian in any sense) has as its correlation the prosperity/Word of Faith doctrines in the form of figures like John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and Pat Robertson that are so influential in the Republican Party (and please recall Mike Huckabee’s attempts to bring Kenneth Copeland into the fold as well). If you want more evidence that the two parties merely represent faces on the same wicked coin that may look different but in truth are part of the same entity and joined in the middle, there you go! 

Continuing, when reading that passage more, I formed the opinion that all false doctrines, not just the prosperity doctrine, lead to immorality in general with sexual immorality being just one. As a matter of fact, associating that godliness is gain and predatory destructive unnatural sexual behavior are just symptoms of the larger spiritual, mental, and character issues that go with one having a reprobate mind.

And this brings us back to this Jeremiah Wright fellow. The fellow was already “married” to another man’s wife that he exploited and abused his position of marriage counselor to get a woman in a troubled marriage to leave her husband so that he could marry her shortly after: Jeremiah Wright’s Adulterous Marriage. This uses as source material in part BARACK’S REV. ‘STOLE A WIFE’ – EX-HUBBY: HE COUNSELED US, THEN WED HER. (Did his congregation care? Of course not.) Well now this: Jeremiah Wright committed adultery with the wife of a pastor, resulting in the dissolution of the marriage. REPORT: REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT HAS AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE. (It would appear that this pastor was another teacher of false doctrine, and also one who uses the same trick of claiming to have degrees that he does not have. By the way, Jamal – Harrison Bryant also claimed the same phony degree from the same place, which only offers certificates from some summer training program and not doctorates, and Bryant, who is leading the charge to bring the prosperity doctrine into the same African Methodist Episcopal denomination that James Cone was a member of when he created black liberation theology – small world isn’t it – is also documented and proven to be sexually immoral. ) And guess what: Wright used the time dishonored “I will leave my wife for you” trick on his prey.

Now make no mistake, Fox News and the New York Post have an agenda. These operations are owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch whose pastor is Rick Warren (who asserts that Murdoch is a born again Christian!), who tells his church members to use sexual titillation in order to win converts (see here and here) and is not above using teen girls performing sexually suggestive dances to please his audience like Herod’s daughter did before demanding the head of John the Baptist for her mother (read Matthew 14) during “praise and worship service.” Of course, Warren’s false New Age “God wants to make you feel all good and happy” doctrines are not at all distinct from Joel Osteen’s brand of prosperity teaching. Back to Fox News and the New York Post, their agenda is to influence the upcoming presidential election. 

Me, I do not share that agenda. I could care less who you vote for. As a matter of fact, my position is that Christians should vote for NEITHER. The video in this link from Pastor Slattery illustrates why I have this position. Instead, my agenda is to tell Christians to flee these false doctrines, for they do in fact destroy people’s lives. As far as this Obama person goes in general, it really does appear that he has been recruiting as many degenerate pastors as McCain has, if not more. Here is one good site on that issue. The strait gate is not through the Democratic or Republican Party (or Green or Socialist or Communist or Constitution or Libertarian or Labour or Tory or Christian Democrats or Kadima or Likud) but through belief in and obedience to the Jesus Christ of the Bible through right belief (orthodoxy) and right behavior (orthopraxy). The sad case of Jeremiah Wright’s adultery is just one evidence among many of what happens when pastors and their followers that reject right belief in their teaching … right behavior inevitably exits as well.

Posted in Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Obama AND CLINTON Forged Ties Between Pentecostalism And Black Liberation Theology

Posted by Job on July 11, 2008

See link from Independent Conservative by way of ApostasyWatch:

The Democratic Party’s Religious Outreach, Leah Daughtry and Black Liberation Theology.

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

New World Order Billy Graham Cronies Telling White Evangelicals To Vote For Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

Posted by Job on June 9, 2008

Obama Could Win 40 Percent of Evangelical Vote, Says Expert

A well-connected authority in the evangelical world said in an interview this week that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama could get up to 40 percent of the evangelical vote. The fascination with the charismatic Illinois senator combined with evangelicals’ effort to not be seen as an appendage of the Republican Party could swing evangelical voters in Obama’s favor, predicted Mark DeMoss – a prominent public relations executive whose clients include Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ – to Beliefnet.com. (Can we no longer pretend to ignore the clear influence of the new world order types: Council on Foreign Relations, Rockefellers, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, freemasons, etc. on this crowd? The PR man for Franklin Graham is basically making it OK for evangelicals to vote for Obama, just as Franklin Graham’s father is responsible for the evangelical – Roman Catholic alliance?)

“I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote,” DeMoss said in the interview. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40 percent.” For comparison, the public relations guru pointed out that one-third of white evangelicals had voted for former president Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid during the “height of [the] Monica Lewinsky mess.” (Keep in mind: BILLY GRAHAM WAS A HUGE SUPPORTER OF BILL CLINTON!)

“That’s a statistic I didn’t believe at first but I double and triple checked it,” he said, “I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election.” In terms of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, DeMoss spoke about the lack of enthusiasm within the evangelical circle for the candidate. He said that for months now he hasn’t received an e-mail, letter, or phone call from fellow evangelicals urging that they unite behind McCain and “put aside whatever differences we have.”

“It’s just very quiet. It could mean there’s a real sense of apathy or it could mean they’re waiting for the general election to begin,” he said. “But it’s a surprise, given the way e-mail networks work now.” On McCain’s part, he hasn’t done much to reach out to DeMoss either. DeMoss said he has received one phone call from a McCain staffer about a month ago asking if he would like to help campaign for McCain. But the evangelical leader, who had enthusiastically campaigned for former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, turned down the invitation. (So … Billy and Franklin Graham supported Mormon Mitt Romney. Check, and got it.)

“I told him that I’m a conservative first and a Republican second,” he said. “I was inclined to vote for Senator McCain but not to get involved beyond that.” (And you are a Christian … where? And … Obama is a conservative or a Republican … where? Seriously, people, if I wanted to make this stuff up I couldn’t).

DeMoss briefly mentioned the 2000 incident when McCain lashed out at his former boss, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He later commented that McCain’s recent rejection of the endorsements of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley was a “mistake.” (So … rejecting the support of blaspheming demonic heretics is a mistake?) Although the two pastors have some controversial views on theology, both, in terms of values, support what many evangelicals hold dear, DeMoss contends. (Which is precisely why movements centered around “values” instead of Jesus Christ TAKES PEOPLE TO THE LAKE OF FIRE FOR ETERNITY.)

“Here were two conservative religious pastors who were probably out on a limb supporting him,” he said. (What, so they didn’t PRAY and CONSULT THEIR BIBLES before acting? You mean they acted outside of God’s Will? Shocking. Who would have figured it! Then again, that isn’t quite what you said, now is it?) “And he responds to criticism over comments they made and rejects them. That was a slap in the face to evangelicals who are already somewhat suspect of Senator McCain.”

But whatever happens in this election, one thing DeMoss wants to make clear is evangelicals are not “absolutely Republican.” “Polls don’t show that to be true,” he said. (Whatever happens in this election, it is clear that a lot of evangelicals are not following Jesus Christ and comprehending and obeying the Bible, and, well, the polls prove it. And hey, so does the fact that so many evangelicals are following people like you and your bosses!)

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

The Media Is FALSELY CLAIMING That Most Black Churches Support Jeremiah Wright And Black Liberation Theology!

Posted by Job on May 2, 2008

How many black followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. would have done so had they known that Martin Luther King rejected the deity of Jesus Christ? The media made sure that King’s black Christian followers did not know the fellow’s true theological – let alone political – beliefs, for they knew that had they done so, a huge percentage of King’s followers would have abandoned him and the civil rights movement in general. Please recall: despite the heavy attention given them by the media and the historical romanticism of them, Malcolm X’s Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers had a combined membership of less than a million. The reason is that even though the dire conditions in the black community made a large percentage of blacks receptive to political and economic radicalism, both the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers suffered greatly in their efforts to recruit blacks because of their requirement that blacks overtly reject Jesus Christ. But these same blacks, however, were more than willing to follow a political movement disguised with the exterior trappings of orthodox Christianity, and the media was more than willing to keep the ruse going, just as they are more than willing to allow white evangelicals to be deceived by the religious right. How many white evangelicals know that George W. Bush lost a Texas Congressional race to a pro – life Democrat solely because of his stand on abortion? To the extent that the media even reported that race, they simply repeated the Bush line that he lost the race because he was branded as a Yankee carpetbagging interloper.

So now, the media is reporting that most black preachers either preach or support on some level Jeremiah Wright’s heretical abomination theology. Just as in the white community, you have black churches that are theologically conservative, theologically liberal, and theologically moderate. You also have churches that are not so much theological as they are traditional, and others that attempt to be modernistic. Now while there are few black churches that would legitimately qualify as fundamentalist, the percentage of liberal churches is far higher in the white community. As a matter of fact, were it not for denominations like the National Baptist Convention and the Progressive Baptist Convention getting involved with civil rights leaders and Democratic politics, and for some of the other black denominations hiring black preachers educated at the far more liberal white seminaries from similar denominations (i.e. African Methodist Episcopal churches hiring black graduates of very liberal United Methodist seminaries) there would be far fewer black liberal churches. Now I will grant you that in My Main Concern With Barack HUSSEIN Obama: His Victory Would Make Liberation Theology Seem Rick Warren Purpose Driven! I stated that a Barack Obama victory would result in wide acceptance of black liberation theology in the black community, meaning that other races would adopt some form of it as well, and how it would over time moderate and homogenize into a religio – political doctrine acceptable to the wide masses. Consider that Mormonism in its current form is very different – and hence much more acceptable to the mainstream – than what Joseph Smith founded. And while I am not making spiritual comparisons to charismatic Christianity – many of its adherents do actually believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are born again – and either liberation theology and Mormonism, the fact remains that the modern dominant forms of it that you will see practiced in the Assemblies of God and Churches of God in Christ (the non televangelist charismatic Christianity) is far removed from the doctrines and practice of Charles Parham and Azusa Street, and for practical purposes are almost indistinguishable from many Baptist churches.

But the point is that the media is lying to make it appear as if there are this great number of blacks that preach black liberation theology NOW, sit in their churches and rant against white people, and espouse Marxism and Afrocentrism NOW, when no such thing is the case. The media is also contributing to this by not telling black people the full extent of the belief system of Afrocentrism and black liberation theology (just as they never told black people that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe in the deity, virgin birth, or resurrection of Jesus Christ, a fact that probably less than 1% of the black community knows). They just see a black preacher on TV attacking poverty, racism, George Bush, and the war. The blacks attacking the media for being hypocrites for focusing on Obama’s relationship with Wright while not attacking John McCain’s ties with John Hagee have no idea that THEY ARE FAR FAR CLOSER TO HAGEE THEOLOGICALLY THAN THEY ARE TO WRIGHT.

Wright himself contributes to this. When the National Press Club asked Wright if salvation was available only through Jesus Christ, Wright merely responded “did not Jesus Christ say that He had other sheep?” Now not only does the vast majority of black Baptists, Methodists, charismatics, etc. utterly reject pluralism and universalism – and most further have no idea of the question to or response concerning Wright since it was not widely reported – but Wright purposefully chose to omit the fact that liberation theology (and liberal theology in general) espouses a completely different notion of salvation and condemnation than is found in the Bible: liberal theologies DO NOT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HEAVEN OR LAKE OF FIRE. Wright did not say that because he knew the headlines would have been “OBAMA PASTOR DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HEAVEN OR HELL!” and a good percentage of the Christian black support for Obama would evaporate. (Does Hillary Clinton’s liberal Methodism believe in heaven and hell? The media will never report that either!)

Link to New York Times Story

Link To MSNBC Story

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

Biblical Liberation Theology

Posted by Job on April 29, 2008

I was recently amused by Jeremiah Wright’s assertion that his remarks were controversial only because America is unaccustomed to liberation theology. Allow me to disagree with Wright on this one point, because biblical Christians have always known the true meaning of liberation theology. Please access my take on the subject, written a couple of years ago, by accessing the link below.

Real Liberation Theology

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

My Main Concern With Barack HUSSEIN Obama: His Victory Would Make Liberation Theology Seem Rick Warren Purpose Driven!

Posted by Job on April 9, 2008

I have heard about the nightmare scenarios about a Barack Obama presidency: the anti – Christ thing, the Muslim thing, the inexperience thing, the far – left thing, etc. and to tell the truth none of them concern me terribly much. Allowing them to do so would require my dismissing from consideration the things that some of our past presidents – and our current one! – have done, or pretending that I find John McCain or Hillary Clinton in any way more to my liking. On the last point in particular, let me tell you that in their own way, each of them is immensely dangerous to the interests of Christianity!

But speaking of Christianity, do not mistake this as a statement that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the one most worthy of opposition, for I legitimately feel that such is the case. Still, in Christian terms, there is one aspect of an Obama presidency that I find extremely worrisome: the potential that his presidency would lead to a mainstream acceptance of liberation theology. Perhaps not the radical and separatist version espoused by Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, but definitely a more commercialized, homogenized, domesticated, works – centered (PURPOSE DRIVEN?) version of it.

Now as you may know, liberation theology was given to the world by the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. For a time there was a chance of it becoming very influential to mainstream Catholic and Protestant Christianity, but the doctrine suffered a major setback when the very Roman Catholic Church that birthed it began opposing it in a major way in the 1980s. But were Barack Obama to win the White House, there is the potential that this system could again assert itself.

You see, many may underestimate what electing a black President would mean to America’s black citizens. It is not that blacks feel that Barack Obama would enact a raft of laws and policies favoring blacks. Rather, it would be a major symbolic victory, a sign that America is turning its back on its racist past and ready to accept a fairer future. It would signal that at long last, blacks are fully recognized and accepted as equals – as Americans – by a nation that in every way imaginable denied conceding such. You think this to be foolish? Well consider this: we are less than 25 years removed from blacks being regularly featured on television commercials. That occurrence coincided right about the time of the celebrity of Michael Jordan and the success of “The Cosby Show.” Many companies feared that featuring blacks in their commercials would result in white consumers shunning their products! And yes, it has been less than 15 years since blacks began to regularly play quarterback in the NFL. When asked about the controversy in the early 1990s, NFL head coach Jimmy Johnson stated on Fox Sports that a lot of coaches regarded blacks as not being smart enough to read NFL defenses. This trivia may seem to be just that, but it is evidence of how racism so deeply permeated and tainted everything in American life, even the trivial, and it explains why people that are black like me are capable of getting so worked up over things that appear to be so small! But to so many blacks, the election of Obama would signal that the long nightmare of being second – class citizens is about to end.

This is not to say, of course, that all or even most of these people are obsessed with racial victimization. Quite the contrary, conservative views on race such as those espoused by Bill Cosby are much more popular in the black community than is let on. Many blacks are very much concerned about the cultural problems in the black community: crime, illegitimacy, educational failure, etc. It is just that we are unwilling to discuss them in response to the baiting of conservative racists (who can be of any race) that wield these issues not intending to contribute towards solving them, but rather to use them to justify racism (including but certainly not limited to their own). But in Barack and Michelle Obama, such blacks see hope in that respect as well: Harvard Law School graduates, married, and parents of two daughters. Even Barack Obama’s drug use makes him only a more practical role model in the eyes of those who found the aforementioned Cosby Show “too perfect” and “evading the real problems of the black community”, sort of the ideal anti – hero for our cynical postmodern times. So yes, blacks would look to the Obamas as role models for themselves and the black community, and Barack Obama in particular to serve this role for the very troubled black male.

So were Obama to fulfill these dreams for black America, everything that took Obama to the mountaintop, that got him to that brass ring, that he used to bring to fruition the wildest fantasies of the descendants of slaves, would become absorbed into the shared collective black experience. And a great part of Obama’s everything is, of course, none other than Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright’s theology, doctrines, sermons, mentoring, etc. (the media is not shy about calling Wright Obama’s “father figure”) will all become a major part of the narrative of how a confused biracial young man went on to become the first black President. And of course, scores of black people will want to apply what worked so well for Barack Obama into their own communities, their own churches, and their own lives.

Let me say two things about this. First, it is the American way! All Americans of all races have been assimilating the traits of successful people, of leaders, into their own being since this country was founded. And yes, the cult of personality has always been very much a factor in American religious life. Second, with respect to the black community in general, there is already precedent. Who is unaware of the huge impact on black religious life that one Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had? Well, as important as Dr. King is to black America, King never became president (a fact that Hillary Clinton, for reasons that made no sense unless she was TRYING to lose the race, taunted supporters of Obama and King with back in January during the very week of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday … let me point out by the way that if Hillary Clinton and the Republicans in nominating McCain – a fellow that most Republicans don’t even LIKE – are giving Obama every possible shot at victory). So then, the effect of Obama on the black religious landscape might even exceed that of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s!

But that is just American blacks, right? Wrong. There has been a provincial, chauvinistic even, tendency among blacks to overstate this, but American blacks are quite often trendsetters. American blacks set trends for blacks in other regions: Africa, Latin America, etc. Now liberation theology is already more of a factor in those regions than in America, so Obama’s election would give the advocates of that belief system in those areas precisely what they need (and that speaks nothing of the Hispanic, Asian, and white adherents of it). And yes, blacks do set trends for whites in America. American whites, in turn, set trends for white people elsewhere in the world. So world, liberation theology brought to you by Barack Hussein Obama. What, Obama is a Muslim? Well, what better belief system for the secular moderate Muslims to buy into? And the secular moderate Hindus? Buddhists? People that are just, well, secular and moderate? And so on …

Again, a key component to remember is that it will NOT be the same liberation theology as advocated by David Cone and Jeremiah Wright. As a matter of fact, not even the black nationalism or Afrocentrism portion of the messages of Cone and Wright will be overly offensive in time. After all, the current image of Martin Luther King, Jr. is nothing like the man with exceptionally radical views and confrontational methods that actually lived. Does anyone remember that Muhammad Ali was once a member of the Nation of Islam? Nope. And even Malcolm X had his black history month commemorative soda cups sold by McDonald’s! The same will be done with liberation theology. It will be packaged and sold like a commercial product just like everything else in America, and when that happens, it may just find a nation – a globe! – of willing consumers in our churches just waiting to devour it. And why not? In their determined zeal to run away from the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, the cross, and the empty tomb, has not Christianity shown itself more than willing to devour everything else? This, people, is no different, and when you consider a great many of the other falsities ingested into popular Christianity over the ages, liberation theology, black or otherwise, is not so radical after all. Is it?

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, black history month, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, hate speech, Hinduism, homophobia, homosexuality, identity politics, idolatry, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: