The News Beats

Although not a surprise to most people, both in and out of the faith, Televangelist Benny Hinn has admitted to being unable to heal, according to the Los Angeles Times.  What makes this a real bomb shell is the ailment that exposed Hinn’s weakness.  It wasn’t a brain tumor, pancreatic cancer, or paraplegia that finally found Hinn out; it was his marriage.

After 30 years of marriage, Hinn’s wife filed for divorce on February 1 on account of differences that Hinn could not reconcile.  According to a prepared statement from his ministry, Hinn couldn’t even see it coming.  “Pastor Benny Hinn… was shocked and saddened to learn of this news without any previous notice.”¹  That is pretty poor foresight for a man who supposedly can close his eyes and see disease in someone else’s body, but the unwitting admission is far worse.

“Although Pastor Hinn has faithfully endeavored to bring healing to their relationship,” the statement continued, “those efforts failed….”² While it is very sad for a marriage of so many years to end in divorce, the damage Hinn has done to the simple in the faith over several decades is far more tragic.  Perhaps now, fewer will be victimized by this false prophet.

Notes:

^{1 - 2.} Gillian Flaccus, “Wife of prosperity gospel televangelist Benny Hinn files for divorce in California,” Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2010.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-televangelist-divorce,0,2770235.story

Brian McLaren is an infamous leader in the Emergent Church movement, which is a recent and more obnoxious outcrop of church Liberalism which spawned the Evangelical Left.  Among their many heretical takes on what the Bible teaches, they also profess that Israel is to be scorned.  McLaren is joining the cacophony of anti-Israeli voices now that he is visiting the Palestinians and has undergone an awakening from the “well-planned propaganda” he was the victim of all his life in the states.¹  This certainly brings the question of McLaren’s credibility, and even basic abilities, front and center.

Firstly, exactly how sophisticated was the campaign that kept McLaren wrongly supporting Israel, if he ever really did so, for his whole life until now (his born in 1956)?  He could not have been misled by the U.S. media all these years.  They consistently portray Israel as an evil aggressor any time they take a defensive action.   McLaren certainly was not misled by others of his liberal church collogues such as the Presbyterian Church USA.  The PCUSA claimed that Israel was erecting an obstacle to peace by building a security wall to keep out homicide bombers, and they called for financial divestment from companies doing business with Israel in order to punish it for pursuing self-preservation.

If McLaren is the self-described dimwit he claims he was for making “basic assumptions” in which he allowed his understanding to be “skewed from a lifetime of half-truths, unfair and imbalanced news…, and misinformation,”² how does he account for his sudden clarity?  If it truly takes a change in geography and first-hand observations to enable McLaren to clearly evaluate events and accounts, is the level of McLaren’s perspicuity actually worth any serious consideration whatsoever?  These are very pressing concerns because of other claims McLaren makes about himself.

McLaren claims to evaluate Christian doctrine and weigh the minds of the Apostles to prescribe new applications of scripture, based on his wisdom and insight, as he applies himself to the documents.  Astoundingly, he now admits to being unable to sort through the products of basic journalism and ferret out facts from fiction.  Obviously, his preexisting premises of being easily fooled and misled invalidate any claim he now makes to sound reasoning.  But he’s not appealing to reason.  McLaren is playing to small-minded anti-Semitism, and working for the spirit of Antichrist.

Notes:

^{1 - 2.} Mark D. Tooley, “The Anit-Israel Revelation,” FrontPage Magazine, January 27, 2010.  http://www.thenewsbeats.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=482

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (Joh 8:12)

Chuck and Nancy Missler of  Koinonia House ministries have found themselves having to respond to criticism regarding their take on the Outer Darkness mentioned three time in the book of Matthew.  They have contended in the past that it is not representative of the condemnation, or the eternal state of those without Christ Jesus, the Lord.  In an attempt to understand why they would take this view perhaps something can be learned from their reasoning.  The Misslers seem to have inherited the fallacy of false dilemma on the topic from Charles Stanley; whom they reference among a few others holding the same interpretation.  All of them proceed to their position by first discounting Outer Darkness as a representation of hell.  Yet, the fact that the Outer Darkness is not a description of hell does not necessarily mean it must apply to something other than complete separation from God and Christ for all eternity.  The Lake of Fire is not a description of hell either, but that does not mean people don’t end up there, or that it is not a place of eternal torment for those who reject Christ in this life (Rev 20:15).

Expositors are prone to error when they attempt to assign a stationary or geographic location to something that is only representative of a state of existence; just as they are likely to error by treating as permanent a location that is only temporary.  Outer Darkness is representative of the condemnation, and is the state of damnation; and even hell is a temporary abode which, after fulfilling its purpose, will itself be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14).

In their latest installment,¹ the Misslers contend that the Outer Darkness is “a place of restoration, renewal and reinstruction in the ways of the Lord” in the millennial kingdom.²  They claim it is a place for saints who will go to heaven, but who aren’t quite ready to be there, or are not fit to hold down a job in the millennial kingdom until they are “reestablished in holiness” by spending time in Outer Darkness.³  For a proof they reference the processes of chastening and scourging we undergo here on earth as sons, and which are means our heavenly father uses to perfect us.  This is true to scripture, but there is no scriptural support for the continuing of this refinement process once we are in our glorified bodies (1John 3:2).

There is, however, scripture that refutes it: “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away…. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1Cor 13:10, 12).  When we see our Lord, we will no longer be encumbered by flesh, and the hindrances of our fallen natures will be removed; our minds will then perfect, and we will be perfect in our knowledge of God, and his plans and purposes throughout the ages.  Again the Bible tells us: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1Jn 3:2). The entire transformation takes less than the twinkling of an eye. There will be no need for remedial classes in heaven, or the millennial kingdom, for resurrected or translated saints.

The Misslers would do well to jettison this misinterpretation and absorb any costs to their ministry now while such are easier to be borne.  If they continue to argue for it, they will come to find themselves arguing that the very wicked generation Christ condemned for rejecting Him is yet to be found in a rehabilitation center in the millennial kingdom.  They will not be there.

When the Pharisees questioned Christ’s authority (Mat 21:23) they were rejecting Him (Mat 21:42).  Christ then responded to their rejection by directing three parables to the Pharisees with each one becoming more exacting in its severity until the final point was driven home.  In the first, they are superseded in their entrance to the kingdom by those outside their religious order (Mat 21:28-31).  In the second, they are supplanted in their title to the kingdom by a new nation of saved Jews and Gentiles (Mat 21:33-43).  In the third, they are finally sentenced to an eternal destiny outside the kingdom (Mat 22:2-13).  If any doubts were to remain as to their damnation, Christ made it clear in his pronouncement of the eight woes following the three parables (Mat 23:13-39).

In the eighth woe Christ pronounced on the Pharisees He made it clear that they were representative of all who rejected God in the history of humanity, past, present, and future; and as a composite “generation” none of them would escape the “damnation of hell” (Mat 23:22).  Earlier in the third of the three parable to the Pharisees, Christ made it clear that this damnation was in effect being bound “hand and foot” in their sins for all eternity (Mat 22:13), and being cast into “outer darkness” where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”  (Mat 22:13).  Those Pharisees, and everyone else of their wicked generation, will not inhabit heaven, nor the millennial kingdom of Christ.

The Outer Darkness is representative of final and eternal separation from God and Christ, the “light of the world” (John 8:12).  It is regrettable that the both Charles Stanley and the Misslers are in error on this point.  While the Misslers take pains to separate their doctrine from that of the Catholic purgatory,⁴ and deny that weeping and gnashing of teeth denotes punishment,⁵ they nonetheless portray by it the same place in Greek mythology known as the Elysian Fields.⁵ These, and their precursor from Egyptian mythology’s Reed Fields, gave rise the that doctrine of purgatory, and the idea of second chances after death for the lost and unrepentant.

Notes:

^{1 - 5.} Koinonia House, “The Kingdom, Power, and Glory: How Secure Is our Salvation?” Personal Update: The News Journal of Koinonia House 20, no. 1 (2010) 31.

^{5. Ibid, 32.}

^6. The Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians’ Reed Fields in composing their Elysium where souls who survived journeys of purification through the fields  were able to spend eternity in happy circumstances.  Several variations of this exist in literature.  Originally, only the mortal relatives of the king of the gods made it to Elysium and a blessed after life, and later lessor souls were portrayed making a frightful journey of  to an area of remorse and suffering, but heroes and the virtuous fared better.

Members Recast: Judas Iscariots and No-Talents

Most Life Groups are not Christian fellowships.  They are groups of people managed for their resources by church leadership teams.  The unsaved are often encouraged to join these groups where salvation is secondary, if it is that high on the list at all.  The membership drives are conducted for any and all so long as they’ll be manageable for resources.  That is the impetus behind community outreach projects, and the reason an emphasis is on the surrounding community instead of focusing on the body of Christ, the Church, as a separate entity.  That sort of divisiveness would preclude growth as defined in corporate business models.

In Life Groups, members are confronted with Christianity-by-the-numbers, or with formulas for Christian living, designed by the leadership.  The leadership’s goals for growth and perpetuity of the organization are more attuned to self-preservation than they are to edification of the saints.  It follows for leaders to assess group members as potential capital. They are to be utilized for their labor, in volunteering; for their facilities, using homes; and for their money, collected in tithes, offerings, and sales for church products and productions.  There are several tactics employed to obtain these resources, and Life Groups provide an opportunity to work over members more personally in an intimate setting until they conform to the vision.

Many churches publish their Life Group resources online making it possible to obtain examples of human capital management in rather sordid detail.  Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch, California applies a particularly shameful example of coercion for raising finances from group members in its Life Group curriculum the “ABC’s of Financial Success.” In one lesson from the program Judas Iscariot is psychologically examined in such a way as to make it possible to negatively profile some members of the group.  After guided reading in the gospel of John, chapter twelve, group members are asked to share what they think went though Judas’ mind at the pouring of the ointment from the alabaster box onto Jesus.

We know what Judas said because it is recorded.  Judas protested that the ointment should have been sold, and the money given to the poor (John 12: 5).  The group members are prompted for their answer this way:

Often time [sic] we think of Judas just as an evil traitor but we must remember that he was not always thinking of betraying Jesus.  He left everything he had to follow Jesus and as far as we know he followed faithfully until his betrayal.  Based upon this information…share your answer.¹

The surface lesson might be that the love of money can cause one to miss sight of what is most important, but there is an obvious attempt at subliminal stimulation here that is atrocious.

The ulterior design of this prompting seems to be in persuading individuals to presume themselves candidates as likely as Judas to betray Christ.  The unraveling of their faith made possible by their retaining any reservation in turning over their finances in the percentages prescribed by the church, Satan was sure to enter into them effecting their eternal damnation.  The way in which these scriptures are handled in this exercise reveals both a gross manipulation of people, and the facts.

As far as we know, Judas was not faithfully following Jesus up until the betrayal.  The text tells us very plainly that Judas cared not for the poor, a fact others might have suspected and that John already knew, and an attitude opposite what one would expect from a person who had faith in Christ.  Furthermore, the same text reveals Judas was the one in the group who carried money purse, and it is clearly pointed out that “he was a thief” (John 12:6).  For how long Judas had been stealing we are not told, but he already had been stealing by this point, and had probably been doing so for a long time.   Contrary to what’s being implied, there was no sudden incident of a born-again Christian coveting a fortune affixed at his numerical breaking point and losing his salvation on account of it.

In another exercise, Life Group members are guided in reading the parable of the talents in Matthew, chapter twenty-five.   The facilitator is supplied with leader notes that correctly interpret what the parable represents, and the identities of the persons in the parable; except for one tragic error.  The leader notes bunch all the servants in the parable into one category, and instruct the facilitator to proclaim: “The servants represent us.”² A cursory examination of the details of the parable shows clearly that the one-talent servant was not one of us, that is he could not be considered a true Christian, but was in fact a professor only. In spite of this, group members are asked “Which one of the servants do you most relate to? Why?”³  Here again, the underlying motive for blurring the lines between the saved and the lost can be traced to raising capital.

The parable runs from verse 14 to verse 30, but the guided reading stops at verse 26, and this seems to be purposely guided so as to obscure, for the moment, the unsaved character of that one-talent servant, and his doom. The end of the parable reads:

Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 25:28-30)

The fact that the parable is short, and human nature is inquisitive, means that it is a safe bet to assume that many readers will, on their own, find out the fate of the one-talent servant.  By not covering it in the group, leaders can avoid fielding the salvation issue, and can instead let the implication stand that this fate awaits those who refuse to tithe to the church.

The one-talent servant buried his talent in the ground thus showing that he did not have Christ.  Those who have not Christ will lose even the life that they have.  There is no defense for such scandalous mistreatment of persons and misapplication of scriptures.  Nowhere in the leader notes is there any instruction or caution for ensuring the salvation issue in a group member’s life who identifies himself as the one-talent man upon examining this parable.  So it cannot be said that by identifying all the servants as “us” in the parable the church was merely acknowledging the saved and unsaved mixture of their Life Groups; else it is horribly negligent in the care for souls, and in the proclamation of the gospel. The reason for the church identifying all the servants of the parable in the same group is to use fear of cursing to motivate group members to give money.

Notes:

^1. Shepherd of the Hills Church, “Bondage,” ABC’s of Financial Success. (Leader Notes) http://www.4lifegroups.org/leaders/leader-notes/abc-s-of-financial-success-leader-notes/bondage. (accessed January 14, 2020).

^{2 -3.} Shepherd, “Funding,” ABC’s of Financial Success. (Leader Notes) http://www.4lifegroups.org/leaders/leader-notes/abc-s-of-financial-success-leader-notes/funding. (accessed January 14, 2020).

MORE ARTICLES ON LIFE GROUPS

The upcoming Radicalis conference scheduled to take place at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, February 9-12, will include speakers Rick Warren, his ministry team, and what is shaping up to be a line-up of, well, the usual suspects for apostasy. One headliner is Perry Noble, Senior Pastor of New Spring Church where there are 10,000 members.  The arduous chore of pastoring such a large crowd means that sacrifices must be made, but not by the pastor.  Noble explained some of the sacrifices members must be prepared to make in a video-clip retrieved from YouTube, in which Noble explained: “We have people coming to this church, going: ‘I want a church where I can know the pastor.’” Noble’s admonishment to those people was: “You need to leave.  I don’t have time.”¹  The factor of time in such a large church certainly plays a role in how often a pastor can meet with the sheep, but Noble has a larger problem with shepherding.

He went on to explain in the video: “I love my wife, and I love my kids, and I will not sacrifice my family on the ministry altar so I can come eat food that I won’t like, and hang out with people who make me feel uncomfortable.”²  Clearly, Noble does not like the sheep, and even finds them repugnant (and seems to possess a prejudice that Christians possess no culinary art).  Noble is simply not going to sacrifice as a pastor, or be troubled by ministry, and he is “dead serious” about it.³

To prove that point, Noble also informed members that they better be prepared to tough it on their own in sickness and disease.  Addressing the idea that he should visit members in the hospital, Noble clarified that his visits to the sick were strictly limited to a last-rites scenario of seeing a person just prior to them expiring, or as Noble delicately phrased it: “The guy behind me has the bag you’re leaving the room in.”⁴  Why Nobel would visit the sick at this juncture, and not in the intervening time for prayer and the laying on of hands for the sick to recover, might be further affirmation of how little he really cares about them; unless he somehow believes he really is empowered with special authority to ensure transition from earth to heaven for the dying.

A church of 10,000 is far too large for a pastor who can only find room in his heart to love his wife and kids, and not the sheep, but it is the perfect situation for a hireling, a stark contrast from a true shepherd:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. (Joh 10:11-13)

This hireling is among several that will be merchandising the sheep at Radicalis, under Rick Warren. In order to get an idea of what Noble will be selling, a look into his own product line will be helpful, but first a key term must be defined.

In the nomenclature of compromise there is an important thing to understand about the stampede to be relevant by these men; it is not to reach the modern world with the gospel, it is to emulate the modern world for profit.  Consequently, they don’t build churches, or even houses of worship.  They construct civic auditoriums for the purpose of staging theatrical productions.  Admission prices vary, with usually a standing charge of ten percent of a person’s income paid for the regular Sunday matinee, and fixed ticket prices for special events. For example, Noble has been producing his “one day church conference for pastors, staff members and volunteers” since 2007, and this year the tickets for Unleash 2010 are selling $59 each.⁵  To create excitement and drive up sales, Noble warned readers at his blogsite that this “early bird rate” is only good till the end of the month, and stresses the price is “cheap” by placing the word in all capitals followed by three exclamation points.⁶  In comparison to other productions Noble markets, as we will see, here, at least, he is being honest.

The composition of Unleash 2010 is made up by eighteen different sessions with Noble only headlining one of them.  Titles for the productions include those that would be typical in a business-growth formula being marketed by a large successful production company to smaller, up and coming production companies.  Topics touch on those things vital to growing businesses such as “Hiring, Firing and Creating a Great Staff Culture,” and to maximize profits there is “The Magic Formula for Getting People to Volunteer.”⁷ That would be for keeping astronomically high salaries in the hands of that great staff culture they created.  It is tempting to dismiss this fare as the product of small enterprises attracting too few to be harmful, but these conferences (like the promoters, and much of the attendees) have been sell-outs every year.  Ticket sales exceeded 850 the first year the conference was offered.  The real money, however, is in Noble promoting himself.

One of Noble’s bigger productions is his Personal Coaching Network which he limits to “around” fifteen senior pastors.⁸  The restriction to a smaller audience is intended to imply an intimate presentation where Noble will share money making church-growth secrets, but it’s strictly marketing.  If orders kept coming in, Noble would almost certainly continue to sell tickets to fill his auditorium, and schedule additional performances if necessary.  By pretending to limit the number of ticket sales Noble is doing two things.  Firstly, he is demonstrating his knowledge of what the market will bear.  Secondly, he is manipulating one of the elements of value; in this case scarcity.  When a commodity or product appears to be scarce, people tend to assign a higher value to it.  Here specifically, Noble is looking for people “willing to do whatever it takes to grow,” and that includes agreeing that the tickets are worth the $1,500 he is charging for them.⁹   To date, Noble stages two of these networks per year. At face value, a pastor charging other pastors to discuss the ministry with them is scandalous.  As we are witnessing, though, this is not the ministry; this is apostasy.

Notes:

^1. Museum of Idolatry, A Purpose-Driven Scolding, Perry Noble (YouTube, January 31, 2009). Video-clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxkhs9×98w&feature=related. (accessed January 7, 2010).

^{3 - 4.} Ibid.

http://www.perrynoble.com/2010/01/11/unleash-6/. (accessed January 12, 2010).

7 New Springs Church, Unleash 2010, “What to Expect at Unleash,” http://www.newspring.cc/unleash/2010/. (accessed January 12, 2010).

8-9 Perry Noble, “Coaching Network Openings,” Perry Noble: Leadership, Vision, and Creativity, December 9, 2010.

http://www.perrynoble.com/category/coaching-network/. (accessed January 12, 2010).

And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?

Controversy and position switching are in the wake of the Miss California story that erupted out of the Miss USA pageant.  Some have been accused of giving Christian heroine status to a woman whose immodesty overshadowed her moral convictions as she competed in a bathing suit contest.  Because this drama is indicative of a spiritual battle that rages behind the vial of the flesh, it is no surprise that the salient points of the story would be artfully slighted in clever distraction.  Observations can be made on the polarization of good and evil presented on the national stage along with an assessment of the end times in terms of spiritual warfare,  without it constituting an endorsement of epidermal proselytizing.

The points to be draw from the story are: (1) a young Christian woman, obviously immature in the faith, refused to renounce, by acquiescence, God’s design for mankind when she was put to the test of enormous pressure and certain forfeiture of all she had, to that moment, successfully competed for; (2) the jackboot of the homosexual lobby is a temporal front for Satan’s spiritual attack on God’s word, and design for humanity; (3) the main point, upon which this drama played, that the degree of degradation in these last days is such that Satan boasts openly of his power over the kingdoms of this world on national television, causes a nation to tremble before his hoards as they steal their heritage, and is in hot pursuit of any who will not bow to him in worship.

In this story, the young Christian protagonist is not a heroine, and the homosexual antagonists is not the devil.  They are merely the unlikely fleshly tablets in which the spiritual warfare played out in this particular skirmish.  At the outset, Satan spied an opportunity to crush a young Christian, and then, as accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10), ridicule Christ by it.  After the tempter failed in this, he thought he had still won a victory by robbing the Christian of an earthly crown, but he lost that battle in that the crown incorruptible received more attention than it otherwise would have had he not attacked the woman (a familiar theme).

Astute reporters chronicled the event in this light.  There would exist, no doubt, in an audience of several million who watched the drama many carnal Christians.  Some would even see the battle as an opportunity to have a heroine in the flesh.  Perhaps it was some of these that at first admired the young Christian’s courage, but later retracted there statements after being chided that there was too much flesh displayed.  These may have been reproved by an article in Christianity Today where, aside from its misnomer, if the sum total of its Christian fidelity were cast into lead bars it couldn’t sink a paper cup in rough waters.  It is a secular magazine for outward Christian appearances, and as such makes many compromises with the world.

In following the magazine’s cover,  Katelyn Beaty took many to task for exhibiting a double standard where they heralded Miss California Carrie Prejean for her courage under fire without also criticizing the scarcity of her uniform.  Beaty’s article “The Other Miss California Controversy” is a typical pulp-like offering on the drama.  It side-steps the spiritual dimension of homosexuality and its hostility towards Christ, uses only the euphemisms that are demanded by the homosexual lobby to describe the conflict (i.e. “gay” and “same-sex marriage” in place of the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘abomination’), and reduces God’s commands to merely “biblical sexual ethics.”¹  And under this crushing moral weight; no less than Christian pastors are crumbling.

In one ‘about face’ example, Larry DeBruyn, pastor, Discernment Ministries, led his retreat with a portion of Beaty’s article as an epigram to his own article wherein he recants his former admiration for Prejeans’s courage on account of the flesh involved.  He claims he was led to reflect that it was too much of hers, but as that means he was led by his own in the first case, and then persuaded by the superficiality of a fleshly tabloid in the second, it is probably the flesh that’s still eating pastor DeBruyn.

In his article “Miss USA Controversy - A Pastor Responds,” DeBruyn sends up lots of scripture verse on nakedness and lust, and even meanders around in the Old Testament, but even when he finds himself in Leviticus, chapter eighteen, he can’t seem to find the verse: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Lev 18:22).  Granted, that wasn’t the focus of his article, but he did ramble as far as Mecca for moral support to condemn Prejean when he speculated that:

The prevalence of nudity and semi-nudity in our culture may help explain-there is no excuse for terrorism-why fundamentalist Muslims, whose women dress in burkhas (i.e., loose garments with veiled holes for the eyes), detest the west (See “Women in Burkas: A Lesson for Christians”).²

To raise as a sceptre of righteousness what fronts for Muslim purity as a standard to be appealed to in judging the Church is more than shallow; it is reprehensible.  The explanation for why fundamentalist Muslims hate the west is Christianity.  If there be any ancillary animosities held by women in burkhas it is that they are forced to smother under burlap bags while other women lie on beaches in Malibu.  Those so easily turned on their good opinion like DeBruyn as on the edge of a dime must ask themselves what is the mint of their coinage.  Are they tokens to be spent in God’s economy, or are they slotted only for prevailing public opinion?

The mature in the faith know that this age of grace is fast coming to an end.  We must be discerning, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”(Eph 6:12). The young men need prayer so that they may be established, and slip not by cleaver diversion, and bend not when compassed about. They that be with us are more than they that be with them.  When once a servant of a man of God feared how they should make out against the hordes of the enemy, Elisha prayed that the Lord would open the servant’s eyes.  “And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (2Ki 6:17).  Lord, open your servants’ eyes.

Notes:

^1. Katelyn Beaty, “The Other Miss California Controversy,” Christianity Today blog for women, April 23, 2009. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2009/04/the_other_miss_california_cont.html

^2. Larry DeBruyn, “Miss USA Controversy - A Pastor Responds,” Slice of Laodicea, April 24, 2009. Extracted in “The Naked Slippery Slope,” Herescope, April 27, 2009.  Quotations taken from Extract. http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/04/naked-slippery-slope.html

In establishing a new precursor to partnerships with the Antichrist, his workers of iniquity continue to pave that way for his arrival and worship. 

By an executive order, President Obama has surpassed the existing faith-based intrusions into religious freedom, which were baited by access to federal funds, and inaugurated an office to be empowered to make incursions into every neighborhood household in the land.  As of February 5, 2009, the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (FBNP) began efforts at taking control of all religious organizations, and dictating what religious tenets are legal, and which are to be outlawed.  The goal is for all churches to eventually be nationalized, and placed under the provisional license of the federal government.  This sweeping federal oversight is being ushered in under pretense averting an economic catastrophe.

(part 3) - see parts: (1) (2) (4) (5)

Partnerships: In Community 

These new faith-based and neighborhood partnerships are only a precursor to the formation of a new state religion, with world power, that Satan will use to his advantage for first half the tribulation period.  He desires to be worshiped, and even said to Jesus: “If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine” (Luk 4:7).  Eventually he will, as Antichrist, have his hour; “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8).  The religious leaders who are working to forge these partnerships are preparing the way.  They represent a select group within the world’s population who are left behind when God turns his attention on refining Israel, and judging ungodliness.  They will be dealt with separately and more severely during that period, and upon the Lord’s return to earth:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jud 1:14-15; emphasis added)

These ungodly are destined to congregate in a coming world church that is described in the book of Revelation, chapter seventeen, as Mystery Babylon.  While the true Church will not see its final formation, this foreshadowing will continue in its increase as an enveloping darkness until the end of the age.  Consequently, the Church will see escalating persecution as it is marginalized out of the congealing state religion.  Under the original faith-based program the capture was congregation by congregation, wherein many dissenters could go unmolested.  By adding neighborhoods to the church-government partnerships accountability reaches down to the household level.  The implications for families and individuals are hard to over emphasize.

When the newly fashioned church bells toll in neighborhoods everywhere it will mean “we need all hands on deck, ” as Obama puts it,^10[3] so that they may bow before the new potentate, and swear their allegiance to the new green religion of “saving our planet”.^11[3]   Those not willing to renounce Christ, not willing to have their faith based in everyone else’s faith in order to do the real work of this new ministry, are going to be labeled heretics.  Anyone not standing at the curb saluting the passing PBS van and listening to their instructions for community service over the loudspeaker will be dealt with swiftly.  In the not too distant future, the van will be followed by trailer on which will be mounted a guillotine.^12[6]

While no one knows the day or the hour when the White House Office of FBNP will be absorbed by the United Nations, or other world governing body, to act as enforcer of the coming world religion for Antichrist, fangs are showing over at the Justice Department.

In a speech to Justice Department employees decrying unresolved racial issues, new Attorney General Eric Holder lambasted Americans as a “nation of cowards,”^13[7] and demeaned them for having private lives and personal pursuits outside the work place.  Reportedly, “Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.”^14[7]  These are not careless remarks, but evidence of carefully designed strategy.

Of course, Americans are not cowards, and any Attorney General holding that view disqualifies himself for service.  Holder is willing to bet that he won’t get ousted from his office by the outcry over his remarks of disdain for his countrymen on the hopes that Americans will be cowering on at least two fronts.  As the first black Attorney General, Holder is gambling on the fear people will have of being called a racist for criticizing him for calling Americans cowards and racists.  He is also riding in on the wave of the new collaborative.

After years of groundwork laid by communitarians in the work place, and apostates in the worship place, Americans by and large are ‘in community’ under some Soviet hierarchy somewhere.  They are increasingly being attached in their private lives during evenings and on weekends by employers who are both secular and faith-based.  A charge that can now strike terror in many a small group gathering, who are in community, is not being in authentic community. This state is reached only by members continually divulging secretes about themselves in the form of confessions on the pretense of identifying and dealing with their inadequacies as a process of perfecting themselves in the incubus of the group; and which then allows the group to attain the coveted seal transparency.  Implicit in the word “authentic” is not only that it be genuine, but also that it be authorized.  The Attorney General has his sights set on the private lives of Americans to assess them, and to grant or withhold the federal seal of authenticity based on their activity in federally approved associations and pursuits.

[ Next: “Partnerships: Transparency”]

Notes:

^3. Karen Travers, “Obama Names 26-Year-Old Director of Faith-Based Office: White House to Broaden Religious and Community Outreach,”ABC News, February 5, 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6806913&page=1

^7. Devlin Barrett, “Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters,” Breitbart.com, February 18, 2009. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E53483&show_article=1

In establishing a new precursor to partnerships with the Antichrist, his workers of iniquity continue to pave that way for his arrival and worship. 

By an executive order, President Obama has surpassed the existing faith-based intrusions into religious freedom, which were baited by access to federal funds, and inaugurated an office to be empowered to make incursions into every neighborhood household in the land.  As of February 5, 2009, the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (FBNP) began efforts at taking control of all religious organizations, and dictating what religious tenets are legal, and which are to be outlawed.  The goal is for all churches to eventually be nationalized, and placed under the provisional license of the federal government.  This sweeping federal oversight is being ushered in under pretense averting an economic catastrophe.

(part 2) - see parts: (1) (3) (4) (5)

Partnerships: Being Conscripted

It will be a priority of the new White House Office of FBNP to ensure that newly created laws, which will supersede any religious and constitutional laws, be dictated to the partnerships so they can “learn their obligations under the law… and make the most of what the federal government has to offer.”^7[1]  Now we need to understand that any groups of religious people who dissent from these partnerships out of allegiance to God and his word will not make the list of Obama’s ‘great religions’ (q.v.).  They will eventually be outlawed by the Attorney General, White House Counsel, and the Executive Director of the White House Office of FBNP as they work through those difficult constitutional safeguards that are in the way of the new state religious partnerships.  In this effort, UN and international law, which most often represses religious freedom, will be consulted and touted as superior to our outdated colonial ideas of freedom.  The Supreme Court is already on record for consulting foreign law to decide matters brought before it, and Justices have gushed with pride over their dereliction of duty, and treason.^8[5]  It has never been more important to keep separate that which is to be rendered unto Caesar and that which is to be rendered unto God.

It is critical to understand that these new partnerships are not being recruited, but drafted.  Any house in the neighborhood or church  that dose not evidence total compliance by being conscripted will be subject to penalty.  Things that the federal government has to offer will be taken away.  For the family, that could mean forfeiture of the right to purchase state regulated utilities because they refuse to sign stewardship pledges that cite responsibilities to mother earth as superseding those due to God alone. For churches, the first to go will be tax exempt status.  This will be used as leverage to bring churches into line, and to compromise preaching from the pulpit to sell the Obama partnerships to congregations.

The process of eviscerating churches will be easier than ever before now due to Rick Warren’s success at decimating, first the Baptist’s memberships, and now, nearly all protestant denominations with soviet-style small control groups of micromanaged social workers (earning their salvation one neighborhood at a time).  It has also never been easier to see that Warren is Satan’s plant in the Church; as it is clearly revealed that the two trees, Warren’s and Obama’s, bear the same thorns.  Warren also works to deny Christ, and equated him to nothing more than a dead Islamic prophet, by the name of Isa, in his inaugural prayer on Obama’s behalf.^9[4]

While having the endorsement of apostate Rick Warren will bring many unsuspecting souls into national servitude, Obama must consolidate all the visible church into a kingdom building army before taking the next important step.  A very successful tactic used to bring opponents into fellowship is to invite prominent members from their respective camps to set on a committee established to address some social cause that can unite them.  If the personality be reluctant to compromise, the asp of flattery still proves fatal to all but the most steadfast in the faith.  Former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page is one of the most recent and unwitting persons to prove this truth.  Joshua DuBois, executive director of the FBNP, prevailed upon Page to sign on to the FBNP panel by persuading him the President of the United States wanted to hear his views.  Very haughty stuff, being summoned as a presidential adviser.  Even though Page knew the FBNP was overwhelmingly made up of compromised liberals, the flattery made him think that he could nonetheless bring to the table a biblical viewpoint; something they long ago abandoned as too grievous to bear.

As a lame cover for unequally yoking himself together with unbelievers, Page requested that Baptists pray for him as he set down with the rapacious and the covetous despite clear biblical injunctions not to do so (1 Cor 5:11; 2Jo 1:10-11; Rom 16:17). No doubt in some quarters prayers ascended that the chair brake in two. This may seem un-Christian like to some, but the supplicants of those prayers know the purpose behind the FBNP panel, and what persecutions will be unleashed upon the real church when those who are called brothers are compromised. Common ground will be sought for the sake of the good cause so that the extreme position of biblical Christianity can be eliminated, and this sanctioned by its supposed spokesmen and leaders. After enough of these accomplishments at the executive level, it is not long before biblical views become illegal, and the holders of those views become outlaws.

[Next: “Partnerships: In Community”]

Notes:

^1. Sarah Pulliam, “Obama Signs Executive Order on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,” (press release) Christianity Today, February 5. 2009. (citation 6; emphasis added) http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/02/obama_signs_exe.html

^4. “Warren Ends Inaugural Prayer with ‘Jesus’,” CBNnews.com, January 20, 2009.http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/524368.aspx 

^5. David Dansker, “U.S. Supreme Court Out of Order: ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans to be Killed’,” News Snippets From All Beats, June 13, 2008. http://www.thenewsbeats.com/news/?p=118

In establishing a new precursor to partnerships with the Antichrist, his workers of iniquity continue to pave that way for his arrival and worship. 

By an executive order, President Obama has surpassed the existing faith-based intrusions into religious freedom, which were baited by access to federal funds, and inaugurated an office to be empowered to make incursions into every neighborhood household in the land.  As of February 5, 2009, the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (FBNP) began efforts at taking control of all religious organizations, and dictating what religious tenets are legal, and which are to be outlawed.  The goal is for all churches to eventually be nationalized, and placed under the provisional license of the federal government.  This sweeping federal oversight is being ushered in under pretense averting an economic catastrophe.

(part 1) - see parts: (2) (3) (4) (5)

Partnerships: The New Gloden Rule

In the previous faith-based federal program, churches could obtain federal money by moving away from Christ, and towards employment as a federal agency.  Now they have been redefined as one in several categories of community secular organizations, including “senior centers and shelters, schools and hospitals, and any place an American decides.^1[1]  The discretionary purview of the average American, however, will be very narrow in scope, and must comply with the “common goals” as defined for the White House Office of FBNP by Obama and Joshua DuBois, a former associate Pentecostal pastor, who will head the office.^2[1]   All organizational efforts must give priority to being a part of the solution for the current economic situation because the “Office’s top priority will be making community groups an integral part of our economic recovery and poverty a burden fewer have to bear when recovery is complete.”^3[1]  When the White House Office of FBNP will allow churches to return to their own priorities, such as ministering to and caring for their own congregations and preaching gospel, will be far off to never.

Terms used by the White House Office of FBNP to define success are vague and subjective; financial recovery won’t be complete until ‘fewer’ bear the ‘burden’ of poverty, but how much is fewer, and what constitutes a burden? Politically, this ambiguity always serves two designs; failure cannot be identified, and success can be claimed at any time.  Occasionally, political leaders strive to have it serve a much larger and more sinister purpose.  They will marshal general and all encompassing rhetoric to bolster their own preeminence in their quest for power over the masses.

This is the sort of rhetoric Obama is using to deny Christ and demote Christianity to nothing more that a faith-based organization to be amalgamated with all other faith-based religions that will in turn be answerable to the state above all else.  In preparing to announce the formation the White House Office of FBNP, Obama prefaced its disclosure at the National Prayer Breakfast.  There, Obama’s decree had the sweet ring of humility at its edges to disguise the clang of servitude at its center.  “There is one law that binds all great religions together,” Obama said.  “It is, of course, the Golden Rule; the call to love one another, to understand one another, to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”^4[2]  There are a few important points which disqualify this ‘call’ from being a Christian clarion.

Firstly, Christianity is exclusive of all other religions, not bound together with any of them, in that Christ claimed to be the only way (Joh 14:6), and warned that other great religions would come along centered on “false Christs” and “false prophets” (Mat 24:24).  By this decree of one superseding and binding law the secular messiah places himself above all other religious authority, including the God of the Bible, and identifies himself as the arbiter of supreme laws all must acquiesce to, and be bound together under.  In order to sweep the nuisances of “red tape” that might get in his way,^5[1] Obama’s new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will begin legal maneuvers to chip away constitutional protections that safeguard religious freedom, and freedom of association.

The deceptive language that he chose is under the cover of federal assistance, and states that the newly established office has also been given “a new mechanism for the Executive Director of the Office to work through the White House Counsel to seek the advice of the Attorney General on difficult legal and constitutional issues.”^6[1]  The implication being proffered here is that these are difficulties impeding the dispensation of free federal money, but what the new law giver also means by that is enforcement.

[Next: “Partnerships: Being Conscripted”]

Notes:

^1. Sarah Pulliam, “Obama Signs Executive Order on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,” (press release) Christianity Today, February 5. 2009. (citation 6; emphasis added) http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/02/obama_signs_exe.html

^2.  Jennifer Riley, “Obama Emphasizes ‘One Law’ that Binds All Religions,” Christian Post, February 6, 2009. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/02/obama_signs_exe.html

A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.

- John E. Ashbrook

Explaining his acceptance of an invitation to serve on the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships panel (FBNP), former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page admitted to having concerns.  He noted that there are “very few conservatives on the council,” but he is requesting prayer: “I do ask Baptists to pray for me as I try to bring to the table what I believe is a conservative, biblical viewpoint.”¹

Reportedly, Page took assurances from former associate Pentecostal pastor Joshua DuBois, executive director of the White House Office of FBNP, that President Obama really wants to hear his views.  Where do these guys hide when the expos’es are coming out?

Obama and company want to vent Page like an air bag in a small group, pretend to incorporate his suggestions into policy by using facilitators expert at recasting his words to match predetermined outcomes, and obtain his support, for things he might ordinarily object to, by arriving at consensus.  He is being used, and many will likely suffer because of his succumbing to flattery.

Bible believing Christians will be the losers, and the White House Office of FBNP will gain either way Page falls.  If he remains, they will be able to claim conservative religious support for their agenda.  If he jumps ship, they can renounce all conservatives (Bible believing Christians) as obstructionists, and they will certainly hold that over his head as leverage to keep him onboard.

The White House Office of FBNP is another effort at conscripting churches into an army of federally mandated social workers for community service (something that used to be reserved for convicted felons), under federal laws that do away with free exercise of religion.  Financially struggling churches began falling into this trap by first accepting faith-based funding, and in tying on the federal feed-bag they tied on a muzzle.  Some thought that they could use government money to finance God’s work.  They might have been innocent enough, or coned by a wolf, but certainly naive and foolish.  In this age of deception, it has never been more important to keep separate the things that are Caesar’s from the things that are God’s

Notes:

^1. Baptist Press, “Page hopeful, cautious about faith council,” February 17, 2009. 

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=29824

[More Articles on FBNP: for series click here]

Presidential candidate Barack Obama hosted a private interview this week with several Christian leaders that some say was intended “to prompt a wide discussion”¹ on various topics such as abortion and homosexual rights. Such reaching out by politicians for the purpose of dialogue is notoriously aimed at courting endorsements from high profile personalities. Christian leaders, especially of the genuine verity, should take warning. These same leaders will find that they are expendable, and will be sheded faster than a burning shirt, should they later prove politically inconvenient. And they will be the ones worse for the wear. Just ask Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, San Antonio Texas. Hagee endorsed Republican candidate John McCain only to be thrown under the bus by McCain when the press took Hagee out of context from sermon he preached back in the nineties on Israel. Hagee, who undoubtedly threw his support behind McCain in an effort to ward off the greater of two evils (and not on McCain’s substance), learned the hard way any compromise with reprobates is too much.In an effort to make their union work out, Hagee had been forced to write a letter of apology to the Catholic Church for his eschatological teaching which identifies it as the imitation, One World church to enjoy temporary reign and then suffer God’s wrath during the tribulation period. The letter was magnanimous enough not to retract the substance of the teaching, but Hagee’s integrity suffered damage by the appearance of a general retraction. They keep coming.

Ask Pastor Bob DeWaay of Twin City Fellowship, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He visited pastor-turned-politician Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven conference last month (at Warren’s all-expenses paid invitation) on the pretense of establishing dialogue. Dewaay has been critical of Warren’s departure from Christina doctrine and adoption of secular principals, and was solicited by Warren in an effort to woo him over. The effort failed, but ever the politician Warren tried to capitalize on the compromise visit by having his camp claim that DeWaay’s attendance at the conference evidenced his endorsement of Warren’s politics.

DeWaay was forced to spend time defending himself against Warren’s powerful PR machine, and reiterating his unchanged position with what meager resources he could avail himself of. While he probably salvaged the charge, always printed on the front page, with those who know him best; the correction, always printed on the back page, could barely be expected to reach the ones who had attended the conference and who noted DeWaay’s presence there. If nothing else, some damage was done if only in expended effort that could have been put to use elsewhere. Yet, the harder they learn, the harder they fall.

The next Christian leader in line to learn the lesson of compromise the hard way was lined up by Barack for his private interview. Franklin Graham revealed that he carries the shoehorn for his own slide by explaining why he attended the event. According to Graham’s spokesman, “He feels that dialogue with someone who may be president is useful whether or not you agree with them on everything or anything.”² Will they never learn? Couldn’t Graham take a cue form the other leaders who were present and realize that he was at Compromise Hall, and extricate himself with honor?

It was no surprise that T.D. Jakes, quoted above, was in attendance and in affirmation. Jakes has been fawning over Obama from the beginning of his campaign, and is already famous for his compromise of Christian doctrine in favor of splash and cash. Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals (also known as the Green Evangelicals), who also attended, would follow Obama anywhere so long as he continues to support the Green politics of eviscerating the American way of life and reintroducing serfdom so that the earth may be shown its proper reverence, and Gaia worship can be established as the state religion. That political plank works in fine with Obama’s Post Modern Marxism as was expressed by his wife who, while campaigning for his economic policies of, no surprise, universal distribution, said: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”³ Every one except the ones in charge of the pie, that is. It will be their job to oversee the revolution (change we can believe in) until everyone is freed to become a poor starving, but green, Marxist. Attention Christian leaders: Marxists and apostates are atheists, compromise at you own risk.

Notes:

^1. Charles Babington, “Christian Leaders Meet Privately with Obama,” Christian Post, Jun 11, 2008.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080611/32771_

Christian_Leaders_Meet_Privately_with_Obama.htm

^2. Babington, “Christian Leaders Meet Privately with Obama.” (emphasis added).

^3. Charlotte.com, “Giving Hope a Comeback,” March 8, 2008. http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/572303.html

For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth. (Isa 21:6)

Support for the Senate investigation into prosperity preachers’ financial dealings continues to grow. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine has gone on record welcoming a congressional-led “reformation,”¹ and now Michael Barrick of MinistryWatch.com has also joined the charge. Barrick has reportedly said of the investigation, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, that: “If the Church fails to hold its own accountable and if its most visible leaders fail to live by the very standards they purport to proclaim, then we should applaud when a leader with the standing of Grassley demands accountability.”² Yet, applause may be premature.

As members in Christian industry join the bandwagon of ministry watchdogs they may be overlooking a few key points regarding their brand of church accountability, and the means for achieving it. And these oversights raise some questions.

The prompting, in the first place, of congressional fishing expeditions into ministries that have satisfied IRS requirements calls into question the motives of those who initiate it. Are they really concerned with financial accountability, or is it because they find a particular religious teaching distasteful that they seek to punish by other means what they cannot censor?

By their use of the term “the church,” in the second place, do these watchdogs imply that these ministries they lead the charge on are congregations in the Church of Jesus Christ, the body of saints who are born again believers? Thirdly, do they also imply that they are in that body too?

The answers on these questions are important because they prescribe or explain courses of action, but no possible answer on any of of the first two questions should result in the action these watchdogs are taking.

If it is the case that these ministries’ religious teachings are the real reason behind the action of these watchdogs, that they are so distasteful to their doctrinal sensibilities, then it might have occurred to them that perhaps these are not Christian ministries. In which case, they have an obligation to expose them (Rom 16:17,18), but they have no justification to persecute them. And if any of them are Christian ministries, they have no doctrinal justification to go before the law.

These are points that Barrick neglected to take note of while applauding an onslaught of congressional oversight to ensure that those ministries follow their own catechisms. Another point he neglects is the need to abide by any instructions that would apply here to himself on this subject:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? (1Co 6:1)

Now, Barrick and Grady and Ole Anthony of Trinity Foundation, who initiated the investigation, may say that they have aired it out with these ministries for several years and have gotten nowhere. But did any one of them actually have a matter against them, other then a disagreement over doctrine? It hardly appears that it is anything else (they question their fidelity because of lavish lifestyles which by prosperity teaching is a sign of God’s blessing), and even if they had a matter they stand to be rebuked for their action, or endorsement of it:

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (1Co 6:5-6)

This is a key point to consider here in determining a legal action; that it should not set unbelievers to adjudicate the affairs of the saints. These are supposed to be spiritual in their reckoning amongst themselves and not carnal (Grassley not withstanding, the House of Representatives is a secular body). While Barrick is correct to observe that: “How these televangelists respond will reflect directly upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ,”³ which has already been made a casualty on many fronts due to scandalous behavior of professing Christians, in and out of the pulpit; his scrutiny appears to fail him in close quarters.

If he and the rest of these watchdogs are themselves Christians-in-watching, they should be able assess the negative impact their own actions would have on the gospel; affixing the seal of Christianity to these organizations in question, and whetting legislative appetites to attack real gospel preachers they find offensive. Moreover, in light of that concern, they should have acted out of the knowledge that it would be better for the Church if they would suffer a matter unresolved (if there be a matter), than to take it to the unsaved:

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (1Co 6:7)

It is one thing to be a watchman alerting the sheep to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Therein is plenty of work that will only cease when the Lord returns. Until then, the wolves, for the most part, are going to remain wolves, and sheep will be sheep; some of whom will be torn on occasion. That’s the reason for the watchman. He is to spend his time warning the sheep, not taking the wolves to court. Perhaps only two sorts of watchmen would fail to understand this. One would be too unlearned to be at his post.

Notes:

^1. Lillian Kwon, “More Questions Raised in Probe of Preachers,”The Christian Post, December 04, 2007.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071204/30344
_More_Questions_Raised_in_Probe_of_Preachers.htm

^2. Lillian Kwon, “Grassley Still Waiting on Preachers Under Financial Scrutiny,” The Christian Post, December 19, 2007

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071219/30563_Grassley_Still

_Waiting_on_Preachers_Under_Financial_Scrutiny.htm

^3. Ibid.

Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove California is set to host a Christian conference in January 2008 that will include a gathering of assorted cultural icons. The conference, titled “Rethink: new perspectives from global influencers,” is billed as a high-level strategy session where strategic briefings will be given on geo-political trends, and where “secrets for success”¹ will be shared. The object of the conference is to glean valuable insight for determining how to “stay on the cutting edge” in this fast paced world.² The practical strategies for this edge-clinging are to be discovered in post-briefing, facilitated, small group brainstorming sessions.

There are at least two serious problems with this Christian conference. Firstly, it is amazing to find the facilitated format still purported to be a process of shared discovery after so many have already discovered that this small group paradigm means that the conclusions have gone in before the facilitators come out.

Secondly, the criterion that was used for selecting speakers for this “Christian” event has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. The qualifier is that they be successful in a given market. That is what makes them influential. The line up of guest speakers includes entertainers, filmmakers, global media executives, and a former U.S president. Speakers will be professing Christian thinkers, and non-Christian Globalist thinkers such as Larry King and George H. Bush. The question naturally arises, why would this still be billed as a Christian conference? Here is the answer Rethink provides:

We’re purposely gathering a group of speakers you wouldn’t necessarily expect to hear at a Christian conference. Our aim is to be immersed in the latest thoughts and perspectives of these respected cultural icons to tap into what’s happening in our world today and to grapple with how we respond.³

With the exception of the ignorant and the naïve, could any real Christian leaders be expected to attend this confabulation? Any Christians who are sent invitations should already know that what is happening in the world today is spiritual warfare, and that we are not to gather with the unsaved to grapple with flesh and blood for our strategies, but are instead to put on the whole amour of God (Eph 6:13-18):

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph 6:12)

Furthermore, Christians are not to be immersed in the vain philosophies of man’s wisdom, no matter how iconoclastic a particular philosopher has become by his or her success in the kingdoms of this world (Col. 2:8). Neither should we be yoked together with them in their pursuits, or adopt their methods of pursuing; whether that be for obtaining success, or gain, or for the sake of social causes (2 Cor. 6:14-18). These causes differ from faith causes in that they precede from the desires of the flesh to serve the flesh.

Campaigns to address poverty and hunger emerge to sustain a cheap source of labor to furnish goods and services to the comfortable, to circumvent epidemics before pandemics reach the them, and to gain subservience from dependent classes (they would put a labtop in their hands to get instructions to them faster). Programs to distribute medical supplies naturally follow poverty campaigns for the same reasoning. The world fight against AIDS is a fight of the flesh in response to the sinner’s desire to engage in all manner of fornication at all times despite clear and present danger to themselves and others.

Africa is the magnet for these appeals to the churches because it is the mesh where the pictures of innocent starving children can be applied to all these issues while at the point of a bayonet in a war-torn dirt land far enough from pews to invite easy meritorious sainthood and preclude the responsibilities of the priesthood of every believer. Churches like Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral and Rick Warren’s Saddleback feed on this Christian irresponsibility as much as they are the cause of it.

The Rethink conference will be about adopting key programs for influencing the world. To do this they will have to adopt the causes that feed the world’s flesh in order to win their praise, and they will have to ignore their souls in order to gain acceptance. These new programs will be carried back to churches everywhere and billed as new ways of doing church for the new century. They will be portrayed as required adaptations churches must make in order to adjust to the culture and obtain relevance. The message will play well to congregations who have for too long be fed the empty calories of whip cream in place of sound doctrine, and the tide will continue towards apostasy.

Notes:

^1. Rethink: New Perspectives From Global Influencers, Why Rethink?

http://www.rethinkconference.com/index.php?option=com

_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=2 (accessed October 10, 2007).

^2. Ibid.

^3. Rethink: New Perspectives From Global Influencers, Speakers

(conference scheduled for January 17-19, 2008), http://www.rethinkconference.com

/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=14.

(accessed October 8, 2007).

This is a Christian news and commentary website that purposely avoids the political aspect of issues, or what usually goes by the name of politics. Political discourse is diversionary, too easily ensnares the young in the faith, and deals with symptoms rather than causes. It is inevitable, however, that at certain times candidates will venture far into Christian circles, and espouse false dilemmas that must be rebuked. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani epitomizes such a politician. Speaking at Houston Baptist University last Sunday, Giuliani stated that he is personally opposed to abortion because it is “morally wrong,” and yet he “would grant women the right to make that choice.”[i] While there are some statements that can be interpreted in a verity of ways, this is not one of them.

Abortion can only be morally wrong if it is morally murder. There is nothing else that goes on in an abortion. In spite of his admission that a position on abortion is reached by “deep and profound judgment,”[ii] he is willing to disregard what he knows to be murder in order to win pro-abortion votes. Furthermore, he has the audacity to tell a Christian audience that: “Everybody’s got to make a choice. How important are the differences and then how important are the other issues that are involved in this election?”[iii] Giuliani is lying.

By implication, he is clearly presenting a false dilemma where Christians must chose to vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s simply not true, but Christians still fall for it nonetheless by misinterpreting their responsibility of Christian stewardship. The reasoning runs that because Christians are blessed to be citizens of this great nation founded on Christian principals, they are obliged to protect it and maintain it by participation in its affairs, and by voting. This is true, but when politicians who have absolutely no convictions, outside of getting elected, court the Christian vote they imply that, no matter what, in the end you’ve got to compromise; and that is not true.

Notice how Giuliani sets it up: “You have a right to evaluate this in figuring out if you can support me, and at what level you can support me.”[iv] In other words, a voter must separate themselves from their morals and lay them out in front of them like chips in a card game. Giuliani would have us to think that a hand of lower taxes, strong on defense, and which also holds the murder card; trumps his opponent, which also holds the murder card, but is high on taxes and low on defense. It doesn’t, because an individual who votes for Giuliani is also authorizing the murder of innocent babies. As a politician, Giuliani works hard to try and mask that fact.

By emphatically pronouncing his objection to abortion, he tries to give the voter another “level” for their conscious to retreat to in order pull the lever for him as a pro-life candidate. What Giuliani is also masking here is that there is a third vote whereby voters don’t have to get blood on their hands. Voters don’t have to settle for Giuliani, or for his murdering rivals, they can abstain. Abstention is a valid and important vote that is made after determining that there are no statesmen running for office; no candidates with moral convictions and the courage to stand up and fight for them.

It would be far easier to respect Giuliani if he would simply declare that he is pro-abortion. For him to say that he knows abortion is murder, that it is morally wrong, and that women should be allowed to commit that murder explains the degree to which he has compromised his own morals. This also indicates that he expects others to abandon morality and make decisions based solely on expediency.

Giuliani told the students at Houston Baptist that he had a profound respect for their views, and their education, and their religion.[v] Indeed, some students polled just after Giuliani’s appearance seemed taken by his performance. One remarked he thought Giuliani gave a great speech, and said: “I agree that we’re not going to agree 100 percent with all candidates. I think it was a good political stance to take. He’s sitting right in the middle.”[vi] It may be hoped that the warm, celebrity glow wares off soon after Giuliani has departed, and the spirit of compromise departs with him. That Giuliani has the nerve to show up on a Christian University campus and suggest that they must also accept abortion as a part of their Christian stewardship shows the depth to which he disrespects their intelligence, their University, and their God. Let’s hope his cold slap in the students’ faces begins to sting, and wakes them up.

Notes:

[i] Joe Stinebaker, Associated Press Writer, “Giuliani Reaffirms Abortion Stance,”

The Christian Post, May 14, 2007.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070514

/27391_Giuliani_Reaffirms_Abortion_Stance.htm

[ii] Stinebaker, “Giuliani Reaffirms Abortion Stance.”

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid. (emphasis added).

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.