News Snippets From All Beats

Out of respect for John Piper’s years of Christian service, some are asking that Piper’s video he made explaining his reasons for inviting heretic Rick Warren to speak at his Desiring God conference be viewed and then privately responded to only to Piper.  That might be the proper course of action if this was the first monumental lapse in discernment to be made by Piper.  This is not, however, a singular incident, but the continuation of a trend.

Piper has previously invited another heretic to address his audience; albeit posthumously, and by means of epigraph.  In his 2002 book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Pleas to Pastors for Radical Ministry, Piper introduces one of his chapters using words of G.K. Chesterton.  In 1908, Chesterton proved happy to call God a liar by discrediting the Genesis account of creation because it didn’t line up with the favored world view of Darwinian evolution.  That was no one-time lapse either; Piper made further endorsements of Chesterton by citations in books he published in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Piper’s readers continue to not only meditate on Piper’s work, but also his endorsements of Chesterton as well; fawning over the heretic’s words.  The harm that would be caused by Warren speaking at Piper’s invitation is incalculable. As for Piper’s video explanation for endorsing Warren, his reasoning was puerile, and his on-camera demeanor seemed so befuddled that a plea of non compos mentis could be entered on his behalf.   John Piper needs to retract his invitation to Warren, publicly repent for the damage he has done to the simple in the faith, and retire while he has the mental faculty to do so by his own free will.

The Church does not need any more supposedly strong men for the Lord publicly degenerating into senility whereby they give the heathen opportunity to blaspheme God, and the simple in the faith cause to stumble.  Piper made this a public discourse, he has had ample time to be reached and corrected by those near him with discernment, and he has yet to repent.  This is now the appropriate way to respond; publicly.  John Piper: you had your apostasy, now eat it so it will go away.

CS: Controlling Scripture for this article available here.

A resolution has been submitted for the 2008 SBC annual convention that, if adopted, will urge parents in California to remove their children form public schools. The author is Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr., a Southern Baptist preacher, lecturer, and author. Baucham outlines the reasons for a Baptist exodus from public school and how they might cope with the switch to private Christian schools in the resolution. Reasons for leaving include California legislation which mandates indoctrinating students to accept and celebrate sexual behaviors which the Bible proclaims to be sin and abomination to the Lord. Several strategies are suggested for transitioning students to Christian education such as supporting the expansion of Christian schools, home schools, and even returning to one room school houses and supporting low income parents to enable them to make the switch.¹

Similar resolutions in the past have prompted vigorous debate, with those opposing the exodus citing the obligation of missionary duty by young Christians. The objection has been rebutted on the line that no nation sends twelve-year-old diplomats to reside in foreign nations on the pretext of hammering out policy against adults who are well trained, in charge of all the resources, and completely in control of the mechanism for implementing policies.

In related news, it has been reported that students at Friendswood Junior High in Houston, Texas, had been secretly receiving indoctrination into the Muslim religion by clerics from an Islamic organization that was formally a terrorist front group. The classes took place during physical education periods, and were mandatory. Parents who found out about the classes were shocked, and complained that their rights were violated by principal Robin Lowe who should have at least sent home notifications to parents allowing them to opt out of the religion classes. Because this is not an isolated incident, with similar “Islamic Awareness” classes taking place nationally,² Baptists might want to quickly approve and implement Baucham’s resolution while there are still Baptists children to be rescued.

Notes:

^1. Christian News Wire, “SBC Resolution Calls for Parents to Rescue Their Children from Indoctrination in Sexual Deviancy in California Government Schools,” May 22, 2008. http://christiannewswire.com/news/188586685.html.
^2. Bob Unruh, “Texas children roped into Islamic training Class by CAIR teaches: ‘There is one god, Allah’,” WorldNetDaily, May 30, 2008. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65659

In an example of the power of the dialectical conversion process on even its facilitators, leadership at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church actually thought they could compromise Ingrid Schlueter, talk show host for VCY American Radio Network. Schlueter is a contender for the faith whose shows and website expose the compromise and apostasy in this Laodicean church age.

Using tactic number three in dealing with resisters, ¹ Erik Rees of Saddleback Church, on Rick Warren’s behalf, attempted to befriend and involve Schlueter in Saddleback’s upcoming global leadership conference.² The problem with those leaders slated to speak, as Shlueter has pointed out repeatedly on her radio show and in her website, is that they are almost as harmful to the Church as apostate Rick Warren himself.

Rees offered Schlueter an all-expenses paid trip to California so that she could be absorbed into 2,000 duped fans of Warren’s cancerous growth on Christianity. As an added bonus, Schlueter would even be included in a small group discussion with the wizard himself. All she had to do to receive this special treatment was abide by one condition: remain silent until the end to give the brainwashing and manipulation a chance to take affect.

For an inspiring example of a godly woman standing for Christ and against the kingdoms of this world, readers must read Schlueter’s answer to Rick Warren’s invitation themselves at her website, www.sliceoflaodicea.com.

Mrs. Schlueter will be taking this weekend off from her website to enjoy Mother’s Day. Happy Mother’s Day to all you women of God who stand firm in the faith and contend for it wherever God has placed you; you are such a blessing to us all.

Notes:

^1. Berit Kjos, “Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven?: Dealing with Resisters” (Part 4), Kjos Ministries, November 2003.

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/4-purpose-resisters.htm

^2. Ingrid Schlueter, “An Invitation and A Response,” SliceofLaodicea.com, May 9, 2008.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=741

Bishop T.D. Jakes is charging that the media is unfairly characterizing the African-American church. The media, though, is only doing what it has finally been forced to do in examining one Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his obvious racists and Marxist leanings. Had Wright not been the twenty-year spiritual advisor of Barack Obama, he could have continued making his caustic speeches denouncing America, Caucasians, and hardworking people who obtained success, and gone completely unnoticed.

The media would have ignored Wright precisely because it fears a T.D. Jakes, or some other personality, would accuse the press of maligning the whole African-American church by exposing Wright’s racial intolerance and subtle calls for anarchy. Not to mention the media’s love affair with Democratic presidential candidates. What’s on the radar screen now is the important question as to either Obama’s deceitfulness (secretly agreeing with Wright), or his inability to make necessary character assessments of people who have an influential relationship with him, and who stand over him as a respected counselor, on intimate and moral matters, for two decades.

Jakes, however, would not have it get a hearing. “I implore you to not take the words of a few and depict the thoughts, hearts and motives of many,” Jakes wrote in his CNN piece.¹ But did he craft this to mean the few in the media who got the story out? There was, after all, no condemnation of Wright in Jakes’ commentary.

Notes:

¹ T.D. Jakes, “Commentary: Negative press distracts churches from mission,” CNN Politics.com, May 5, 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/05/jakes

Baptists across the nation woke up a little groggy Monday after losing an hour of sleep to daylight saving time, and many may have missed the biggest betrayal their denomination has ever seen. At least, that’s what the leadership may have been banking on when they released their declaration that will live in infamy. In a stunning display of bowing to world opinion, global politics, and the earth goddess Gaia, the Southern Baptist Convention enrolled its 16 Million members into the Green Religion of earth worshiping environmentalism Monday with the stroke of a pen. Through the issuance of “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change” they committed their members to the observances of this pagan religion, and obligated them for future performance of its sacraments.

The reason the SBC has thrown Christianity and the Bible to wind was explained in their declaration. “Our cautious response to these issues [global warming] in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed,”¹ and the world’s good opinion of SBC, in the mind of their leaders, is now far more important to them then God’s. Yet, good information is not what the SBC is acting on.

What the SBC means by mounting evidence is not scientific evidence, but mounting hostility from the opposing Green religion. By this enjoinment of the largest Protestant church in America to the Green Evangelicals, SBC leaders, like signatory and SBC president Frank Page, hope to now curry the same world acceptance that Rich Cizik, director of National Association of Evangelicals, enjoys on the world stage for his tireless efforts at converting the millions in his organization to Gaia.

While the SBC minced words in their declaration to insure its members that they will not require partaking of the most sacred sacraments of Gaia worship, it is only a matter of time before the pressure of world opinion once again forces SBC leaders to succumb.

Indeed, their declaration itself uses anticipatory language which leaves open more compliance in the future to prove their allegiance. “We realize that simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth,” reads the text, “will likely produce no tangible or effective results.”² Further, they admit to knowing what tangibles the Greens value most as evidence for true conversion:

We realize that we cannot support some environmental issues as we offer a distinctively Christian voice in these arenas. For instance, we realize that what some call population control leads to evils like abortion. We now call on these environmentalists to reject these evils and accept the sanctity of every human person, both born and unborn.³

It’s a call that will be completely ignored. If the Greens had any inclination at all of heeding a Christian voice, they wouldn’t be ardently practicing this pagan religion which is a complete rejection of Christianity.

By not referring to murder as murder, the SBC has used a political maneuver to get their members through the door of their new sanctuary, but they will find themselves in hostile territory. Greens follow Gaia, they don’t follow Christ. They bow before the earth, they don’t bow before God. And they will not be the ones unequally yoked with non-believers. That would be the Christians, who are the enemies until they follow SBC’s example and repent of their faith and join the Greens.

The SBC leadership has moved its members into the Green sanctuary, and over time they will usher their members closer and closer to the Green alter where their unholy right of abortion must be taken. It is only a matter of time. They will soon become full-fledged earth worshipers demonstrating their reverence by both applauding and practicing the popular method of population control seen by Greens as essential to forestalling global warming. It won’t happen over night, but it will happen soon.

For now, the SBC has put its members on notice that they will be closely watched and monitored for the first stages of compliance. They will begin the conversion process by “increasing awareness in our homes, businesses where we find influence, relationships with others and in our local churches.”⁴ The whole network of local churches will experience Green conformity campaigns from the pulpit, and small groups will be mobilized, and accountability partners will be assigned to monitor home life. If there is one positive outcome to this new chapter in the apostasy, it will be this: the actual spiritual health of the SBC might be fairly measured by the number of members who secede from the organization in the following months.

Notes:

^{1 - 4.} Baptist Press, “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change,” BPnews.net, March 10, 2008. http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27585

As the presidential race appears to narrow to one leading candidate in the Republican Party squaring off against his rival in the Democratic Party, Christians leaders are starting to endorse John McCain. Pastor John Hagee of San Antonio Texas has given McCain his endorsement citing McCain’s support for Israel, and his pro-life voting record.¹ While these are in deed characteristics deserving of praise, they do not by themselves overcome McCain’s unsuitability for Christian support.

Potential voters should not be swayed by his strategic support for Israel (as an outpost for democracy), nor his stand against abortion (as politician); though admirably made from his personal convictions. McCain’s convictions are as subject to change as his person is. Only when these, and many other convictions, are grounded on the immutable word of an unchanging and eternal God will they be minted for an economy of the faithful. This reliance on the trustworthiness of God is hardly the case with McCain who, retreating on claims made in scripture, has publicly and emphatically called God a liar.

When asked during the GOP Presidential Debates if he believed in evolution, MaCain gave a resounding “yes” answer.² What this means is that if McCain believes God is lying about the creation account of man, then he could come to believe that God is also lying when he said of permanency and prophetic future of Israel: “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places” (Deu 33:29). McCain could also come to believe that God is lying when He speaks of the identity of human beings as fixed while they are yet in the womb (Jer 1:5).

This means that these positions taken by McCain must be discounted as inevitably disposable because he holds them absent their mooring on the word of God, who he claims to prevaricate wherever science finds Him out.

As the time grows short, however, pressure from both to political and religious camps is going to be ratcheted up on Christians to vote for McCain. This is going to be the argument that will be made for the candidate: that he should receive Christian support because he is the lesser of two evils. If you do not vote for him, the argument goes, than a worse candidate will take office, and we, as a nation, will suffer through their appointments; such as those for judges.

That’s how it will be put to voters, but that is not the argument; that’s the spin on the argument. Here it is without the dressing: if you don’t agree to affirm blasphemy (McCain’s accusing the Lord God of lying), then some guy in a black robe will give you reason to fear. But what saith the scriptures?

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Luk 12:4-5)

This country does not stand or fall on one man, or one president, or nine judges. This nation stands at the patience of the Lord God; who has graciously given us time to do His will, so that some might be saved. And we can not devote ourselves as we should in fidelity on this cause if we constantly allow ourselves to be sided against God in compromise after compromise. Do not profess one thing in the square, and then pull the curtain closed to prevaricate. Fear God.

Notes:

^1. Michelle Roberts, “McCain Gets Endorsement of Texas Evangelical Leader,” Christian Post, February 28, 2008.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080228/31352

_McCain_Gets_Endorsement_of_Texas_Evangelical_Leader.htm

^2. You Tube, GOP Debate - Evolution Question,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E (accessed February 27, 2008)

The list of speakers scheduled to participate in Crystal Cathedral’s Rethink conference in January 2008 reveals promoters will be practicing mental stealth. Of course, a gathering of global influencers would not be complete without a cadre of Teletherapists. They are necessary to persuade attendees to embrace new relationships with unsaved globalists, and to take on new ministries to the emotional needs of the rising global consciousness; instead of ministering the gospel of grace to the lost and the perishing. The lineup includes:

H. B. London - billed as the “pastor to pastors” at Focus on The Family, where he is employed as Vice President, Ministry Outreach, Pastoral Ministries.¹ This purported shepherd-of-shepherds recently earned recognition for assisting in the restoration of fallen New Life Church pastor Ted Haggard; restoring him not to the cross of Christ, but to the serpentine staff of psychotherapy, of which mastery Haggard is now in hot pursuit for his own salvation, and the salvation of others whom he hopes to one day earn a living from; being paid to likewise restore them, to Freud, Jung, and Maslow and the gang.

Appearing here in the conference line-up of speakers, London proves once again that he is not only unable to lead pastors, he can’t even lead sheep, or himself, in the right direction: which would be as far from the bazaar as possible. Instead, he is put on the hook as a lure to entice the young and simple in the faith into the camp to be made merchandise of. Certainly it must be a proud moment for Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family to have helped to give this man legs to walk, and a mouth speaking great things.

Dr. Tim Clinton - is a licensed counselor and marriage and family therapists, and an ordained minister. It is obvious by his other pursuits which one of these opposing views the doctor holds to be superior to the other, and which one he views to be only supplemental to his practice. Clinton is also the President of American Christian Counselors, an organization of other licensed therapists, and the Executive Director of the Center for Counseling and Family Studies, and Professor of Counseling and Pastoral Care at Liberty Theological Seminary. In this last position, it is interesting to note that should pastors reach out for encouragement from a supposed bulwark of theology and doctrine, they will be shown the real power behind the stone, and nursed back to competency with the sour milk of Freud and the gang.

Dr. Les Parrott - is the founder of the Center for Relationship Development at Pacific University. Like his colleagues, Parrott’s concentration is on preaching relationships between other people; married people, unmarried people, and people who are doing the things that were formally reserved for married people, but very little in the way of establishing and maintaining a relationship with God. This is because his Psychology Bible (DSM IV) neither asserts the existence of God nor views relationships with Him as healthy (a diagnostic category has been derived for the treatment of persons to ease them out of a religious view). He is an appropriate choice for officiating in this marriage where “prominent thought leaders become you thought partners.”²

Dr. Henry Cloud - an author and clinical psychologists with a consulting practice who “works with leaders in a wide range of organizations and corporations.”³ With his new book The Secret Things of God: Unlocking the Treasures Reserved for You, Cloud justifies plying his craft on Christians. By asserting the dichotomy of the psychological mind existing separately from the spiritual heart, Cloud suggests the two are at impasse without the power of his psychotherapy to bridge them. He then implies that his work will allow the victorious Word that ineptly gets “locked in their minds” to get activated in their hearts.⁴ Of course, the Bible alone would never do because that is just full of the secrets that get locked in the head, and can’t find their way out to help anyone without the power of psychotherapy to set them free. Not to mention, Cloud would make far less royalties only selling bibles.

These speakers are among those being exalted by Crystal Cathedral for their vain imaginations which are the products of their own reasoning, and the successes they have had in deceiving others with their stratagems. They measure each other by worldly standards, and they are led away by their own conceits. Their carnal reasoning is actually against God; they do not come from Him, they do not express Him, they do not rely on Him, and He will not have them used for Him.

All the “latest thoughts and perspectives,”⁵ or strategies, of these icons are contrived to wage campaigns after the manner of physical warfare, and rely on the weapons wielded by the flesh. The weapons of psychoanalytic observations and manipulative therapies are weapons of the flesh. The eclecticism of modern Teletherapists in applying human techniques to alter thinking and behavior are all strategies and schemes derived and employed by sentient beings relying on their own devices. They are not of God; neither are they for the Christian (2Co 10:3-5).

Notes:

1. Pressroom Biographies, H. B. London, Jr., Vice President, Ministry Outreach/Pastoral Ministries, Focus on the Family.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/press/focusvoices/A000000029.cfm

2. Rethink, Why Rethink: Rethink Tanks - Learn and Share.

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

_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=2 (accessed 10-8-07).

3. Rethink, Speakers.

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

_content&task

=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=14

4. Editorial Reviews of Dr. Henry Cloud, The Secret Things of God: Unlocking the Treasures Reserved for You, by Dr. Henry Cloud. 2007.

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Things-God-Unlocking-

Treasures/dp/1416563601]

9. Rethink, Rethink the Details.

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

content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=6

In a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley titled “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” published on MSNBC.com, Begley sets out to expose opposition to global warming theorists as coming form disingenuous politicians and big business lobbyists. That, she asserts, is the truth behind the denial of the theory: money and politics. But unwittingly, Begley exposes another sort of denial, and that by her own example.  Begley’s article criticizes the findings of others which are not in agreement with the theory as efforts to “reinforce the appearance uncertainty” within the scientific community over the theory of global warming,¹ and belittles their reports as “not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work.”² Such disparaging slights are not cast, however, when studies supporting this theory are seconded by those who happen to agree with them. These concurring opinions result in the reporting on questionable studies as “peer-reviewed.”³

Yet, research conducted by other scientists using ice core samples, and even ancient DNA, produced results that run counter to the global warming theory studies; and research on published studies claiming to prove global warming have pointed out omissions, and even blatant manipulation of the data tables used in those studies.  For instance, the first IPCC report that produced lots of traction for the theory, and successive reports with discredited methodologies.

In reality, there is plenty of misinformation masquerading as fact that can be reasonably questioned and exposed by scientists and non-scientists alike. To wit, Begley’s criticism appears in Newsweek, decidedly not a scientific journal, where she is critical of scientists and others whose investigations disprove global warming. It’s a privilege, it seems, that Begley would reserve for only those who ascribe to the theory.

Begley clearly disapproves of others, like herself, who would logically examine the case, but find the evidence wanting; and she goes so far as to ridicule them by repeatedly referring to them, along with opposing scientists, as members of “the denial machine.”⁴ While they may not be journalists of Begley’s stature, they do include; other journalists, economists, senators, scientists, including Timothy Ball, Climatology professor, Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and Michael Griffin, a top administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If only they worked at Newsweek, then they could be relied on.

For an example creating your own agreement, Begley references a Newsweek poll which identified “climate change as the gravest environmental threat,”⁵ and this to imply that there is a groundswell of public intellect which has determined global warming is a fact. It’s not carelessness; Begley is too thorough, and has too much help (Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips in New York contributed to the article). This is a shell game of using the two terms, meaning two different things, interchangeably to bolster what can’t be supported on its own with the evidence (climate change itself is independent of anthropogenic causes). But it fits the worldview according Begley and Newsweek, and that’s what matters. This is the emerging truth about denial; it has taken over large media conglomerates.

Notes: 

^{1 - 5.} Sharon Begley, “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” MSNCB.com, (accessed August 20, 2007). Originally pubublished as  “The Truth About Denial,” Newsweek, August 13, 2007. citations are from the MSNBC title. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482. 

Anyone familiar with Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man radio program is also familiar with Hanegraaff’s dry and even sanctimonious voice that usually remains stable and clam; except when he is provoked into launching a defense of Preterism. On such occasions, the contortions he must go through in wresting the scriptures and bending hermeneutics to give the appearance of a straight line of reasoning gives the listener the impression he is actually in a wrestling match on his side of the microphone. It’s a match he inevitably losses every time, but of course the host of the program never calls it that way.

Fortunately, there are other forums where officiating is more objective.

In “Cracking ‘The Code’ of Preterism: a Review of Hank Hanegraaff’s ‘The Apocalypse Code’ and a Refutation of Preterism” by Ryan Habbena, the tortured exegesis of Hanegraaff, along with the contorted eschatology of Preterism, are given a sound rebuttal. Although the treatment must be cogent, as Habbena’s essay demonstrates, the fact that Preterism is is vulnerable from many points of attack only makes the task of assailing it more difficult from a selective standpoint. Apporaching it is like standing in line at an ice cream counter looking through the display case hoping to narrow your choice before being called on to order.

For instance, the subtitle of Hanegraaff’s book is “Find Out What The Bible Really Says About The End Times And Why It Matters Today,” but if Preterism were true: it wouldn’t matter today. That’s really the test for any eschatology; if there are no end time events, there is no end time study because there is no end times. Habbena points out nearly as much in his essay. In the two practical concerns Habbena voices over the theory of Presterism, where nearly everything connected to end time prophecy is supposed to have happened in A.D. 70, he finds: “It minimizes out future hope and removes a prime source of motivation for godly living.”

It could be added that, thirdly, Preterism entirely removes Israel and the Jew from eschatology; thus removing eschatology from the Bible. The twofold problems derived from this error are applying to the Church what is exclusively Israel’s (which misconstrues what the Church is, and is to do), and portraying the Jews as irrevocably castoff by God leaves them meet for scorn and disdain. For a clear example of the ensuing apostasy where Preterism is practiced, see the Roman Catholic Church. They claim that the promises and blessings regarding Israel have been conferred upon them, they imitate the Levitical priesthood and the mediatorial power of the High Priests, and they have been both complacent and complicit in infamous anti-Semitic atrocities.

Habbena’s essay can be found in Critical Issues Commentary, May/June 2007, at www.cicministry.org.

Viewpoints gleaned by pastors from celebrity globetrotting grow stranger and stranger. Addressing a crowd of concert goers at the Verizon Amphitheater in Irvine California on Saturday, Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, told the story of a talented marathon runner who began his career one night on his birthday while inebriated. After sharing many highlights of the man’s running career, Chan used the inspirational story as an incentive for Christians who might be struggling too long to find God’s will.

According to Chan, they are too worried about making mistakes, and God rewards his people based on the just-do-it scale of good intentions: it doesn’t matter if whether it was God’s will or not, the fact that you acted is what counts. Chan recounted an earlier time in his own life when he boldly proclaimed to some students that God was going to use them all to start a church in a specific area, and that in fact it didn’t turn out that way. Obviously drawing great comfort from the runner’s story for assuaging his conscious, Chan rationalized that it was acting that counted, and that false pronouncements of God’s will were thus mitigated and excused.

The marathon runner in Chan’s example for getting Christians out of the starting blocks and into service did not run the race to obtain Christ, as far as we know. The service Chan pitched was social service in terms of aid to Africa, where Chan has visited. It is a very sad day to see Christian leaders dissuade people from seeking to do God’s will, and encouraging them to run another race.

Read more on Celebrity Christians to Avoid Here