News Snippets From All Beats

Many civic minded individuals with religious convictions have joined together in the Manhattan Declaration to declare their opposition to abortion and support of marriage, among other socially redeeming values.  Except for other signers, it might be only the commendable exertion of civic duty on the part of the citizenry that could be praised much in the same way as their registering to vote, though garnering more of it from those who agree with their position.  What has turned this otherwise fair lesson in civics, however, into a debacle is the assortment of religious leaders who are now also in league together by their own declaration.

The religious signers of the Manhattan Declaration include many high-ranking officials of the Roman Catholic Church.  Present are the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese; Most Rev. Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham Diocese;  Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver; Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn; Most Rev. Timothy Dolan, Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, etc., et al.¹  Had it ended there it would have remained only a Constitutionally protected expression of religious beliefs to be respected.

The trouble with the document is that an assortment of famous, Protestant religious leaders has also signed onto it.  This has caused many to declare openly their disappointment and disapproval, and to question the wisdom of such an act.

How can persons who conduct large ministries which include study in the scriptures be so very ignorant of the implications of their endorsements? When they sign the Manhattan Declaration they affix their seal of recognition that legitimizes the views and positions of other signatories.  This writer has yet to discover that heretofore Kay Arthur, of Precept Ministries International, and Chuck Colson, of Prison Fellowship; have renounced their view of salvation through Christ alone and have joined the Catholic Church to obtain it.

Certainly it is a logical step to take after joining with its representatives in religious pursuit of ideals based on a common understanding of the scriptures.  The Protestants who signed would do well to understand what the Roman Catholic Church understands about itself:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour [sic], after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd…. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.²

This tenent of the Roman Catholic Church, found in the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, simply means that if one is not in the Catholic Church, one is not in the body of Christ; as the Catholic Church is the only true Christian church.  It follows that the Catholic Church would conclude the obvious about those who left it, or remained outside of it, in regards to salvation.  What the Catholic Church still affirms as its position on salvation, “basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the [Catholic] Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.”³

In light of these things, should we now expect future study programs from Arthur’s Precept Ministries instructing on how recant Protestantism to join the Catholic Church?  Will Colson’s Prison Fellowship be disturbing Bibles and rosaries to inmates?  While offerings that could be forthcoming from such popular ministries would probably not be so blatant, but of a more subtle nature; such a change in directions could have ill effects on many who subscribe to those ministries.  That makes the nature of these questions, if not their substance, serious; and among others that should be answered by the signatories:

Jack Graham - Will Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, perform the Mass when fellow signatories such as His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida come to call on him?

Josh McDowell - Is author Josh McDowell, founder of the ministry by the same name, soon to release a book titled: New Evidence that Demands a PAPACY“?

Chuck Swindoll - More to the point, and at the foundation, can Chuck Swindoll, pastor and founder of Insight for living, lend any insight as to why he now accepts the organization which claims exclusive sacerdotal powers and that conversely finds his Pastoral Office illegitimate and ungodly?

That last question should also be answered many other signers, including:

Randy Brannon, Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church;

Rev. Jonathan Falwell, Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church;

Dr. Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor, Skyline Church;

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary;

Dr. Michael Youssef, President, Leading Way;

Ravi Zacharias, Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

(There are others of notoriety who signed the Manhattan Declaration, but who have already proved they cannot be taken seriously in the faith.) What say you?

Notes:

^1. List of Religious Leaders Signatories, “Manhattan Declaration,” Manhattan Declaration.org,  http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/sign/list-of-religious-leaders-signatories(accessed December 5, 2009).

^2. Pope Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, (Lumen Gentium) November 21, 1964. Ch 2, 14 (emphasis added).  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

^3. Ibid. Ch 1, 8 (emphasis added).

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

Psychologists aim for solving conflicts by adjusting relational dynamics, and the easiest solution is to promote the goal of finding common ground. This would include finding something that both sides can agree on in order to create a collaborative union. The reason for this is that it is easier to persuade one organism to cease opposing itself than to find harmony between two opposing forces. It is something that works well for football teams and cheer squads, but should never be used to manipulate young Christians so that they may learn to compromise their faith. Michael Frey, Director for College Ministries with Campus Crusade for Christ, has yet to learn this valuable lesson.

On April 25, students across the nation are being asked by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to remain silent during the school day to protest the “silence” faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students in schools,¹ or something other than the accolades and celebratory recognition going on now.

In another example of psychoheresy, Frey, it appears, has been persuaded by psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton to co-sponsor a complimentary campaign using Christian students. “We propose that Christian kids join gay students,” writes Throckmorton, “by pledging to abide by Christ’s teaching in the Golden Rule.”² The idea is to encourage them to yoke themselves together with the homosexual students in activism in order to both accept and promote the sin. The “Golden Rule Initiative,” also approved by Bob Stith, a Southern Baptist Convention Gender Issues think-tanker,³ would have Christian students join homosexuals and their supporters in GLSEN’s “Day of Silence,” thus giving GLSEN another flag of sponsorship to wave in their parade.

Dr. Throckmorton is selling this psychotherapy to Campus Crusade, and the SBC, on grounds that Christian students will gain a “teachable moment,”⁴ and emerge as the leaders in a campaign for safe school environments. There is, however, a distinct difference between a safe environment, which should exist for all students, and a welcoming environment within Christianity for students avowing sinful behavior. Hopefully, this will turn out to be Campus Crusade Frey’s learnable moment.

Notes:

^1. Alexander J. Sheffrin, “Christians Find Alternatives to Pro-Gay ‘Day of Silence’,” Christian Post. April 22, 2008.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080422/32060_Christians

_Find_Alternatives_to_Pro-Gay_%27Day_of_Silence%27.htm

^2. Warren Throckmorton, “Golden Rule Pledge - How about something really different?” Crosswalk.com, April 22, 2008. http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/EWThrockmorton/.

^3. Sheffrin, “Christians Find Alternatives”.

^4. Throckmorton, “Golden Rule Pledge”.

Continuing his attack on Baptists who place correct doctrine over unity, SBC President Frank Page insinuated that their defining characteristic is only anger. After speaking to a congregation in Rincon Georgia, Page told reporters: “Baptists are too often known for what we’re against than for what we’re for. I like to say that I’m a conservative, but not angry at anybody.” Indeed, Page is being perceived by some as being for just about anything that will reverse the denomination’s declining numbers. “He’s had the attitude,” said the pastor of the Georgia congregation, “of being a uniter in our convention.”

But emphasizing everything and anything that SBC members can agree on, to the exclusion of standing against those things contrary to the Bible, is a policy that will result in adopting the sacred communion of the secular humanists. Known as finding common ground, this is a process of continually refining diverse groups of by manipulating individuals to shed beliefs based on exclusionary claims, such as those found in the Bible, and taking a step, and then another step forward together; with the key element being together, and the forward determined by the leader’s ever changing vision. The result is unity, growth, and control.

Christians, whether Baptists or not, should not be ashamed of what they stand against because it clearly defines what they stand for. Perhaps it is the response of the angry conservatives Page continually attacks that explains the declining membership of SBC. Maybe they have gotten angry, and sinned not; neither have they let the sun go down on their wrath: at the end of the day, they are leaving.

This, however, may be exactly what Page wants. Taking a page out of the playbook of fellow SBC member Rick Warren, Page may be intentionally encouraging those not onboard with the new vision of unity to leave. This would enable non-believing communitarians to feel more comfortable in an all inclusive environment, and so the SBC numbers will grow.

(read about it in The Christian Post)

Baptists around the world are uniting, and conforming. The American Baptist USA joined in convention and worship with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for the first time last week in Washington DC. The former is experiencing a small exodus of those who refuse to follow the ABUSA’s embrace of the sin of homosexuality, and the latter is busily ordaining women as senior church pastors. The Ghana Baptist Convention, also meeting for several days now in Africa, suffers a delegation of women church leaders espousing the Feminist Theology which demonizes men, and calls for equal opportunity standards of employment to replace God’s qualifications for pastors.

The reason behind all this alignment with the politics of globalization stems from an acute concern Baptists have over their prevailing negative image in the world. As can be seen by the remedies they are administering, they are desirous to present an image that meets with more approval on the world stage. Towards that end, they are increasingly taking on the world’s causes such as fighting AIDS, poverty, genocide, and even climate change .

Notwithstanding the fact that it is an image Christians are instructed in the Bible not to conform to, many leaders of Baptists are rallying their troops to do just that.

Of course, it does not take long before this sort of rebellion departs from biblical instruction, and openly scoffs at God’s word as well. “Some Baptists seem concerned only about doctrine,” complained Denton Lotz, Baptist World Alliance general secretary, at their convention a few days ago. His rebuttal to this irritating insistence on doctrinal fidelity was his claim that Jesus emphasized “unity as a great doctrine of the faith.”

Taken by itself, the emptiness of such an assertion is comparable to the pronouncement that eating is a great doctrine of the diet (completely empty without stipulating what, when, and how often), but it seems that nearly everyone with word “Baptist” in their organizational name is lining up to embrace this new tenet of faith. To do so, they are dressing up in the image of that political organization of unity, the United Nations.

Along that line, former president Jimmy Carter, already known for his humanitarian aid gospel of a quarter century’s penance of atoning for his failed presidency, is leading the force behind a huge Interbaptists convocation scheduled for next year. Not only will methods for polishing the Baptist’s image with the world’s rouge be highlighted, but Carter’s brinksmanship assures that the social gospel of acceptance will continue to be preached with much belittling of scripture.

All is not lost, however, for all Baptists. Carter has not as yet formally invited the Southern Baptist Convention to the insurrection. No doubt this snub is a political ploy of Carter’s meant to harness world opinion to pressure the SBC to conform.

It has been said that the stature of a man is best determined by assessing his enemies. By this estimation, the SBC stands commendable to the faith, but there is also a strong current of compromise moving within the organization. There even appears to be dissention in high places. SBC president Frank Page has recently made overtures to Carter, and many other politicians; and has reported making no rebukes. He could have been expected to take Carter to task for his affiliation with the CBF, or at least for his continued and reprehensible antipathy towards Israel, and Guliani could have been confronted for his endorsement of abortion.

Page’s posture does not bode well for the backbone necessary to stand firm against the winds of compromise forecasted to blow. Furthermore, Page’s remarks at the SBC convention a few weeks ago seem to indicate that he too is also concerned with the image cast in the world’s looking glass, and the politics of unity. Touching on the subject of doctrine, Page went so far as to complain that the members focusing on being doctrinally correct “sure don’t look too happy about it!” Perhaps Page prefers the happy and conforming face of imbecilic ignorance led by the hand of globalist politicians such as Carter. Only time will tell if Page is clandestinely working as a diplomat for Carter’s United Baptist Nations, and whether there is a split in store for the SBC as a large portion of it apostatizes.

(read about it in The Christian Post- 1 2 3)