For those theologians who believe the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a useful tool in formulating systemic theology it is easily applied to the topic of marriage.  The four categories of theological formulation according to the Quadrilateral are: Scripture, History (or Tradition), Reason, and Experience. It is a matter of debate whether or not this is a listing in order of priority or if these four approaches are to function as a rubric.  It is my belief that they are a listing of order of priority with Scripture having the most prominent role in formulating one’s theology.   Understanding this let’s look at the subject of marriage.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible will give the reader a quick knowledge of what God has ordained as constituting marriage.  Adam and Eve were created as male and female and they were the first married couple (married by God Himself) and being the first, the marriage between Adam and Eve then becomes the “law of the first mention” or “rule of the first reference” we have in Scripture of what constitutes a marriage.

After Adam and Eve, we see generation after generation practicing marriage as originally designed by God.  With the giving of the Law of Moses it was made clear by God that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.  For those of you who still believe in honest Biblical scholarship, you cannot ignore the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Unfortunately, such references have almost become “politically incorrect” and/or “spiritually incorrect” in most churches today.  Therein lies the problem.  Not so much that Pastors are afraid or intimated to tell the particular story of Sodom and Gomorrah but more significantly, that Pastors are simply afraid to raise the standard of holiness.  Pastors simply will not preach on evil, judgment, right or wrong, and “don’t even” mention the name of Satan or the Devil.  Don’t you know, such talk is “medieval and unsophisticated.”

Not only is there confusion within the church itself as to what actually constitutes a marriage, there is also another frontal assault against marriage and it is what I will refer to as “Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.” By this I mean, the world has developed an almost fantasy type concept of what true marriage is to look like by relying on Hollywood Reality Shows, overpaid immature sports stars, overpaid immature musicians and other entertainers of various sorts to tell us what “real marriage” is supposed to look like.

Years ago I heard someone make a statement that has stuck in my mind.  This person said you have to be careful when watching certain movies as they will take a story line that chronicles a person’s life over a period of decades and compress it into a 90 minute screenplay.  You can watch a period of years simply be bypassed with the momentary “flip of the screen” to the next scene.  While this may make for a good movie, it can hardly be considered an accurate portrayal of “real life” in the “real world.”  In other words, in real life, those momentary flips from one scene to the next represent years and often times, tears.  But yet, this is exactly how we think our lives should go, that is, let’s just simply bypass all the hard times, the work, the discipline, the growing and maturing and simply “have it all” on a whim – Carpe Diem.  And it gets worse, for it is implied that you are one of the “enlightened few” who actually understand that life can be this exciting and most others don’t have a clue.  So, go for it, live for yourself as you are one of the chosen and enlightened who really understand how to live at the higher levels of enjoying and experiencing life. If anyone brings such thinking into a marriage, that marriage is doomed.  This is what I am referring to as Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.

Another word to describe what I am talking about is “antinomianism.”  Antinomianism comes from the Greek word that literally means “against law.”  A better way to describe antinomianism is the idea that you can hear the gospel message and at the same time, give no thought to, and simply ignore the code of conduct, morality, social convention and conviction of sin that goes along with the gospel message. 

A very good discussion of antinomianism can be found in the book titled “Pastoral Theology” by Thomas C Oden.  On page 8, Oden writes “Keep in mind that antinomianism is our own doing.  We cannot conveniently claim to be victims of some external, evil, socially alienating force.  We have welcomed it, confusing it with genuine Christian liberty.  Its modern forms are sexual permissiveness, egocentric romanticism and a vague taste for anarchy…Feelings of guilt are considered neurotic.  God turns out to be a naïve zilch who permissively turns his eyes away when we sin. How strangely different from the Holy One of Amos, Isaiah and Jesus.”

Another book where this concept comes up is found in “The Reason For God” by Timothy Keller.  On page xxiii of the Introduction, a counselee of Keller writes “While sitting in a coffee shop reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity, I put down the book and wrote in my notebook ‘the evidence surrounding the claims of Christianity is simply overwhelming.’ I realized that my achievements were ultimately unsatisfying, the approval of man is fleeting, that a carpe diem life lived solely for adventure is just a form of narcissism and idolatry.”

How can I get to this point and not bring up a most clear and explanatory example of what we are talking about.  How many remember the old country song titled “Help Me Make It Through The Night” by Sammi Smith.  Let’s see, the lines were “I don’t care what’s right or wrong, And I won’t try to understand, Let the devil take tomorrow, Lord tonight I need a friend.”   

With all of these faulty concepts stacked against what true marriage is supposed to be like, it is little wonder why so many fail.  But there is yet a more significant problem.  It is the absence of God in a marriage.  By this I mean, God has to be a part of a marriage, just like He was in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In the beginning, God was very much involved with the first marriage.  God was Teacher, Counselor, Father, Creator and Lord.  This was how marriage was created and instituted to be, that is, God was to be involved and God was to be the covering for marriage between a man and a woman.  Seeing that this was the original model for marriage and the way God designed marriage, then how does anyone expect a marriage to succeed if God is out of the picture. Let me say it another way.  Seeing that God created man and woman and subsequently established the marriage covenant between a man and woman by His authority, then how can a marriage be successful today if the married couple leave God out?

The model for marriage is found in the first few pages of the Book of Genesis.  Adam and Eve are our example.  It is when they chose to push God aside and do things their own way that things went terribly wrong. When God is absent from a marriage, you will see self-centeredness quickly move into such a marriage.  And, with self-centeredness comes strife, resentment, anger and division. If Adam and Eve, being the first and perfectly created married couple were not spared the consequences of rejecting God as being a part of their marriage, then who is anyone today to believe that they would not suffer the same?

From the beginning of the history of man we have a clear and indisputable model of what a true marriage is supposed to look like.  It is a marriage in which God is the center and in which God is allowed to be a guiding influence. Apart from this, it is little doubt that any marriage will be successful.

read comments (0)

It is accepted by most Bible scholars that Luke is the author of the Book of Acts.  We see that the Book of Acts was written to Theophilus, as was the Gospel of Luke.  For one to challenge the authenticity of the Book of Acts would also require one to logically and sequentially challenge the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke as they are written by the same author. Likewise, if any student of the Bible chooses to “marginalize” the Book of Acts, then, by sequential logic, you would also be required to marginalize the Gospel of Luke. You cannot have it both ways. Either Acts is the Word of God, or, it is not.  

When reading the Book of Acts, one can see that many central figures of Bible history are mentioned in Acts.  Not only are Patriarchs of the Christian faith mentioned in Acts, but also Roman political figures and some degree of discussion of the Roman legal system all of which makes Acts rich in historical context.

The Book of Acts gives us the best and most comprehensive history of the beginning of the Christian Church as well as serving as a historical analysis of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.  Acts gives cohesion and interconnectivity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Here springs much disagreement concerning how much theology, if any at all, can be drawn from the Book of Acts.

To say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is about the most non-scholarly statement any serious student of the Bible could ever make. In Acts, you have the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the birth of the Christian Church.  So, to say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is the anti-thesis of Biblical scholarship. If you don’t draw theology from the Book of Acts and thus treat the church history contained in its pages as merely “historical and transitional”, then where do you get a theological reference for the beginning of the church? Perhaps, one could “make it up.”

To say that we cannot draw and formulate theology from the Book of Acts would be similar to saying that we cannot draw theology from the Book of Genesis.  This leads to the point in the discussion about why some have difficulty with the Book of Acts.  The reason there is such resistance to drawing and formulating theology from the Book of Acts is because in Acts, we see Christians (including the founding fathers of the faith) all getting Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Notice I said “ALL.”  Everyone. In fact, as we shall see, if you were a Christian and not Baptized in the Holy Spirit, you were considered outside of the norm.

First, we see the disciples of Jesus who had been waiting in the Upper Room being filled with the Holy Spirit as described in Acts chapter 2. Notice that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and that they all spoke in tongues.  Some of those nearby heard languages known to them.  It is at this point of interpretation that denominations have been born and various schools of Christian thought have sprung from.  This one event, this one moment in time, this one story in these few verses of scripture generate some of the greatest debate in all of scripture.   

Without getting into a specific debate about tongues, suffice to say that it is a most torturous interpretation of these scriptures to suggest that “tongues” must be a known language.  Just a simple exercise in word definition works at this point.  That is, we read in the Bible where the early Christians spoke in “unknown tongues.”  Therefore, if these same Christians (or Christians today), and the tongues they speak in, are to be described as a “known language” that God supernaturally gives that particular Christian the ability to speak for the moment at hand, for the purpose of ministering the Gospel, then you really cannot call it an “unknown tongue” could you, for if God gives you the ability to “know” and speak a language that you haven’t spoken before, then it would not be “unknown.”  Furthermore, to suggest that only “known” languages of the day were spoken at Acts 2:4 is a shallow and less-than-scholarly interpretation as we know that you cannot deduce that “heavenly or angelic” languages were not also being spoken. Let’s look at an analogy.  If I see a car and drive a car, let’s say a very expensive and luxurious car, perhaps a Lamborghini Reventon, and upon seeing, driving and experiencing such a car, I then afterwards have a discussion and describe the car to you. And, in the course of describing the car and my experience of driving it, I simply say to you “Oh, yes, it was a car, it had four wheels, two doors, an engine, a manual transmission and it made a distinct sound.”  End. To hear such a description of such a car, and my experience driving it, would be extremely inadequate and under-representative of the actual type of car it really is.  Likewise, to simplistically describe the event of Acts 2:4 where we see the forefathers of the Christian faith receiving the promise spoken by Jesus, as merely “a group of Christians speaking in French, German, Greek, Spanish, Persian and Italian” is hardly an accurate description of what was really going on.

And, Acts 2:4 is not the only time and place this happens. It is the anti-thesis of scholarship to not read further on in the Books of Acts and take note of the fact that there is more than one Acts 2:4 type of experience mentioned in Acts. In other words, Acts 2:4 is not the only place where we see Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. 

In Acts 10:44-48, some 10 years after the events of Acts 2:4, we see believers again being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.  Seeing that this is occurring some 10 years after the initial event of Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit, one could hardly deduce that such an experience could be theologically confined to “getting the church started.” I mean, it’s now 10 years later.

Then, let’s go on and take a look at Acts 19:1-6 where we see again Christians receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues after being asked the question “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?”  This event is said to have occurred some 20–25 years after Acts 2:4.  So, at this point, to try and confine the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as simply a “kick start” to get the church going, is hardly a scholarly approach to Bible interpretation. At this point, the gospel message has gone throughout most of the known world and multitudes of churches have been established and multitudes have accepted Christ as Savior.  Acts chapter 19 is hardly the “starting point” of the Christian church. The Christian Church is “well on its way” at this point.

In conclusion, we must see Acts as the foundational description of the early church.  There is not a more accurate description, historically or spiritually, of what was going on than is described in the Book of Acts.  This is the record of the early church. Acts establishes spiritual principles, doctrine, theology and a significant part of the frame of reference for Christianity.

read comments (0)

The Law of the Angels

This is a book which exhibits an incongruence between the title and what the book actually talks about.  The title “The Law of The Angels” sounds rather mystical and interesting but, once you get into the book, there is very little written about angels.  The one reference I find to the title is on page 41 where, as the author is speaking about the different expressions of love, she injects the statement “This is angel law. This is the way the angels live.”  After this brief reference to angels, there is not much more on the subject of angels.  I have seen in certain blogs that some are saying that this book was re-titled upon reprinting and given the title “Love: The Law of The Angels.”  However, the 1979 edition I was able to obtain is simply titled “The Law of The Angels.”

It appears that the thesis of this book is to give the reader a broad overview of the subject of love and how love is to operate in the lives of Christians.  Then, upon giving a protracted and tedious definition of what love is supposed to be in the life of the Christian, the more subtle and actual core emphasis of the book comes out. 

Gwen Shaw in her book The Law of The Angels portrays love as a more feminine attribute than masculine and thus Shaw puts forth the thesis that the Christian women of the world are spiritually superior to the Christian men of the world. And, because women are more spiritually sensitive than men, then by function women can be used by God to express His love to the world more than can be accomplished through “insensitive men.”

I realized that I needed to activate my theological radar defense shield (discernment of spirits) when on page VII of the Introduction we see Shaw say “I wish I could say that my own love is perfect, or that I myself had attained unto the high degree of perfection which you will find in the pages of this book.  These are truths that God has made known to me.” This type of posturing is something that I have become quite wary of lately.  As you will see shortly, Shaw’s statements were born out of false humility.

Before we get into the “love” part of the book, I do want to point out what I believe is another area of problematic theology in Shaw’s book.  It has to do with why Jesus was crucified and what was accomplished in the crucifixion.  On page 14 we see Shaw state “You see, the Law of Moses will never point anyone to the cross.  You know what the Law of Moses did?  It crucified Jesus.  Do you know that it was on the authority of the Law of Moses that the Jews crucified Jesus?”  One might ask why I see this as problematic.  It is troublesome because traditional and orthodox theology teaches us that the Law of Moses had the function of making mankind aware of his sin.  Then, we see that Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses by offering Himself upon the Cross as a sacrifice for our sin.  And, it was Roman Soldiers who actually crucified Jesus by the insistence of the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees. I see this theological awkwardness as a product of Shaw’s hurried attempt to get straight to her main thesis of her book which appears to be the desire of God to express His love toward mankind, rather than judgment.

One other area to make note of before we get to the main thesis is that of the belief of the eternal existence of man’s spirit or what is known as the “pre-existence and transmigration of souls.” We see this on page 68 where Shaw states “Way back there in antiquity, in the origin of time, far beyond your known history or ability to recall, you were in the plan of God.  You are an eternal living spirit.  Your body is loaned to you for only a season of sojourn on Earth.  As an eternal being, you are without beginning or ending.  And back there, hidden in the midst of a million forgotten eons of time we stood in His glory, being part of His spirit, fashioned even then in His likeness, as He planned for us.  There He created us male and female.”

The above theology is extremely troublesome.  So, according to Shaw, “we always existed”, “we are part of God”, but yet God created us.  So, is God creating “part of Himself” or, what is going on here?

As troublesome as the already mentioned items are, the real “bombshell” of The Law of The Angels happens on page 111.  After having “put men in their place” on pages 72 and 73, we read on page 111 what Shaw is really trying to get the reader to believe.  On page 111, Shaw has been describing a vision she had of Eve praying and asking God to forgive her for her sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.  Eve is described as being very distraught and in much aguish before God.  Then, we see Shaw state “I saw how through the centuries, even after her transition (whatever that means), she had wept and cried to God the Father to be merciful to her sons and daughters.  She had interceded for our release and had been permitted to see that her prayers had not been in vain, her intercession had accomplished its goal and she had prayed through.  God is going to begin to show His glory to Eve’s children.  We have finished drinking the cup of our iniquity, our day of redemption is here now.  That is the reason God is using us handmaidens.  Somehow God is going to allow us to make up for our mother’s failure.  We not only want to bless and help our brothers return to the lost paradise, we want to return ourselves.  Oh, God help us!  Brothers, help us!  We need you and you need us!  We went out together and we must return together!…As women travail and intercede, they will be used by the Lord to restore all that has been lost through the fall.” 

So, there you have it.  God is going to use women to restore mankind to Himself.  But, what about the accomplished work of Jesus on the Cross?  Is it not complete?  Didn’t Jesus, through His sufferings and crucifixion restore all?  What was left undone?  What can woman do that has not been accomplished through and by the crucifixion?  If you think these questions are unfounded then, go on to page 115 and see Shaw state “I believe the Blood of Jesus is going to become more powerful in the end time.  More powerful than in the day it poured from His veins…”

If all of this is not a problem for you then, I must direct your attention to the most theologically explosive part of the entire book.  On pages 165 and 166 we see Shaw state “This feminine aspect of the eternal God is the El-Shaddai, the mother-nature of God.  It is in the realm that the Shekinah is revealed and does its high office work.  You will remember us mentioning in chapter 13 that God had created Adam male and female.  If God created man male and female, it was because bisexuality somehow belongs to His own nature.  The fact has been recognized by early rabbinic commentators that this is true.  One even concluded that God had made Adam androgynous, and later separated him into Adam and Eve.  Lantero states that it is recognized that while individuals belong to one sex or the other, we are all androgynous in the sense of having both male and female hormones, as well as potential character traits traditionally associated with both sexes.  This beautiful aspect of the mother nature of God is one which we need to meditate upon more. Why is it that the Glory of God,  His Shekinah, seems to be resting in greater magnitude on the daughters of Eve in this generation? This is very evident, not only in one country but in all the nations where I have worked for God, and especially where women have been permitted by their male elders to let God’s glory be borne witness of through their freedom to speak.  The women are the great intercessors, the fasters, the praisers, prophetesses, missionaries, healers, and they are fast becoming the deepest of teachers.” 

Finally, in reference to the above excerpt, on page 67, we see Shaw describe that when God first created Adam, that he was created with a womb, which God subsequently took out of Adam and used it to create Eve. 

The theology presented in Shaw’s book is simply shocking.  Gwen Shaw, in no uncertain terms, portrays Adam as having been created as an androgynous hermaphrodite.  She even says so in her book.  This depiction simply leaves one speechless.

Such theology by Gwen Shaw opens the door wide open for Satan to flood in with a horde of demonic spirits.  Shaw has theologically emasculated Christian men.  Shaw sets Christian women on a higher plane of greater power and importance than Christian men.  This is a Satanic doctrine.

This book is available through Amazon.com.

read comments (0)

Are Christians destined to take over the world before Jesus returns?  Is there a requirement found in the scripture that Christians must take over the world before Jesus can return?  Or, has Jesus already returned and now, in a corporate sense He manifests Himself in the lives of all believers in the Earth and all Christians are now commissioned to take over the Earth?  Will there be a rapture?

The above questions are being asked within the rank and file of the Body of Christ and you may be very surprised to learn some of the answers to these questions.  Some of the sacred and age old theological beliefs of the church are now being redefined by some in the Body of Christ.  For more than a couple of decades now, we have witnessed an emphasis within certain camps of the Body of Christ on what has evolved to now be known as “Dominion Eschatology”.

Now some of you may be asking at this point “what is he talking about?”  If you are that person, then you need to read this post most of all.  Let’s begin by looking at an article found in the October 2009 edition of Charisma Magazine.  On page 20 you will see an article entitled “Last Days Fever” and as part of this debate there is an inset of two views of the rapture found on pages 22 and 23.  Pay attention to page 23 and C Peter Wagner’s article entitled “The Case For Dominion”.  In this article we see Wagner state “I now regard my former pre-tribulationism and pre-millennialism as escapist eschatology”.  Next, he says “My favorite term is dominion eschatology.  Why? Because Jesus did not give His great commission in vain”.  And finally, Wagner states “We are aggressively retaking dominion, and the rate at which this is happening will soon become exponential”. 

So, what is Wagner talking about?  C Peter Wagner and his ministry is a vanguard for what is known as the Dominion Movement.  This movement and its theology has gone by several names over the last couple of decades.  If you have heard the terms “Kingdom Now”, “Kingdom Dominion” or “7-Mountain Doctrine” they are all one in the same.  You will note that by his own statements, on the issue of the rapture, Wagner does not hold to the orthodox position of the church.

To put it in street, what the Dominionsts are saying is that Christians are supposed to be about the business of taking over the world, and once this has been accomplished, then Jesus can return, and note the emphasis on “can”.  Still not convinced that this theology is all that developed?  I invite you to take a look at the posting titled “Dominionism and the Rise of Christian Imperialism” by Sarah Leslie.  This article can be found at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/sarah-leslie/dominionism.htm.  In this article, you will see a quite comprehensive description of the development of the Dominion Movement and the theology associated with this movement.  I don’t quite agree with all  that you will find on this particular website but, this overview of Dominionism is too thorough to ignore. And, it proves rather quickly that Dominionism is not a secret.  

Still not convinced?  Perhaps you are thinking, this group is on the “fringe” of Christianity, plus the writer quotes some dubious sources.  OK, fair enough.  Let me ask you then, have you heard of President Clinton?  Of course you have.  Well, he had a high-ranking advisor named Sidney Blumenthal.  Mr Blumenthal has a son named Max Blumenthal.  And, Max Blumenthal has written a book titled “Republican Gomorrah”.  This book has become a media sensation and has been critiqued extensively in the national media. Simply go to You Tube and type in “Republican Gomorrah” and see for yourself. 

In his book, Blumenthal pulls no punches in his all out attack on the Republican Party for what he describes as the hypocrisy of the many Republican leaders who have fallen into various sex scandals.  To be “fair and balanced”, some of Blumenthal’s criticism is justified.  In saying that, mind you, I am certainly not overlooking all of the Democrat sex scandals.  But, that is not the focus of my article.  What I want to point you to is that also in his book, Blumenthal has the dual thesis of chronicling what he perceives as a rising movement within Christianity to vicariously “take over the world” through the Republican Party. 

In his book, Blumenthal comes as close as any secular writer or reporter I have seen, to “connecting all the dots”.  Let’s talk plainly here.  If you are a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist and you hear certain Christian leaders talk of “taking control of the governments of the world” then, don’t you think you are going to get their attention?  I can assure you, they are listening. One thesis in Blumenthal’s book is that he believes there is an underlying design, on the part of the Christian Right, to take control of the government.  I see two theses in Blumenthal’s book.  He himself indicates as much in an interview on “Morning Joe” which can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeqRf9czAY or, type in “Morning Joe – Max Blumenthal – Has The GOP Been Driven Outside The Mainstream”. 

What I am saying to all my Christian brethren out there is that the secular media has connected the dots of Dominion Eschatology.  If you are an adherent to this particular theology, and you think all of this strategy to “take over the world” is a “well kept secret” then, think again.  You cannot ignore the reality I am laying out in this post.  I was just listening to a news program the other day and a leading liberal news commentator stated that Max Blumenthal’s book is quickly becoming a primary source of information for those wanting to know about the strategy of the “Radical Christian Right” and its designs on influencing government.  I am telling Christian leaders out there, if you ignore such a thing as this, then you are shirking your responsibility to be “in the know” about developments concerning the Body of Christ.

You can go to Amazon.com and type in “Republican Gomorrah” and then go to the book review link and see for yourself the “firestorm” of debate going on between liberals and conservatives over this book. I can tell you, if the Dominionists continue to push this doctrine and move ahead with their attempts to implement these goals, things are going to get very ugly, very quickly.

Did Jesus say He needed Christians to be in control of all systems of society in order for Him to return?  I don’t read anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that.  Let’s look at Luke 4:6 where, after showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Satan tempts Jesus when he says “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish”.  It is serious theological error to assume by this verse that Satan is actually in control of the Kingdoms of this World.  This was a falsehood spoken by Satan and Jesus knew it.  How do we know this?  Look at Daniel 2:20-21 “Daniel answered and said: Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, For wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness,  And light dwells with Him”.   Next, look at Daniel 4:17 “This decision is by the decree of the watchers, And the sentence by the word of the holy ones, In order that the living may know That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, Gives to whomever He will, And sets over it the lowest of men”. 

So, after reading the above scriptures, it is clear that God is in control of the systems and governments of the world.  Understanding this, could it be possible that Satan today, is using the same trickery and temptation with certain religious leaders to get them to think that the kingdoms of the world are “up for grabs” and thus he is using the thought of being in control of these governments as a temptation once again.

Let me talk plainly.  I see that the Dominionists have gotten way off base theologically.  They are more worried about taking over the world rather than “winning the world for Christ”.  They are more worried about being an “Apostle” rather than preaching the Gospel of Christ.  These certain leaders have fallen for the very temptation that Satan tried to tempt Jesus with in the wilderness.  These certain leaders are being tempted with power, wealth, glamour, prestige and control.  It is very dangerous and it is bringing undue and intense criticism against the Body of Christ. 

Pastors and Christian leaders had better “get up to speed” on this.  This theology has made substantial inroads into the Body of Christ. Dominionism was even “in play” in the recent Presidential election.  And, I might add, it is one of the reasons the Republicans lost.

As Christians, we must remember the words of Jesus as found in John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world.  If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight…”

read comments (2)

It is no longer a matter of if, but rather when we will begin to see organized governmental opposition and persecution of the church in the United States. The new Hate Crime Bill in congress will give those who oppose the church a template or mechanism by which serious legal challenges can be brought against Christians, Pastors and ministries that make public declarations against homosexuality.

The freedom of the church in the United States is now on the edge of a knife. The freedom, for the Christian to read and interpret the Bible and to develop a systematic theology about what the Bible is saying, now faces the most severe threat in the history of our nation.

Remember a few articles back I was saying that it has gotten to the point in our society that the rights and freedoms of the various groups and interests within our society would begin clashing with each other. And, that we would eventually see one group denied certain rights and freedoms in order for another group to be able to express theirs. Well, I announce to you as of this posting, that day has arrived and it has come in the form of the Hate Crime Bill.

There is much debate about this bill, its meaning, its intent, its purpose. But, I can tell you, after doing research on this matter, it appears that in some regard, the very formulation of this bill was to set up a device or mechanism within government that would give the homosexual community the tool they needed to go after conservative, evangelical Christians. And, I can tell you plainly, once the Hate Crime Bill becomes law, they will have everything they need. The homosexual community knows this very well. Let’s take a look at some recent events and statements.

In an MSNBC article titled “D.C. gay rights march misses mark” dated October 10, 2009 we read that “March organizers have said they’re no longer willing to quietly wait for Democratic office holders to make good on decades-old promises”. This comment is the “canary in the coal mine” concerning all things about gay rights. We are hearing that some of the leaders of the homosexual community are no longer willing to wait. And, it is what they are waiting for that presents a gravely serious challenge for true Christians.

Upon reading the many news reports covering President Obama’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign one cannot help but be alarmed by the many statements made not just about discrimination against homosexuality but rather, an outright acceptance of such lifestyle. In other words, to hear the thoughts of many of the leaders of the gay community, you get the feeling that even if you think that being gay is wrong, then you are committing a crime. The intensity and ferocity in the tone exhibited toward those who disagree with the gay lifestyle is unfortunately an indicator of things to come. We are headed for a rocky road.

What the Hate Crime Bill will do is give the gay community a template within the government to bring serious legal charges against Christians, the churches they attend and ministries. It will no longer be a question of “can they do it?”. With the Hate Crime Bill, it can and will be done. You will see individual suits and class-action suits brought against Christian ministries.

The sobering reality is that once law, the Hate Crime Bill will allow such lawsuits and then the Christian or Ministry being sued will be at the mercy of the legal interpretation of such law and the charges brought forward. It will no longer be the question of “if” such a thing can happen. It will happen and by and large, most courts are going to rule against Christians and Christian ministries. Christians are getting ready to see how important the U.S. Supreme Court nominations really are.

Some will interject at this point, “but what about the Muslims and their rejection of homosexuality. I doubt we would see such a law because of the conflict and tension this would create with them”. True, Islam does not accept homosexuality and in some Muslim countries, homosexuals are dealt with severely. But, the real truth of the matter is, the Muslims in America aren’t really too worried about all of this. Because, when “push comes to shove” the Muslims are going to do what they want to do, anyway. In a sense, the Muslims have a degree of autonomy from our legal system already and this autonomy will only increase.

Furthermore, most Western governments are fearful of the Muslim culture. The point is, I doubt very seriously if you are going to see a Muslim Imam thrown in jail for speaking out against homosexuality. Never, in the United States will you witness such a thing. On the contrary, you are getting ready to see Christian Ministers thrown in jail for speaking out against homosexuality. This objective, for the larger part, has become a primary motivation for getting the Hate Crime Bill passed. This bill would allow formal charges to be brought against said Christian Minister that he would then be forced to defend against in court, and then after giving his defense, be subject to the interpretation and judgment of such court. This, my friend, is a game changer. Christians in America have never faced such a thing. The gay community and their advocates are simply “looking the other way” when it comes to Islam and the issue of homosexuality. They are thinking that somehow, Muslims in America will assimilate into our culture of freedom and social diversity, which includes gay rights. However, when you consider the overall socio-religious climate of the world, this strategy appears short-sighted.

The Hate Crime Bill could in a sense be described as a device designed to give one group within our society certain “rights” while at the same time, taking away such “rights” from another group. To put it in street, “For me to have the right to openly and publicly do what I want to do, I have to take away the right of another to openly and publicly criticize my behavior”. Never has such a precedent been set in our legal system.

It won’t simply stop with homosexuality. If this can be done once, it can be done twice. I envision that the legal environment could become so hostile against Christianity that if a Pastor were to read John 14:6 and by his interpretation of such scripture make the statement that “Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven”, even this could be construed as “hate speech” in the sense that such a statement creates tension in society and fosters hostility between different groups within our society.

My purpose for writing this post is to exhort Christians to first of all be aware this is going on. Secondly, Christians better start preparing for the challenges we will be facing in the days ahead. Every Christian needs to dig deep into the things of the Holy Spirit. Every Christian needs to have a well developed theology from the Word of God. Every Christian must know what they believe and why they believe it. The hour is late for a Christian to not know where he or she stands on this issue.

Take for example the introduction speech given by Joe Solomonese at the recent Human Rights Campaign dinner at which the President spoke. You can go to You Tube at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWraxDFU8Aw or, type in “HRC President Joe Solomonese Speaks Before President Obama” and watch this now on You Tube. In his remarks, Solomonese talks about “hate violence”, “a time of great impatience”, “enemies of change” and at the 3:54 mark of this video he makes a most telling remark as he refers to “hate rhetoric”. OK, let’s try and define “hate rhetoric”. Is it when someone says hateful things in the course of acting out violence against another person? Or, could you interpret “hate rhetoric” as someone saying something against homosexuality that could be considered inflammatory or perhaps as possibly inciting violence if someone hears it.

OK, let’s cut to the chase. Let’s say a Preacher is in his pulpit on a given Sunday morning and decides to preach from Romans 1:27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. After reading these two portions of scripture, the Preacher states that according to his interpretation of these scriptures and according to his moral conviction he believes homosexuality is a sin. Sounds simple and clear cut, right? Not so. Under the Hate Crime Bill, this Preacher could be sued and brought to court for hate speech which incites violence against homosexuals. This is exactly, by and large, the intent of the Hate Crime Bill. And, I guarantee you; in fact, I prophesy to you that it will be used for this purpose.

It doesn’t stop here. Go back to You Tube at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_uLSHniik or, type in “Andrew Sullivan Blasts HRC’s Joe Solomonese”. Some of you may be familiar with Sullivan. He is often found on news talk shows. He is intelligent, super-articulate, speaks with a very nice British accent, very insightful on the issues, he is a Roman Catholic, a political conservative, and……he is gay. That got your attention. In the video you can see Sullivan saying that the Joe Solomonese and the rest of the gay leadership have failed in their efforts on gay rights. At one point, Sullivan says “We gay people are being betrayed by our leadership”.

So, what are we hearing by this and other comments such as Solomonese’s “this is a time of great impatience”. We are hearing that the hour is upon us when the gay rights agenda is going to move forward in a very big way. It is no longer “if”. It is only weeks away that this bill is going to be introduced in the U.S. Congress.

For the serious Christian, this gets even more complicated. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why certain camps within conservative, evangelical Christianity are so silent on this impending development. For example, I just read in the October 2009 edition of Charisma Magazine, on page 23, where C Peter Wagner has an article entitled “The Case For Dominion”. This article is a response to the question on the Rapture of the Church (which it seems Wagner does not hold the view of orthodox Christianity) and in this article we see Wagner make a striking statement when he says in the last paragraph “We are aggressively retaking dominion and the rate at which this is happening will soon become exponential. The day will come when The Kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ and He shall reign forever and ever”.

First of all let me say that I believe Jesus has all power and authority in Heaven and on the Earth and that He reigns from Heaven above. Having said that, I must also direct the reader’s attention to what Wagner is referring to when he says the kingdoms of this world and dominion eschatology. To capsulate, what Wagner is talking about is Kingdom Now or Kingdom Dominion theology. It is also known as 7-Mountain Doctrine. Basically, this doctrine teaches that there are 7 pillars of control/influence in a given society. These pillars are also referred to as “mountains” thus “7-Mountain”. And, the 7 Mountains are: Government, Media, Arts and Entertainment, Education, Family, Religion and Business.

There is supposed to be a leader or head authority over each of these seven areas of influence. And, the objective is that Christianity will not only gain influence in all of these areas but, eventually out-right control. And, once Christians are in charge of all these areas of influence and control, then, Jesus can return. Note I said “can”. This is the very serious problem with this doctrine. But, that discussion is for another day and I want to keep my focus on this article. Oh, by the way, what was it Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world”.

My point is, it looks like someone has been “asleep at the wheel of the Government mountain” or someone has been “asleep in the guard shack at the base of the Government mountain”. What I am saying is, how in the world can Wagner claim that Christians are “aggressively retaking dominion” and this retaking rate will soon become “exponential”? How is this so when you look at what is getting ready to happen in the U.S. Congress with the Hate Crime Bill? How can these guys claim all this power, influence and authority in our society when the most serious threat to our religious freedom since the existence of our nation is just about to come into law? It is double-talk. This group is saying one thing but, the world and its governments are going exactly the opposite.

I can assure you, by taking the above stated position that I will be put into category of the “anti-Christ”. That’s OK. It won’t be the first time. You know what, the truth can withstand examination. So, I challenge the reader who opposes my assessment of this doctrine to systematically and theologically defeat my position. I can tell you now; I won’t be losing any sleep. I am warning my Christian brethren, there is a severe price to be paid if you buy into this particular theology.

So, getting back to my question and bewilderment at the absence of voice of some of these so-called leaders concerning the Hate Crime Bill. I am going to ask a very bold, but not so far-fetched question. Could it be that one of the reasons we are not seeing a ground-swell of specific resistance to the Hate Crime Bill is because there still remains within the leadership of the various prophetic groups some who are sympathetic toward the gay rights movement? Sympathetic either because of their personal desire to gain power and influence by not offending such a large and politically active (and wealthy) segment of our society and/or perhaps there are some within the leadership of these groups who are gay.

Before you get out of shape by this suggestion, you only need to look at the recent history of Christian leadership within the ranks of these particular Dominionist groups to understand the qualification of my question. It is a question, and, I will leave it at that.

Because the Hate Crime Bill so intertwines politics and religion, I could write for a week and still not cover all the issues involved. This is an enormous development in our society and nation. It will affect us all. I am afraid though, that I have only touched on the easy part of the debate in this article. I am fearful for our country in that I believe the Hate Crime Bill, once passed, will turn out to be a “nation-breaker”.

read comments (0)

Upon reading Republican Gomorrah by Max Blumenthal one cannot help but get the sense that they are reading an attempt to catalogue all the examples of religious hypocrisy to ever occur within the ranks of the Republican Party.  It reads like a grocery store tabloid laundry list of Republican politicians and/or conservative preachers who have committed adultery or have participated in homosexual affairs. 

To be sure, there are many examples of blatant and sordid sexual encounters that have occurred within the ranks of the Republican Party leadership and the conservative evangelical community over the last several years.  Without doubt, some of the criticism offered by Blumenthal is justified. 

Having said that, I will also point out that it is not just the Republicans who are committing such sins, but, the Democrats as well.  One has to only think for a very short moment or two until many examples of Democrat Party leaders who also have committed hypocrisy in the sexual arena also pop up on the list.  Let’s see, one such example I can think of right away would be former U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.  I mean…you could write a book on just that situation alone.  Anyway, you get my point.  Hypocrisy, religious hypocrisy, marital infidelity are not just specific to Republicans or conservative evangelical leaders.  For every Republican politician you can point to who was/is involved in a sex scandal, you can just as easily name a Democrat.  But, to read Blumenthal’s book, one is left with the impression that only Republicans and Christians commit such sins.  

OK, let’s take a look at the book.  By the title “Republican Gomorrah” it is clear that Blumenthal is making a strong and not so subtle statement about what he perceives as religious hypocrisy within, not only the Republican ranks, but also within the ranks of Christians in general.  Let’s be sure on one thing, this book is not friendly to Christianity.  Perhaps, Blumenthal’s sequel will be “Democrat Sodom”?

Next, the writing style of Blumenthal leaves a lot to be desired.  When reading the book, you sometimes get the feeling that you just happened to have been walking by a newsroom, back in the 1980’s, and someone forgot to turn off the UPI news ticker and you happened to stop by to read the latest news reports streaming in from the various media outlets.  And, these news stories have no rhyme or reason or correlation but, they are none-the-less news stories.  “Republican Gomorrah” has way too much detail and discusses way too many people, way too many incidents without really offering much in-depth analysis.  “Republican Gomorrah” is like an old UPI news ticker that someone forgot to turn off.

So, after having inundated the reader with a plethora of news stories and names, Blumenthal attempts to tie them all together into a vast Republican, Right Wing, Religious Conspiracy.  He fails.  It’s just way too much stuff, way too many names, way too much history, way to much religious history to try and “tie off” in the simplistic way that Blumenthal attempts to do.  Blumenthal makes no attempt to differentiate or separate-out those evangelical Christian, Republican politicians having been involved in sex-scandals from the overall pool of the evangelical Christian population.  Also, Blumenthal eqautes being an evangelical Christian as synonymous to being a Right Wing Christian Radical wanting to “take over the world”.  He makes no attempt to defferentiate within the overall evangelical population.  This is “intellectual dishonesty” as the liberals like to say.      

Next, we see Blumenthal rely heavily on the influence of Erich Fromm.  It seems even, at some places in the book, that Blumenthal appears to be offering his own psychoanalysis of certain people and events. 

Let’s get started by looking at the Introduction.  It is clear that Blumenthal seeks to portray conservative, evangelical Christians as extreme.  And, he makes absolutely no attempt to differentiate between the various groups or camps of Christians.  This is a grievous mistake by any analysis, no matter who you are.  There are many camps within Christianity. There are many denominations within Christianity.  There are many and very differing views held by Christians on a variety of subjects.  So, to simply attempt put all Christians “in a box” is a foolish way to approach one’s analysis.  

Here in the Introduction is where Blumenthal begins his psychoanalysis by quoting President Eisenhower on page 5, paragraph 3, as he states “…the rise of extreme movements could be explained only by the psychological yearnings and social needs of their supporters.”   Then, on page 9, paragraph 4, Blumenthal makes a feeble attempt to be a theologian as he states “The Christian right as a whole is called the pro-Family movement, and movement allies are known as friends of the Family.  In an actual family, blood ties are required, however, joining the Christian right requires little more than becoming born-again, a process of confession, conversion, and submission to a strict father figure.” 

By the above analysis given by Blumenthal, one can see that you will not be getting a very sound or critical theological review by reading his book.  Blumenthal’s casual reference to major doctrines of the Christian faith are simply jaw-dropping.  One cannot take Blumenthal seriously after this point when it comes to his analysis of anything Christian.  It appears that Blumenthal really doesn’t understand what it means to be a Christian.  Therefore, if he doesn’t understand what it means to be a Christian, how then can he possibly give an accurate analysis about anything Christian?

To prove my point further, just go over to page 10, paragraph 1 and see Blumenthal compare the crucifixion and sufferings of the Savior, as depicted in “The Passion of The Christ”, to, in Blumenthal’s words, “two hours of unrelieved pornographic masochism.”  This is an extremely inflammatory statement by Blumenthal.  I believe it represents a lot of personal anger and hatred coming from Blumenthal towards Christians and Christianity.  By making such a statement, Blumenthal shows a reckless disregard for all Christians and Christianity in total.  Such vulgarity is just unbelievable.  In my thinking, this proves that Blumenthal does not understand Christianity.  Blumenthal making such a statement appears to be a feeble attempt to sound esoteric, as he attempts to portray Christians as mentally unstable and weak minded.  I am surprised that we don’t see any quotes from Karl Marx.

Next, let’s look at page 32, paragraph 1, as Blumenthal takes aim at Howard F Ahmanson.  I just can’t help but point out that in this paragraph as Blumenthal states that Ahmanson lives in Newport Beach, he actually feels that he needs to tell the reader where Newport Beach is located.  I mean, come on already!  Perhaps, Blumenthal should have told us where California is located as well?  Anyway, back to Ahmanson.

Notice on page 33, paragraph 4, as Blumenthal portrays Ahmanson as a misguided psychopath who happened upon his wealth by default and didn’t know what to do with it until, in his weak-minded state, he linked up with the Christians.  This is exactly the picture Blumenthal wants the reader to see, not only of Ahmanson, but of all conservative, evangelical Christians.

Indeed, Blumenthal has been reading Fromm so much, too much, that he seems to think that he now is a “psychologist for the world.” 

Next, on page 37, paragraph 2, look at how Blumenthal attempts to downplay the prominence of the character of “Frodo” in the book/movie titled “Lord of The Rings”.  We see Blumenthal state that Frodo was “…the Hobbit protagonist of Tolkien’s novels who must destroy a magical ring in order to save the world”.  Let’s see, the last I heard, the three part movie series titled  “Lord of The Rings” had so far grossed over $4,000,000,000, and this ranks number 2 of all time.  I think it is somewhat of an understatement and somewhat casual to refer to something so significant to the people of the world, as Blumenthal does. 

By this, it seems to me that more than pointing out the failings of Republicans, the real goal of Blumenthal is to strike against anything Christian.  Not convinced, well let’s look at page 45, paragraph 5, as Blumenthal makes an attempt at giving Ahmanson a psychiatric diagnosis and implies that conservative, evangelical Christians are neurotic.  Perhaps, Blumenthal could suggest a medication regime for Ahmanson as well?

Next, we see on pages 224 and 225 as Blumenthal takes on the movie “Braveheart” and he attacks Mel Gibson and attempts to portray the quest of Christian men to be masculine as some sort of latent attempt to cover up homosexual tendencies that “all Christian men have”.  In no uncertain terms, Blumenthal concludes that conservative, evangelical Christians choose to be what they are, because they are trying to escape or hide from some form of inner sexual perversion. 

Next, we see on page 298 where Blumenthal mocks the Biblical manifestation of Speaking in Tongues, and expresses disdain for an African Pastor, and unsuccessfully attempts to describe what certain Christians were praying about.  Then, on page 299 Blumenthal takes a shot a Governor Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs as he suggests that she apparently believes in witchcraft.  Here, it might be pointed out that God has plenty to say about witches and witchcraft in the Bible.

So, in short, Blumenthal has failed in his attempt to psychoanalyze all Christians of the world.  Blumenthal has failed at his attempt to be a theologian.  Blumenthal has failed in his attempt to give a broad and comprehensive political analysis as he portrays Republicans and even more so, Christians as the source of all the ills of the United States of America.  Blumenthal “splashes” all of these stories into one book and then plays the psychologist for us all and tells us how we should interpret the facts.  Blumenthal attempts to compress decades of religious and political history into a few esoteric sound bites.  It just doesn’t work.  The world is more complex than that. 

Finally, Blumenthal attempts to portray Jesus as an anthropomorphic manifestation of misguided, narrow-minded, neurotic, ego-dystonic homosexual Christians.  Blumenthal attempts to get the reader to believe that American Republicans are the only people in the world who are serious about their Christianity.  And, that because of this they are evil and dangerous.  In reality, Blumenthal’s book doesn’t seem to be about Republicans so much as it really appears to be a book written to ridicule and make a mockery of Christianity.             

read comments (2)

We read in Luke 13:3-5 where Jesus says “…unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.   Next, we read in I John 1:9 which says “…If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins”.  Finally, we read in Acts 3:19 where a person must “…repent therefore and be converted”.

By the above scriptures we see that repenting of one’s sins is necessary for salvation.  You cannot be saved unless you repent to God for your sins.  You will not go to Heaven unless your sins are forgiven.  Jesus offers us that forgiveness through and by His blood sacrifice on the cross.  This is the gospel message.

Unfortunately, a new group has emerged on the scene and this group is saying that the concept of asking God to forgive you of your sins is a “works” gospel.  They are even saying that the tried and true, old-fashioned alter calls for salvation are “demonic” because in their words “it is works oriented”.  They are saying in simple terms that the idea of repenting involves an “action” or “effort” on our part and therefore somehow means that we are “working to earn” our salvation vs accepting salvation as a free gift.  This may sound unbelievable but, it is true. 

This same group is saying that simply having “faith” that Jesus exists is what saves the soul.  They quote many verses about simply “believing on the Lord” and they say that the idea that you have to do anything to be saved (including asking forgiveness for your sins) is a doctrine of works and therefore wrong. 

This same group is placing an inordinate emphasis on the 1611 King James Bible.  There are videos on You Tube of various ministers of this group who are ripping apart and throwing the NIV Bible on the floor as they preach in order to emphasize their point that the NIV is “demonic” as compared to the 1611 KJV. 

This group is so adamant about their belief that Christians should only use the 1611 KJV that it is cultish.  It almost seems as if they are worshipping the 1611 KJV Bible, rather than the God and Savior that the Bible speaks of.  They seem to be worshipping the ink and paper of the 1611 KJV Bible rather than Jesus Christ that the pages and words talk about.  One could say that a new “1611 KJV Cult” has emerged within the ranks of Christianity. 

This group leaves absolutely no room whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to operate in the life of the believer today.  They relegate the Holy Spirit to a “retired status” theologically as though His work is complete and that His power and presence is no longer necessary.  This group believes that I Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the canonized 1611 KJV of the Bible.  Go to You Tube, type in Spiritual Retardation and Speaking in Tongues pt2 and drop down to the comments section and see for yourself that this is, in fact, what they believe.  While you’re at it, also type in Pentecostal Speaking in Tongues = Being Demon Possessed and see what is transpiring with this group. 

This group is also adamant about the doctrine of “Eternal Security”.  In other words, they believe that once a person is saved, then, that person’s spiritual status can never change.  Never change no matter what that person may do, get involved in, or even believe, after they have been saved or, in their words “expressed their faith in Jesus”.   They do not believe that a person can fall away from the faith as is clearly described and warned about in Hebrews chapter 6. 

Speaking of their emphasis of “having faith”, it seems that, according the 1611 KJV group that even “expressing” faith in Jesus would be a form of “action” and therefore could be considered “works”.  In other words, just to exercise one’s mind and simply “think” that Jesus exists would be a “works salvation”.

Let’s look further into the emphasis on the 1611 KJV.  If someone is going to say that we must only follow the 1611 KJV because it is the “original version” of the Bible, then, logically, if you are going to follow that track of reasoning then, one would have to continue and say “but wait, where did the writings or material or manuscripts from which the KJV was derived come from”?  Perhaps, going back to those writings would be the more sure way of theological accuracy.  Perhaps, the early century Catholics had it right when they believed that the scriptures should be kept in and only read in Latin.  So, that would make the Latin Vulgate the true source of scriptural authority.  But, then what about the old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  Or wait, what about the language that Jesus spoke in, was it a now-extinct form of Aramaic?  If so, we’re now all in trouble, because no one living today could ever translate such a language, and adding to this dilemma is the fact that such manuscripts don’t exist.  And, we are not finished.  If you are going to say that we have to establish the authority of the language, or the original language in which scriptures were written, then one has to ask the question:  “What language did Adam and Eve speak in?”  This would be the source of true written  and recorded scriptural authority.  I mean, if anyone could “take us to school” about knowing God, understanding the nature and character of God, what works with God, and most definitely what does not work with God, it would have been Adam and Eve. Indeed.  Only one problem.  No one knows what language Adam and Eve spoke in and there are certainly no manuscripts written by Adam and Eve in our bookshelf. 

The only way out of this dilemma is to be led by the Holy Spirit.  We allow the Holy Spirit to bear witness in our hearts as to what is true or not true, as to what is of God and what is not of God, as to what we should believe is the true record and what is not genuine and inspired by God.  Only by the Holy Spirit can this be done. 

Furthermore, to say that I Corinthians 13:10 is talking about the 1611 KJV, and that with the canonization of the 1611 KJV all gifts of the spirit ceased to operate is totally illogical and cannot be supported theologically.  One quick question here that immediately pops into mind is if the 1611 KJV is what I Corinthians 13:10 is talking about, and if the gifts of the spirit ceased with the fulfillment of I Corinthians 13:10, and also, as this group believes, if the gifts of the spirit were dispensational and operated only in the time of the early 1st Century church, then, what about the 1500 year gap between the 1st Century and 1611?  What was the status of the gifts for this time period?  For that matter, I would like to ask if this group believes anyone could have been “saved” between 100 A.D. and 1611 A.D.?

It seems these fellows are painting themselves into a theological corner.  This new emerging group is a cult. 

Finally, on the question of Eternal Security which is also known as “Once Saved, Always Saved”, I have this observation.  The life that Jesus offers us through His blood sacrifice is a covenant.  It is known as the New Covenant or New Testament.  And, our relationship, as a body of believers to Jesus is described, even by Him, as that of a marriage.  So, to use the very analogy of Jesus, if we today, are going to say “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then, one would also have to say “Once Married, Always Married”. 

So, you are thinking of how many examples why you simply cannot say that.  You cannot say of a marriage today “Once Married, Always Married”.  It would be utter foolishness to speak in such terms, knowing that so many failed marriages in our society today are proof enough that you cannot make such a proclamation as a fact.   So, just the same, to say “Once Saved, Always Saved” does not hold water theologically. 

Sure enough, the New Covenant written in the  Blood of Christ will stand forever.  The New Covenant in Jesus Christ is established forever and cannot be altered, changed or negotiated.  We, as human beings, have the choice to join in this New Covenant with Jesus and accept His sacrifice for our sins.  And, we also, just as in a marriage covenant, have the prerogative and free will to “walk away” from such covenant if we choose.  We can walk away from our covenant with Jesus and simply say we don’t want to be in the relationship anymore.  It is the human choice that “breaks” the covenant with Jesus, for Jesus would never break covenant with us, so long as we desired His companionship. 

The problem with “Once Saved, Always Saved” or “Eternal Security” is that it takes away or bypasses the free will of man.  It is almost as if you don’t have a choice in the matter to begin with and that, once in the relationship, you cannot make the choice to “get out of it”.  This is totally illogical and it cannot hold water theologically.  It simply doesn’t work.  And, then, to make matters worse, if someone does walk away from their relationship with Jesus and falls away, the 1611 KJV group says “well, they weren’t saved in the first place”.  To say this would  be like seeing a couple get married, stay married for 10 years, have several children, live under the same roof and pay taxes together for 10 years, then, get a divorce.  And, upon getting a divorce someone would say of this same couple “well, they weren’t married in the first place”.  That would be illogical you say.  That would not be true you say.   Exactly.  Just as the fallacy of the doctrine of Eternal Security is not true.

There is a vagueness about what those who promote Eternal Security really believe.  They say that once a person is saved, then that person’s state of “being saved” can never change.  Even if this same person goes out and sins and participates in things like stealing, lying, getting drunk, doing drugs, participating in violence towards others etc.  In the theology of Eternal Security, once you are saved, you cannot sin again.  That’s right.  This is the pulse beat of this doctrine.  For you see, if once you have been saved, and God has said that your salvation can never be lost, then, it would be impossible for such person to do anything that God would look upon as sin.  For if such a Christian person did do something that was sinful in God’s eyes, then, that person would have to ask forgiveness for that sin.  But, in the view of those who believe in Eternal Security, it is impossible for the Christian to ever sin again and thus place his or her soul in jeopardy.  Therefore, what they are really saying is that once a person is “saved”, then even if this same person participates in what most would consider “sinful” behavior, God does not consider it sin anymore for this person because to do so God would be contradicting Himself, because in order for God to deal with this person’s sin, He would have to forgive this person who is supposed to be “eternally secure”. 

In reality the doctrine of Eternal Security or Once Saved, Always Saved is, in fact, a license to sin.  And, there is an escape device in this theology.  Let’s say such Christian really gets “out there” in their sinful behavior and really walks away from the Christian faith.  The answer to such a scenario given by the Eternal Security folks is “well, he wasn’t saved to begin with”. 

So, you can see how this doctrine works.  It is not too much dissimilar to the modalist doctrine which says that “a Christian’s body is separate from his spirit; therefore, what one does with their body does not affect their spirit man”.  Again, this is a license to sin.  For to believe this way, a Christian is not accountable for any behavior either good or bad.   So, this is how the Eternal Security folks are able to believe that once saved, always saved because once saved, you can no longer sin in God’s eyes.  It is a heresy.

Mark 1:15 – Jesus said “…The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”   

read comments (0)

Who is shaping the future of America?  What is the future of America?  Do people even care anymore?  Or, are Americans more interested in who will win the next American Idol competition more than what type of world we are heading towards?

It seems almost as if it has become “uncool” to even think and have an opinion anymore.  Our society has become so lethargic and indifferent to certain realities that one could say that America is suffering from “reality avoidance”.

I remember years ago sitting in Economics class while in undergraduate school.  I distinctly remember learning about what is called “diseconomies of scale”.  It is a very interesting and very real thing that can happen to a large corporation.  And, I believe it can also happen to the Body of Christ.  It could be coined a “spiritual diseconomies of scale”.

First, let’s look at what is known as diseconomies of scale in regards to an industry functioning within our capitalist economy.  Let’s imagine a large corporation that has 100,000 employees here in the U.S.  With an organization of this size it is extremely important to keep track of what everyone is doing in order to prevent duplication and even outright competition between the various and different departments of such organization.  When such a breakdown does occur, that is, duplication of effort and competition among departments, it is called diseconomies of scale.  And, if the diseconomies of scale becomes pervasive enough, it can ruin the organization. 

One of the by-products of diseconomies of scale, that is described in Wikipedia, is called “isolation of decision makers from the results of their decisions”.  I encourage the reader, at this point, to refer to the Wikipedia article as it is very good at explaining all of this. 

To expand upon the term, as found in Wikipedia, I will say that what we are seeing today is “isolation of those who are making bad decisions from the consequences of their bad decisions”.  In street, the people who are making a mess of things are not having to deal with the mess they are creating.  Or, even worse, some decision makers don’t have a clue as to the unintended effect of their decisions.  Let’s take a closer look.

As a nation, the United States is facing what I believe to be an impending and devastating diseconomies of scale.  In particular, this problem is occurring in the area of interpretation of law, and the writing of law.  And, the church in America is setting directly in the crosshairs of the negative and unintended (or, in some cases intended) consequences of bad law.  But, it’s not just the church.  In reality, our society as a whole will have to deal with these consequences.  Let’s look at some current and pending examples.

In Massachusetts we see the debate going on about the rights of transgendered persons to have unrestricted access to either Men’s or Women’s restrooms, depending on which gender they have “chosen” to be.  This is impossible to interpret now, and it will be impossible to interpret in the courts once the lawsuits start coming in.  On a practical note, one of the reasons that cities and towns are even open to such a law is because the idea of building, retrofitting and paying for a “third” class of restroom at all public locations is prohibitive.  So, we see cities and towns falling back on the legal system for a way out, but, it will be even worse in the end.  It would be an “unenforceable” law.  Here’s an example.  Let’s say it’s 10:00 p.m. at a highway rest area stop and a young mother of 25 years of age who weighs maybe 120 lbs and her young daughter who is 4 years old start walking toward the Women’s public restroom.   Then, upon making their way to the restroom, the mother notices a large masculine appearing person who is let’s say 6’3” tall and weighs around 230 lbs.  And, this person is, as they say in bodybuilding, “ripped”.  But, upon noticing the hesitation of the mother to go any further toward the Women’s restroom, the person says to the mother “Oh, it’s OK, I’m transgendered”.  At that point, what is the young mother to do?  Would she say “prove it”? 

One can clearly see by the above scenario that such a “law” will be unenforceable.  Let’s look at another example of an unenforceable and un-interpretable law.  The pending Hate Crime law before congress which is designed to give protection to and special rights to the homosexual community.  Let’s say a Pastor of a large urban Baptist church preaches a sermon that includes a discussion of homosexuality and same-sex marriage in his discourse.  And, in the course of his message, this particular Pastor states that, according to his interpretation of the Bible, he believes that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sinful and that anyone practicing such behavior will go to Hell.  This is his religious belief.  But, then, a gay person who happens to be sitting in his audience takes a CD of the message to the downtown police station and asks that the Pastor be arrested for “Hate Speech”.  Could such a thing happen?

Here is the complexity and what I see as a “political diseconomies of scale”.   The Hate Crime law, at this point, is un-interpretable and unenforceable.  Because, in order to arrest the Pastor for violating the “rights” of the homosexual, the police will, in turn, have to deny the Pastor his freedoms of speech and religion.  So, which is our society going to choose?  We are getting ready to see a legal environment in which the rights and freedoms of some groups are going to be taken away so that a different group can be free from what they perceive as public expression that they believe violates their rights.

So, we now see that the lawmakers (congress) who are promoting and passing such laws are fitting into the category that we see in the definition of characteristics of “diseconomies of scale”.  In other words, some of the very congressmen and congresswomen that are passing such laws will be “isolated from the consequences of their bad decision making”.  Isolation of decision makers from the consequences of their bad decisions.

It doesn’t stop here.  There is still one developing factor that will dwarf all that we have looked at thus far.  The issue I am referring to is Sharia Law.  This is the body of law that is practiced by Islamic countries.  You may be saying, “Well, what does that have to do with us here in the U.S.?”  Before we get to that point, let’s look at the concept of law and government for a moment.

I remember sitting in an undergraduate class called Federal, State and Local Government.  The professor of this course was a seasoned veteran who had taught for decades.  He was a classic liberal and he and I had an amicable professor/student relationship.  I remember it well, one day in class when a fellow student (the kind of student who thought he was the teacher rather than a student) made the statement “imagine a Presidential election in which the vote count margin came down to just a one vote difference between the two candidates and the winner wins by just one vote!  Imagine what that would do for democracy!”  Then, I’ll never forget the professor’s response (and, this was some 26 or 27 years ago) as the professor said “that really might not be such a good thing”.  And then, the professor went on to explain why he saw it as problematic, as if almost to prophetically describe what we all witnessed in 2000. 

It was this same professor who taught that one of the hallmarks of a government, one of the most legitimizing factors of a government, is to set a body of law and then set a framework to interpret and enforce such law.  So, we now see today, a serious and slowly developing effort on the part of Muslims to set up the practice and enforcement of Sharia Law within our society.  So, what happens when a Muslim and a non-Muslim are involved in a legal dispute over something and both sides are using two different bodies of law to interpret what has transpired and how the matter should be judged?  Which side will carry the most weight? Which carries more legal weight, Constitutional Law or Sharia Law? 

Perhaps, seeing the problem as described above, we could set up yet another 3rd body of law and a 3rd party of law making and law enforcement to weigh out the matter and find the “common ground” between the two other bodies of law? Or, if that doesn’t work, maybe set up a 4th group to try and “work it out”.                       

But, it doesn’t stop here.  Did you see in the news where just recently, the Hizb ut-Tahrir held a “conference” in a Hilton Hotel just outside of Chicago.  The theme of the conference was “The Fall of Capitalism and The Rise of Islam”.  It is reported that several Arab States as well as Russia do not allow this group to operate within their borders.  But, the U.S., in the name of freedom of speech and religion, will allow it.  This represents more political diseconomies of scale.  In other words, this extreme, radical religious group that wants to overthrow the U.S. system of government has every right to express themselves.  It is their “right” to do so.  To put it in street “it is their right to promote and organize as a group and overthrow the very government that “gives them the right to do so”.  Then, the rights and freedoms of expression that used to exist under the old government will no longer exist.  This is exactly the scenario that is developing right before our very eyes.  It is already happening to a serious degree in England, France and Holland. 

So, the Christian church is caught in the crossfire of all this and the rights of the church are slowly slipping away in our society.  The respect that the church once enjoyed in the U.S. is no more.   We, as Christians, must give up our religious freedoms in the name of diversity.  We, as Christians, must give up our freedoms in order that those who want an entirely different body of law and government can have what they want.   Things are getting very interesting.  Perhaps, as a society, we are entering into a period of which the old Chinese proverb could apply.  “May you live in interesting times.”  I think with all the “pushing and shoving” between the different groups within our society, it is naïve to think that things are not going to get interesting.   

read comments (0)

We read in John 17:21 where Jesus prays to the Father “…that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I, in You…”. 

Then, in the preceding verse of 17:20 we see that Jesus was clearly talking about the believers of that present day and all future Christians.  This is very important.  Jesus specifically denotes that He was praying about, and praying for, those who had believed on Him and had accepted Him as Savior of their souls.  Jesus was not talking about those of other, non-Christian religions.  Jesus was not a schizophrenic.

Jesus made it very clear that He and He alone is the Son of God and that He and He alone is the only way to get to Heaven.  Jesus says exactly this in John 14:6.  So, having established Himself as the Savior of mankind, and as the only way to get to Heaven, then, it would be completely inconsistent with His message to all of a sudden suggest that others, who did not (or, in the future would not) believe that He was the Savior, were somehow now included in this prayer to the Father that all believers and non-believers would somehow dwell in unity.  Such an interpretation is just plain crazy. 

To say that Jesus was praying this prayer for the unity of anybody and everybody, regardless of what they believe, is simply an attempt to take away words that Jesus actually said, and in turn, attempt to “put into Jesus’ mouth” words that He never said.  Jesus was praying for the Father to bless those who had believed on Him.  If you don’t believe in Jesus, then these words of blessing are not for you.  You can torture the scripture, you can philosophize “until the cows come home” but it won’t change the fact and reality.  In order to receive eternal life and experience the good things of God to come, one must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. 

If you are a believer in Jesus, then His emphasis on unity directly and without question apply to you.  It is God’s desire that all believers dwell in unity.  This starts with the local church body of believers.  Show me a church that has even the slightest degree of unity within its walls and I’ll show you a church with some power.  Show me a church where the congregation is of one purpose and of one mind and I’ll show you a church where you can see the miracle power of God!

Unfortunately, we see some ministers, particularly some of those of national prominence, who have imposed it upon themselves to launch out on a quest to bring unity in the world.  They are going about speaking to this group and that group talking about a philosophy of love and acceptance that does not have Jesus Christ at the center.  There is talk of “finding the common ground” and “meeting in the middle” and “focusing on the issues we agree about” and on and on.   All of this sounds good, if you are a politician seeking to win votes in the next election.  But, if you are a true Christian, such talk and philosophy is all very contrary to the actual words of Jesus. 

When it comes to Jesus, His deity, His blood sacrifice for sin, His exclusive status as Savior of mankind, there is no compromise and there certainly is no “middle ground”.  Look at it this way, Jesus said that He is the only way to Heaven, so, where is the point of “middle ground” or “common ground” on this issue.  What “part” of Jesus being the only way to Heaven is the Christian supposed to “give up” to get to the “middle”.  It cannot be done.  So, all this talk about the “family of man” and the “Dawning of the age of Aquarius” and the “Dawn of a new age” and all that, these are in essence Satanic counterfeits to the true unity of believers that Jesus prayed about. 

How can true Christians be yoked in any way whatsoever with another religion that denies that Jesus is the Christ?  For the Christian to compromise on this issue, is for that particular Christian to relinquish his or her very salvation. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that the world is growing ever so hostile, even violent toward Christianity.  We hear all this talk about equality, rights, dignity, self-worth, self-esteem, human dignity, human rights, freedom, freedom of religion, freedom to vote, freedom of self-determination etc.  All of this is promoted for anyone and everyone except the Christian.  Let a conservative Christian give his or her opinion in the national news media and watch how the very news company employees themselves go after that Christian and cut him to shreds.   

My friend, the media industry has set a tone that has gotten to the point to where it is OK to discriminate against a Christian simply because that person is a Christian.  It is open season on Christians and Christianity.  We are entering into a period in history the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the Ancient Roman Empire.  It is a perplexing quandary how the leaders are talking about all these “rights” but at the same time, blatantly discriminate against Christians. 

Getting back to the concept of unity.  Today’s Christian needs to be extremely cautious when they see a Christian leader launch out on his own initiative to attempt to bring unity among the world’s religions.  It cannot be done.  Who is going to compromise their position?  The Muslims?  The Hindus?  The Mormons?  The Jehovah’s Witnesses?  The Baha’i? The Black Hebrew Christians?  The Messianic Jews?  The Oneness or Jesus Name Christians?  The Dominionists?  The Christian Evolutionists?  The Atheists?  The Church of Satan? Which one of these groups is going to compromise their position to “make the other group happy?” None.

The reality is that none of these groups are going to give one single inch.  For the true Christian to even think for one second that such an idea has any possible chance of working is naïve at best, and jeopardizes that particular Christian’s eternal destiny at worst. 

The deity, sovereignty, majesty, holiness, rank, and position in Heaven that Jesus holds is not up for negotiation.  For any man, even a national Christian leader, to think that he has the authority to negotiate the person and position of Jesus to the world, is most treacherous.  The world has to accept Jesus as He is, not as the world would like Him to be.  The world must come to God on God’s terms, not the other way around.

read comments (0)

Recently, on MSNBC/Reuters news service there was an article titled “Pastor Defends Exorcism of Gay Man” dated June 26, 2009.  In this story we read about an African-American ministry that conducted an exorcism on a young man and posted it on You Tube.  The young man happened to be gay.  Needless-to-say, such a thing has generated a firestorm of controversy.  I see one white woman giving her opinion as she states “this young man’s soul was murdered”.  Without question, this has brought the gay vs straight debate once again to the “edge of the knife”.  In particular, this news story has brought focus on the issue of how much say or authority the state should have in the affairs of the church.

Next, we are witnessing the ongoing saga of Perez Hilton who many remember from the most recent Miss USA contest.  We saw how Mr Hilton took it upon himself to deny Miss California success in her career because she expressed her Christian views.  Now, more recently, we have witnessed a new episode involving Mr Hilton and the pop band called “Black Eyed Peas”.  Seems that Mr Hilton is exhibiting particular aggressiveness toward young, professional “women”.

The issue of gay rights vs the conservative, evangelical church community is fast becoming the watershed or “societal tipping point” in the debate concerning all things church and state.  There is not a greater or more significant issue in this debate than that of gay rights.  The reason being is that there is no middle ground between these two groups on this issue.  There is no middle ground between the homosexual and the conservative, evangelical Christian.  Therein lies the gravely serious concern about this issue.  Gone are the days when our society could watch movies such as “Conair” and see a gay individual standing up in front of an airplane and dancing to the song “Sweet Home Alabama” in front of a plane load of convicts and, then after having watched the movie, just simply “forget about it all”.

Anytime you talk about “rights” you are talking in legal terminology.  And, anytime you are talking in legal terminology you are talking courts, judges and legal interpretation.  The problem for our society now is that when it comes to the issue of gay rights and the position of the conservative, evangelical Christian, there is absolutely no middle ground.  What I am saying is that you could never ask a serious Christian to accept the idea of “well we will agree that you have the freedom to preach and teach anything you choose and the freedom to classify anything you choose as a sin according to your interpretation of the Bible – except homosexuality.”  The serious Christian cannot accept such a position because according to conservative evangelical theology, to deliberately compromise on your personal, moral conviction would, in turn, place that particular Christian’s soul in jeopardy.

On the other hand, the militant homosexuals will never accept the idea of “well, what if we write a law that classifies any negative talk against homosexuality as a hate crime, however; evangelical churches and Christians will be exempt from this law because it would infringe upon their freedom of religious beliefs.”

What we are faced with, as a society, on this issue is quite simply that it is fast becoming “all or none” for both sides.  There is no middle ground.  In the mind of the Christian, there can be no acceptance of a law that would require that Christian to compromise his or her moral conviction.  But, on the other hand, in the mind of the homosexual, there can be no acceptance of a law that would class anti-gay talk and commentary as a hate crime for only some people, but at the same time, allow an entire class of people to be exempt from prosecution for the same.  If a hate-crime law of this type is passed (and we are close), and then a Christian Pastor is arrested for preaching against homosexuality, everyone might as well buy tickets to Washington D.C. because such a case is clearly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enforcement of such a “hate crime” law would be no simple matter.  If this scenario develops in our society, we will see a “Pandora’s Box” opened up and our society will be changed forever.  It will never be put back again. The reason this is so is because it’s not just a simple matter of interpreting homosexuals as a “class” of people.  It goes way beyond that.  Let’s make some logical observations.

Our country has a recent history of the civil rights movement.  There is the history of blacks being discriminated against by whites.  In the course of seeing the history of racist manifestations on the part of whites toward blacks, it was never said or thought that “being black” was morally wrong.  Instead, whites were simply saying, in no uncertain terms, “you are black, therefore, you are of a different class”.  And, the whites chose to discriminate against this class.  The difference between this and the issue of gay rights is galactic.  For you see, for two millennium it has been the position of the Christian church that homosexuality is a sin.  Never did the Christian community simply say that homosexuals were of a “lower class”.  This difference is enormous and this difference means everything in this debate.  For you see, to define homosexuals as a “class” and then, to say that society cannot speak ill of this “class” means that the Christian would be asked to give up or change his or her moral conviction on the issue.

Let’s look at it another way.  Being a black person is not a choice of behavior.  Only black people can be black.  However, being a homosexual is a choice of behavior as we clearly see that there are both black and white homosexuals.  This reality leads to the next point.

The court that would bring to trial such a case of discrimination and supposed hate crime involving a Christian would have the burden of proving or disproving that there is a legitimate and sustainable process of reasoning as to why evangelical Christians believe and teach that homosexuality is wrong.  In other words, out of all the things that a Christian would consider wrong or evil, the court would be challenged with the burden of determining whether the Christian did or did not “pick homosexuality out of a hat” and then, in turn, classify it as sinful.  I can see where a courtroom trial would very quickly become focused on the “basis” for the belief that homosexuality is “wrong or bad”.  It would be inevitable that the court would be faced with simply saying that the Christian can call anything he or she wants to call sin – except homosexuality.  The only alternative would be for the court to put the entire “belief system” of the Christian on trial. Either way, such a court would then, in essence, be dictating morality and deciding what the Christian has the right to believe is sin or not.   This is extremely treacherous ground for our legal system.

We hear a lot of talk about diversity in our society.  But, what I am seeing is that the “developing definition” of “diversity” is that diversity means “anything but Christian”.  Or, another way to put it would be that diversity means acquiescence for all serious Christians. We give up our religious rights and freedoms to a pseudo-class of citizens who are willfully choosing to participate in behavior that the Christian considers sinful behavior.

America is slipping off her moral foundations.  Speaking of diversity, it seems ironic that the Christian position on homosexuality is discussed in the media but, never the position of other religions such as Islam.  What do Muslims believe about homosexuality?  Or, does the burden of “diversity” only apply to the Christians?

I can envision an “irony of ironies” where, let’s say, an African-American Pastor living in Selma, Alabama would be invited to preach at an African-American church in Montgomery, Alabama.  And, during the course of delivering his message on that particular Sunday morning, this African-American Preacher would speak of homosexuality and describe it as being a sin that damns the soul.  Shortly thereafter, upon driving back to Selma, he is pulled over by the highway patrol and arrested for having “violated the civil rights” of the homosexual community.  If we are not careful, this is exactly where all of this is headed.  It would turn our country into a “legal no man’s land”.  Our body of law would become un-interpretable and thus, there would be no law.

read comments (0)