Today's Evangelicals, Tomorrow's Liberals--A Warning from 1983

The following lengthy post is an address delivered by Samuel H. Tow of Singapore at the 11th World Congress of the International Council of Christian Churches, which took place in Cape May, New Jersey from June 16-30, 1983 (the address was reprinted in its entirety in the Australian Beacon, January 1990, pp. 1, 4, 9, 11). The title--Today’s Evangelicals, Tomorrow’s Liberals--has not only proven to be accurate, but could be reversed--"Today's Liberals, Tomorrow's Evangelicals"--and be equally true. Not only has evangelicalism become more liberal, but people and ideas considered liberal in 1983 are now considered "evangelical." For example, I’ve always regarded Jim Wallis as a Communist masquerading as a Christian (not to mention Ron Sider). Mr. Wallis has been around for decades and hasn’t changed a bit, but evangelicalism has moved so far leftward in the meantime that he’s now often referred to in the media as an "evangelical." As an aside, it was at that Congress in 1983 that the largest association of black churches in Africa, led by Bishop Isaac Mokoena, joined the ICCC. The delegation led by Bishop Mokoena represented 4½ million Bible-believing Christians. The South African Council of Churches, led by universalist Desmond Tutu, represented no more than 300,000 people (Christian Beacon, June 30, 1983, p. 1).

Unprecedented happenings are taking place in the evangelical world. On Saturday, June 25, 1983 Mother Teresa, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Schaeffer and John Stott are scheduled to speak at an anti-abortion rally in Hyde Park, London, labelled "Call to Humanity." This anti-abortion platform will be a cage of ecumenical birds--a Roman Catholic nun, a liberal Christian and two evangelicals.

The April 8, 1983 issue of the leading Neo-evangelical journal Christianity Today (with Gandhi’s portrait on its front cover) exhorts Christians to learn from Gandhi. In A Christian Manifesto, Francis Schaeffer draws up Christian guidelines for socio-political action, civil disobedience, and the use of force. In March last year, Billy Graham welcomed the Pope’s visit to England. Two months later the famed evangelist joined a multi-religious gathering and communists in Moscow in a conference on world peace. John Stott, the British socialist theologian now publicly declares that the Marxist "liberation theology" is fully Biblical and pleasing to God the Creator.

What do you make of all this?

A generation ago these happenings would have precipitated an uprising of evangelicals and strong revulsion everywhere. Today, no longer. They are viewed as normal expressions of the Christian gospel. The Neo-evangelical baby conceived by Ockenga in 1948 has achieved full manhood. Neo-evangelicalism has become the front runner of Protestant Christianity.

We ask ourselves: What new gospel is this? How did it come about?

The Emergence of Neo-Evangelicalism

The decade of the forties saw a growing discontent among evangelicals over the apparent inability of the Gospel to change society, and with the strict fundamentalist position of anti-modernism, anti-intellectualism, separatism, and a general isolation from the mainstream of society. The world of the forties was passing them by, and evangelicals were no longer convinced that the world with its social and political challenges was that bad after all.

In 1947 Carl Henry chided the evangelicals for their social unconcern in his book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. With prophetic impact he declared: "The battle against evil in all its forms must be pressed unsparingly; we must pursue the enemy, in politics, in economics, in science, in ethics--everywhere, in every field, we must pursue relentlessly."

The next year Harold Ockenga, with kindred spirit, called for a break with traditional Fundamentalism, and a commitment to social involvement. This call was to prove historic and disastrous. Let us call it "Ockenga’s Manifesto" and let us note the direction of its thrust. We quote Ockenga’s own words:

Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals. Neo-evangelicalism differed from...fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the re-engagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the re-examination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the Flood, God’s method of creation, and others.

(From the Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by [Harold] Lindsell).
With this call, the father of Neo-evangelicalism sowed the seed of a new Social Gospel which was to take root and blossom in the decade of the seventies. The new direction was exciting and challenging. It captured the imagination of those who were disgruntled with the Fundamentalist position. These Neo-evangelicals were determined to change the world with the Gospel. They confidently affirmed: Christ must transform culture, Christians must gain the attention and acceptance of society. With this radical about-turn they parted company with Fundamentalism and embarked on a voyage which was to lead many evangelicals into the quicksands of apostasy and the Social Gospel.

Without serious intention, Ockenga had started a new movement which within three decades was to change the face of evangelicalism and make it a major force which society cannot afford to ignore. The founder’s avowed aim of recapturing "denominational leadership" has been more than attained.

In an article released by the World Council of Churches (1983) entitled "The Neo-evangelical Alternative: Rediscovering a Social Gospel," Walter Pipkin, a liberal, says this of the Neo-evangelical trend:

The decade of the 1970’s was a head-turning time for evangelicals. Suddenly, this group of conservative religious practitioners became news. Reconciled to existing somewhat on the margins of society and mainstream life in North America, this gaggle of true believers were thrust into the spotlight. The White House was occupied by a confessed evangelical. All but without warning, evangelicals were news as Newsweek proclaimed 1976 ‘The year of the Evangelical’ and Time concluded 1977 with a cover story on ‘New Empire of Faith: the Evangelicals.’ Clearly evangelicals were making good newscopy.

Richard Quebedeaux, another liberal, in the preface to his book The Worldly Evangelicals (1978) writes:

In the course of just the last few years, born again--the once laugh-provoking term describing evangelical Christians--has become a respectable, if not glamorous designation, no less fashionable and chic than the growing number of celbrities who unabashedly declare that they have been born again. Evangelical Christianity has finally emerged from its anticultural ghetto into the mainstream of American life. It is now a force to be reckoned with.

Recapturing the Denominational Leadership: At What Cost?

As Ockenga had desired, the evangelicals emerged from their Fundamentalist shell, invaded the world, and in brilliant fashion recaptured the denominational leadership.

The crucial question is: at what cost? And, with what consequences to the faith? The consequences which followed Ockenga’s Manifesto are four, and they are fatal:

1. The evangelicals fell into the snare of worldliness.
2. They fell into the snare of the social gospel, and inevitably the socialist-Marxist liberation theology.
3. They fell into the snare of ecumenism.
4. Finally they fell into the errancy trap.
It was a "falling away" indeed!
Let us now consider each of these four, in turn.

a) The snare of worldliness

Once the evangelicals had decided that the world was their territory, they forsook the old Fundamentalist constraints, and identified themselves with the world, becoming respectable by the world’s standards.

In the process, evangelicals made compromises with the wider culture wherever necessary and expedient. In the course of a few years, "born again" had become a popular designation as a growing number of national celebrities and prominent citizens unabashedly declared that they too had the "born-again" experience.

Neo-evangelicals became harder and harder to distinguish from other people. They became more and more like the world, discarding old Fundamentalist taboos such as smoking and drinking, cocktail parties and social dancing, enjoying pop and rock music with their worldly and immoral themes. Evangelical magazines and publications began to review plays and movies, and to speak gently of homosexuals.

As Andrew Bonar had said many years ago, "I looked for the church and found it in the world. I looked for the world and found it in the church."

Modern evangelicals had gained acceptability in society, even within the liberal religious and secular academic communities. Flaunting their ever increasing social status, evangelicals made their presence felt in big business, sports, politics and the mass media. Within the decade of the seventies Ockenga’s ambition had been more than achieved. Evangelicals had assumed the leadership as the new mainline expression of Christianity.

b) The Snare of the Social Gospel
1. The Chicago Declaration

The Neo-evangelical commitment to social involvement took a great leap forward in 1973 with the Chicago Declaration issued by the Thanksgiving Workshop on Evangelicals and Social Concern. The Declaration contains a confession of the failure of evangelicals to be involved in remedying social problems, and a denunciation of "social abuse," "an unjust American society," "racism," "exploitation," "social and political injustice of our nation," "the maldistribution of the nation’s wealth and services," "a national pathology of war and violence." It voiced support for the "social and economic rights of the poor and the oppressed," and a "more just acquisition and distribution of the world’s resources."

The socialist-Marxist vocabulary and tone of the document are unmistakable. The most significant fact is that evangelical leaders should subscribe to such a document and circulate it far and wide to get other evangelicals to agree with the commitments expressed. Among those who signed were prominent names: Carl Henry, Bernard Ramm, Leighton Ford, Frank Gabelein, Mark Hatfield, and Ronald Sider, an outspoken pro-Marxist theologian.

Out of the 1973 Workshop grew Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) and the International Consultation on Simple Life Style, which included people like John Stott and Harvie Conn of Westminster Theological Seminary.

Since then, Sider has published four books (Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 1977; Christ and Violence, 1979; Living More Simply, 1980; and Cry Justice, 1980). Sider’s ideas are likely to have a far reaching and profound effect on the evangelical world, particularly among the young.

Are the views expressed by Sider and his movement Christian? A review of his writing reveals these findings:

a) Sider quotes liberally from leftist sources, and approvingly from both Karl Barth (neo-orthodox) and from leftists and socialists like Heilbroner and Schumacher. he recommends apostate, non-Christian organizations to his readers.
b) Sider advocates the use of force to take away the property of the rich, and attacks personal charity and generosity.
c) Sider’s thinking and programme are modelled not on Christ but on Marx. His books are full of Marxist vocabulary.
d) Sider’s message is not the message of the Bible. His economics and ethics are not Christian. He misuses Scripture to support his un-Scriptural ideology.

Christians should be warned of theses new heretical movements: Evangelicals for Social Action and International Consultation on Simple Lifestyle.

The Chicago Declaration and the publications following in its wake signal to the world that evangelicals are now firmly set on the road to social involvement. They are turning to the social gospel which their forefathers had fought a half century ago. History has repeated itself.

2. The Lausanne Covenant

At the International Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1974, Rev. John Stott introduced "The Lausanne Covenant" to the delegates for their "very solemn personal commitment...to concrete and sacrificial action."

Taking a lead in the signing of the Covenant were Billy Graham, Honorary Chairman of the Congress, and John Stott himself. Below are excerpts from paragraph 5 of the Covenant.

Christian Social Responsibility

We affirm that God is both the Creator and Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men from every kind of oppression...we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with man is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty...

In section 5 of the Covenant we see the subtle inclusion of the social gospel as part of "Christian Social Responsibility." It declares that political liberation and socio-political involvement are now part of Christian duty. This is a contradiction of our Lord’s commission to His disciples as given in Matthew 28: 19, 20. This Great Commission has always been and will remain the only corporate mandate for the Church, till Jesus comes.

Our Lord rejected socio-political action (John 6:15) and violence of any kind. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" (John 18:36). "For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17). The Kingdom of God is not in socio-political action, civil disobedience, mass demonstrations, creating a new order, or violent revolution.

3. "Christian Mission in the Modern World" (a pro-Marxist revelation)

In his book by the above title, John Stott admits that his concept of the Great Commission has changed between 1966 and 1975 when his book was first published. In 1966, Stott held the old view:

The mission of the church, according to the specification of the risen Lord, is exclusively a preaching, converting and teaching mission. Indeed, I confess that I myself argued this at the World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin in 1966, when attempting to expound the three major versions of the Great Commission.
Today, however, I would express myself differently. It is not just that the commission includes a duty to teach converts everything Jesus had previously commanded (Matthew 28:20), and that social responsibility is among the things which Jesus commanded. I now see more clearly that not only the consequences of the commission but the actual commission itself must be understood to include social as well as evangelistic responsibility, unless we are to be guilty of distorting the words of Jesus.

(Christian Mission...by Stott, IVP 1975, p. 23)
How Stott’s thinking (and theology) has changed in a few short years! And not only Stott, but many other eminent evangelicals, too. That is why the Apostle Paul warned: "Stand fast! Hold fast!" In Chapter Four, Stott discusses the current ecumenical emphasis on the struggle for liberation and social justice and ends with this comment (pages 91, 92):

This brief historical sketch of ecumenical thinking during the 10 years from Mexico 1963 to Bangkok 1973 has shown that the emphasis has been on key words like ‘humanization,’ ‘development,’ ‘wholeness,’ ‘liberation,’ and ‘justice.’ Let me say at once that these things, and the liberation of men from every form of oppression, are not only a desirable goal, pleasing to God the Creator, but that Christians should be actively pursuing it alongside other men of compassion and goodwill...We evangelicals have often been guilty of opting out of our social and political responsibilities. We are to blame for this neglect. We should repent of it and not be afraid to challenge ourselves and each other that God may be calling many more Christians than hear his call to immerse themselves in the secular world of politics, economics, sociology, race relations, community health, development and a host of other such spheres for Christ.

John Stott has earned great respect as an evangelical theologian. By his own confession, his theological stand has shifted. As he wrote, "Today, however, I would express myself differently." Our Lord’s Great Commission has not changed, but Stott has shifted to the left. His close association with leftists, Marxists and liberal theologians in the World Council of Churches (to which he has acted as "adviser") has coloured his thinking. That is why he is able to endorse the socialist-Marxist dialectic as "pleasing to God the Creator," and "that Christians should be actively involved in pursuing it alongside other men of compassion and goodwill."

"Men of compassion and goodwill" include Marxist revolutionaries and Communists. Can this most respected "evangelical" be a Marxist sympathizer? To answer this question, we reproduce his comments on the Marxist "Theology of Liberation" from pages 92 and 93 of his book:

The Theology of Liberation

Not long before Bangkok the original Spanish version of Gustavo Gutierrez’s book, ‘A Theology of Liberation’ was published in Peru. This is the fullest and most thorough attempt which has yet been made to interpret biblical salvation in terms of the liberation of the oppressed. I admire the deep compassion of Gustavo Gutierrez for the exploited, his insistence on solidarity with the poor, his emphasis on social ‘praxis’ instead of unpractical theorizing, and his call to the church for ‘a more evangelical, more authentic, more concrete and more efficacious commitment to liberation’ (p. 145). Several times he quotes with approval Marx’s most famous dictum that ‘the philosophers have only interpreted the world...; the point, however, is to change it.’ We should have no quarrel with the goal he defines, namely ‘liberation from all that limits or keeps man from self-fulfillment, liberation from all impediments to the exercise of his freedom’ (p. 27). This is fully biblical...‘the goal is not only better living conditions, a radical change of structures, a social revolution; it is much more: the continuous creation, never ending, of a new way to be a man, a permanent culture revolution’ (p. 32).

In the above passage, Stott gives unqualified approval to the Marxist liberation theology calling it "fully biblical." Need we say more? Stott is endorsing not merely socio-political action, agitation, violent protest but armed uprising and bloody revolution. In his converted thinking, these things are "pleasing to God the Creator."

4. Evangelicals and Dialogue
The Devil’s substitute for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "dialogue." Dialogue is to sit down and exchange views on equal terms, each learning from the other. Here is what Stott has to say of dialogue:

Christ speaks in this dialogue, revealing himself to those who do not know him and correcting the limited and distorted knowledge of those who do. I do not think we should object to this formulation.

So, according to Stott, Christ speaks through non-Christians to correct the "distorted knowledge" of Christians!

Then Stott cites the example of E. Stanley Jones, the modernist missionary to India, how Jones used dialogue with Hindus to great profit.

Reading through the pages of Stott’s book, one is struck by the subtlety of his perverted logic and frequent double talk. Are we to believe what this evangelical says? Does Christ speak in dialogue? Does God honour dialogue with other religions?

Where is the "Thus saith the Lord" of Holy Scripture? or "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38).

5. "A Christian Manifesto"
A socio-political treatise

In his recent book A Christian Manifesto (1982), Francis Schaeffer, senior Neo-evangelical statesman and author, reveals the latest in Neo-evangelical concern. In 120 pages of text, Schaeffer quotes 11 verses of Scripture to support his views on "The Limits of Civil Disobedience."

Schaeffer writes of the crumbling of morality and freedom, the degeneration of law and government and the humanistic educational system. He calls on Christians to change society, and under certain circumstances to resist the state by political action, civil disobedience and if necessary even by force. The issue of abortion figures rather prominently in his thinking.

It seems incredible that an avowed evangelical writing a "Christian Manifesto" sees merely socio-political issues and the need for social change and possibly violence. Surely an honest reading of God’s Word must inform us that the end time society is an evil and corrupt one, incorrigible and ripe for judgment (Matt. 24:37-39). Nowhere in Scripture is there a shred of evidence to suggest that Christians can change society and systems. Only Christ our Lord can, and that when He comes.

What "Christian Manifesto" do we have for this day and age? It is firstly to call men and women to repentance, ere the Lord returns, and secondly to warn believers against the great apostasy. "Repent! for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was the message of John in the Judaean wilderness, the message of our Lord by the Galilean sea, and Peter’s at Pentecost. To the end time Laodicean Church comes the same message from our Lord: Be zealous therefore, and repent" (Rev. 3:19). So we must! The Saviour has spoken. He has given us no other mandate, no other commission. Not civil disobedience! Not political action! Not violent revolution! Schaeffer has missed the real issue.

6. Vital issues--according to Carl Henry

Carl Henry’s recent thinking on vital issues which he thinks might be biblical is summed up as follows:

Among biblical concerns specially relevant today are the primacy of the family as a lifelong monogamous union, the dignity and worth of fetal life, the plight of the poor and oppressed, the right and need to work, the pursuit of world peace and order, the just use of power to contain the expansionist policies of aggressor nations, and the preservation of natural resources.

It is remarkable that both Carl Henry and Francis Schaeffer are burdened with socio-political issues. The problems of abortion, the poor and oppressed, world peace and order cannot be solved by mobilizing the Church as these Neo-evangelicals think. They are falling into the same error of the liberals and socialists.

Society will never change through the socio-political action of Christians. Believers are nowhere called to change or reform society. God’s Word makes it quite clear. Christians are to witness, to proclaim the Gospel of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. Any social or political action is doomed to failure. Our only hope is in the return of Jesus Christ. Nothing else can solve the problems that now belabour the Neo-evangelicals.

c) The Snare of Ecumenism

The historic repudiation of Biblical separation by Ockenga in 1948 started the Neo-evangelicals on the road to apostasy. When one chooses to disobey a clear command of God’s Word to be separate and to have no fellowship with unbelievers, then the logical and ultimate end result is unbelief and apostasy.

When a believer knowingly remains in association with apostates the likely course is one of "falling away" in six fatal steps: consorting, contamination, compromise, cooperation, commendation, and capitulation. The end stage may not materialize for some years, but it is only a matter of time, because the Satanic forces of the end time apostasy will be irresistible.

1. Dr. Billy Graham Aids Ecumenism

The most famous and respected Protestant in the world, without a doubt, is Dr. Billy Graham. No one has done more to popularize the gospel than he. Also no one has done more to mislead and confuse Christians than Dr. Graham. By his association with Roman Catholics, the pope, ecumenists and charismatics, Billy Graham has done more than any other individual to promote the cause of the Ecumenical Movement among evangelicals.

"Whatever Graham says or does must be right." This is the general consensus today. So millions of Christians are led to believe that there is nothing wrong with the liberal churches, the Ecumenical Movement, the Roman Catholic Church, the charismatic movement. They have been led to think that the only thing wrong is with those unloving and critical Fundamentalists in daring to point out the error of Billy Graham and the Neo-Evangelicals. The ecumenical mood of the moment may be summed up in two words. LOVE and TOLERANCE.

2. Christianity Today Turns Ecumenical and Liberal

Christianity Today (CT), the major mouthpiece of Neo-evangelical conviction, has over the years shifted far from its original Fundamentalist and orthodox position. Although it still carries articles of sound theological content, the mixture of truth and error gives the heretical contents a cloak of respectability, thereby making the journal a most deceptive and dangerous vehicle for the propagation of falsehood.

A major departure from the Reformed Faith has been the appearance of articles taking an increasingly conciliatory attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church. For example, its October 23, 1981 issue carries two major articles:

"What separates Evangelicals and Catholics?"
"The Pope as Antichrist: An Anachronism?"

These articles would have us believe that Roman Catholicism is no different from Evangelicalism, and that the Pope is in fact a very amiable, benign and acceptable Christian leader. Did not Billy Graham call him "Moral leader of the world?" This sort of public persuasion will do more to undo the Reformation than any Inquisition. Christianity Today has said it: Protestants and Catholics are really no different. To remain apart is scandalous.

In other recent articles, Christianity Today has undermined basic Christian doctrines, e.g. Substitutionary Atonement, Biblical Inerrancy and the Genesis Creation record. Its April 8, 1983 issue carries the portrait of Gandhi on its cover, and presents its message to Christians: "Learning from Gandhi." This is the latest theological acrobatics by the Neo-evangelicals and certainly not the last. We may expect more somersaults and about turns by Christianity Today in the coming months.

3. Neo-evangelicals Returning to Rome

In a remarkable and subtle shift, evangelicals everywhere are adopting an increasingly conciliatory stance towards Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The cordial ties between the Pope and Billy Graham, and the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have no doubt played a major role in breaking down old animosities and traditional barriers.

More startling even is to discover that leading evangelical and Fundamentalist theologians around the world are softening in their attitude toward the RCC. An eminent professor of theology from a highly respectable Fundamentalist seminary has commented: "The Catholics are not too bad these days." A little remark but with profound significance.

Well known OMF Honorary Director J.O. Sanders wrote a book, "Cults and Isms". The 1973 edition placed Roman Catholicism "at the head of the list of heresies, since it is the largest and most influential of them all." In the latest edition (1981) the chapter on Roman Catholicism has been dropped. Does this mean that Dr. Sanders no longer considers Roman Catholicism a heresy?

4. Charismatic Movement Aids Ecumenism

The world-wide movement of "Holy Spirit or Charismatic Renewal" has swept through Christendom like wild fire in the last two decades. Mainline liberals, evangelicals, traditional Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, fellow travellers, unbelievers and nominal Christians have all been included in this modern tongues movement.

The spectacular effusion of tongues, "miracles," "healings" and "prophecies," and generally the experience of spiritual uplift have won millions of converts to the movement. While remaining within their own grouping or denomination, nevertheless they have found a strong kinship and common identity across denominational lines.

This charismatic movement has become a most potent unifying force drawing together evangelicals and liberals, Protestants and Roman Catholics. It is a major factor promoting ecumenical union of the churches today.

5. The Errancy Trap: Liberal Road to Apostasy

It is nothing new but the old trick of Satan: Yea, hath God said? When Ockenga declared the Neo-evangelical intention to re-examine God’s Word and restate Christian theology "in accordance with the need of the times" he had in fact laid the Bible on the chopping board of modern thought and critical scholarship. What need is there in these last days to re-examine the Creation and the Flood? Surely these matters had been settled by godly scholars long ago.

Hear the words of Spurgeon: "Rest assured that there is nothing new in theology except that which is false; and that the facts of theology are today what they were nineteen hundred years ago." Did not the Bible say: "Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven"?

Whatever Ockenga’s original intention may have been, the fact is, many evangelicals have shifted from their former belief in an inerrant Bible. Is this important? Absolutely! The great battle of our generation is over the subject of Biblical inerrancy. On this issue many a believer’s faith will be put to the test.

Harold Lindsell in the Preface to his book, The Battle for the Bible, says this:

I regard the subject of this book, biblical inerrancy, to be the most important topic of this age. A great battle rages about it among people called evangelicals. I did not start the battle and wish it were not essential to discuss it. The only way to avoid it would be to remain silent. And silence on this matter would be a grave sin.

The traditional evangelical belief is in the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God. Increasing numbes of evangelicals are abandoning this position. This is almost inevitable when Christians attempt to harmonize Scripture with "modern scientific thought" and "intellectual respectability."

"But what’s all the fuss over inerrancy? Surely a little deletion here or a small reservation there can do no harm?" So some evangelicals may think. But, not so, says Lindsell. We quote:

I will contend that embracing a doctrine of an errant Scripture will lead to disaster down the road. It will result in the loss of missionary passion; it will lull congregations to sleep and undermine their belief in the full-orbed truth of the Bible; it will produce spiritual sloth and decay; and it will finally lead to apostasy.

(p. 25)
How true! Lindsell then goes on to relate how men and institutions which once stood on inerrancy have fallen into the errancy trap: great churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church, and the famous Fuller Theological Seminary. And the list grows each year. The time has come when men will not endure sound doctrine but have turned away their ears from the truth.

Conclusion

We have witnessed a great "falling away" spoken of by the Apostle Paul (2 Thess. 2:3) which must come to pass before our Lord’s return. Men and institutions claiming to be evangelical in persuasion are now behaving like liberals in practice. Some have openly expressed their socialist-Marxist sympathies. These unprecedented happenings are of the gravest prophetic significance, for in them we see the unmistakable drawing together of the three major forces of Christendom: RCC, WCC, and Evangelicals, toward the formation of the end time one-world-church (Rev. 17).

In the light of these "signs of the times" what should the believers do? There are four things which every true believer must apply himself diligently, and with utmost urgency:

1. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season" (2 Tim. 4:2). "Rescue the perishing, care for the dying! Snatch them in pity from sin and the grave...Tell them of Jesus the mighty to save!" There is no greater commission, than this. Let us burn out for the Gospel’s sake, like John Sung, God’s flame of the Far East.
2. "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:1), "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Let us cease not to warn every one, evangelicals and others, "night and day with tears" (Acts 20:31). Let us feed and defend our flocks over which the Holy Ghost has made us overseers.
3. "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." "Behold, I come quickly" (Rev. 3:11). We believe and are sure that we are living in the last few days of the perilous end times. Our Lord’s coming will suddenly descend on us at any time now. Be zealous, therefore and repent!
4. Live godly, holy lives, daily "looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God" (2 Pet. 3:11, 12). May we be ever diligent, that we "may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (2 Pet. 3:14).

Behold, He cometh with clouds; the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty to come. The question is, are you ready?

40 years ago: Mormons uphold exclusion of Negroes from the priesthood

On January 8, 1970, in a statement distributed to Mormon leaders around the world, the top leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its ban on Negroes in the priesthood. All other Mormon men were expected to join the priesthood at age 12.

However, on June 9, 1978, the 148-year-old policy was revoked. Church President Spencer W. Kimball announced in Salt Lake City that the decision had been based on a revelation that had come to church leaders, saying, "The long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood." The ban had become a source of tension between the church and minority groups, and the change was expected to facilitate the Mormons' active missionary program. Indeed, to look at today's slickly-produced commercials produced by the LDS to promote family life, you'd never know that such a ban had ever existed.

Wasn't it amazing (and convenient) that such a "revelation" just happened to come at a time when the Mormon church was facing increasing criticism for its practices from non-Mormon society? Just as the revelation to the church's leaders to ban polygamy happened to come at a time (1890) when statehood for Mormon-dominated Utah was being denied because of the long-standing practice. Just one question, Chief: How is it that the LDS leaders receive revelations that contradict previous revelations when all of the original LDS theology and practice was supposedly given by God as a restoration of true worship and a correction of the false doctrine and practice that had corrupted Christianity for centuries until 1830?

Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS loses federal government funding because of its extreme anti-Israel views

A good news story (from the government of Canada, no less!) that deserves wider attention: KAIROS, an ecumenical church organization in Canada ostensibly dedicated to social justice* and composed of the usual suspects, has been defunded by the government of Canada after 35 years of receiving government (i.e., taxpayer) money because of its extreme anti-Israel views. You can read the details at my friend Ezra Levant’s blog here, here, and here. I found some of the financial details in their 2008 annual report "verrry interesting." As Mr. Levant comments (links in original):

KAIROS wanted $1.8 million a year from the government -- that's basically a fully-staffed political war room, dedicated to their radical point of view. If KAIROS really is, as its website boasts, the political voice of the Anglicans, Catholics, Mennonites, United Church, etc., that money should be a snap to replace -- not much more than a dime per member of its constituent churches, really. Because KAIROS really is speaking for its members, isn't it?

If you remain unpersuaded of the case to let KAIROS's members support it, rather than taxpayers, perhaps I can draw your attention to their last annual report. Here are some of the things they spend your money on:

Fundraising and overhead: $800K
"Energy justice": $500K
"Public engagement": $400K

That's all pure politics -- and it just happens to equal the amount of dough they're demanding from the government. By contrast, "anti-poverty grants" only account for $148K, or just 3.7% of their budget.

It's pretty grotesque when a so-called Christian organization is so busy beating up on Alberta, Israel and Colombia that it only has 3.7% of its money left over for Jesus-y things like helping the poor. But then again, according to KAIROS's honcho, Bill Phipps, Jesus wasn't God anyways.

If just 20% of a televangelist’s expenditures went toward administration and fundraising, he’d be accused of ripping people off, and there would be calls for an official investigation. Contrast KAIROS’ expenditures to those of HOPE International Development Agency, a Christian relief agency from Canada whose theology is less liberal. From HOPE International’s 2008 Financial Summary:

In and for overseas programs: 84.6%
Information and education in Canada: 2.3%
Administration and fundraising: 1.9%

By the way, the fact that KAIROS has been funded by the government of Canada for 35 years is more evidence that, contrary to the secular image of the country that's so popular now, strict separation of church and state is not (and never has been) a traditional Canadian value or practice.

*Whenever I hear the phrase "social justice" or equivalent words, I'm reminded of Malcolm Muggeridge's comment on John 12:3-7, when Jesus was anointed with expensive perfume, and Judas Iscariot protested that the perfume could have been sold, and the proceeds given to the poor. Mr. Muggeridge observed that it was the disciple with the strongest commitment to social justice who ended up betraying Jesus.

January 4, 2010 update: Ezra Levant has new posts here and here regarding attempts by KAIROS to delete incriminating web pages.

June 6, 2010 update: From HOPE International's 2009 Financial Summary:

In & For Overseas Programs: 84.4%
Info & Education in Canada: 2.2%
Administration & Fundraising: 2.1%

30 years ago: NBC broadcasts the anti-biblical movie Mary and Joseph

For those too young (or too old?) to remember, false depictions of biblical characters and narratives in popular culture have been going on for decades. The made-for-television movie Mary and Joseph has seldom been shown since its original broadcast in 1979, and like its blasphemous predecessor Jesus of Nazareth (which was broadcast on NBC in 1977 and again, in a longer version, in 1979), has been, fortunately, forgotten. Lee Winfrey of the Philadelphia Inquirer, in his column On Television, commented on the press release sent out by NBC a month before the first broadcast of Mary and Joseph:

Philadelphia Inquirer, November 8, 1979
NBC rewrites the Bible in story of the Virgin Mary And Joseph
by Lee Winfrey
On television

The television industry, which has falsified the lives of so many famous people in the past, has now decided to make up new biographies for the Virgin Mary and her husband Joseph.
If you don’t recognize the parents of Jesus when you see them portrayed in "Mary and Joseph: A Story of Love," scheduled to air Dec. 9 on NBC (Channel 3), don’t blame yourself. The network made up most of this yarn without any Biblical basis.
Here is how NBC describes the plot in a press release:
"Mary, a youg woman of humble background, meets Joseph, a nobleman who rescues her from an assault by a Roman soldier. After the Romans murdered his family and burned their lands, Joseph began a new life as an apprentice to his Uncle Matthew, a carpenter, who was a follower of Judah, a rebel Zealot.
"As Mary grieves for her father, Joachim, who was hanged for treason, she hears the voice of Gabriel, who tells her she will bear the Messiah, the holy Son of God. When she somewhat tearfully bares her soul to the townspeople of Nazareth and they learn that she is indeed pregnant without a husband, Mary is judged an adulteress and is sentenced to death by stoning.
"Though Joseph does not believe that God is the creator of her unborn child, he again comes to her rescue by falsely admitting the paternity of her child. As a result of his admission, he endures flogging. The beginning of a closer relationship is established, a bond that culminates on the night when Mary goes into labor and the Christ child is born."
Nowhere in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John is there any mention that Joseph met Mary when he rescued her from rape, that the Romans murdered Joseph’s family, that Mary’s father was hanged for treason, that Mary was sentenced to death for adultery, or that Joseph was flogged. All of these embellishments are the creation of scriptwriter Carmen Culver.
Mary is played in this TV special by Blanche Baker, the daughter of actress Carroll Baker. Joseph is portrayed by Jeff East, who played the teen-aged Clark Kent in the recent movie "Superman." While admitting that most of the story is false, they still think it’s all right.
"I think most of it is fictional," said Miss Baker. "It’s not really a documentary about what the Bible really says."
Although the ages of Jesus’ parents are not mentioned in the gospels, it has been traditionally believed that Joseph was much older than Mary. In the "Mary and Joseph" special, however, they are both teenagers.
"What I think the producers and writers are trying to do is make this a more attractive story, put in a Romeo-and-Juliet element instead of having him an older man," East said.
Miss Baker argues that at least the background for this tale is correct, even though the special "is not even pretending to be the story in the Bible. They take things from the time and make those things accurate, like how they baked bread.
"As actors," Miss Baker enthused, "what you see is a great part. You think, oh-ho, a classic part and I’m so young."
Despite all the defenses of "Mary and Joseph" offered by the two principals and by NBC, I think this is appalling. Chances are good that millions of children, and probably several thousand adults as well, will assume that this fanciful special represents what the Bible really says.
What possible purpose is served by slapping together a pack of lies about the parents of Jesus and airing it during the Christmas season? What should we expect next? Old Moses rejuvenated into a young John Travolta, disco dancing down Mount Sinai with an armful of stone tablets?
Surely there must be a few historical characters whose stature is sufficient to place them above video misrepresentation. Until I heard about "Mary and Joseph," I thought the parents of Jesus were among them.

Mr. Winfrey was ahead of the curve in his mention of Moses. The 1993 movie ...And God Spoke (the making of...) was a humourous depiction of producers who want to make a movie based on the Bible, but who haven’t read the Book, and are too lazy to do so. They show Moses, played by Soupy Sales, walking down Mount Sinai carrying a six-pack of cans of a certain drink, using the unsubtle product placement to help finance their film.

Here is Mr. Winfrey’s review of Mary and Joseph when he finally got to see it:

Philadelphia Inquirer, December 6, 1979
‘Mary and Joseph’ on NBC: Poor by Any Artistic Standard
by Lee Winfrey

About halfway through a television special called "Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith," Joseph is wondering how his wife, the Virgin Mary, got pregnant.
"Who did this?" he asks her. "What am I supposed to believe? That God made you pregnant? Who was it, Mary? I suppose if was your gypsy, the one who can make you laugh."
Mary’s claim that the child she is carrying is the son of God gets her in trouble with the local authorities. She is sentenced to be stoned to death. Joseph asks mercy for her on the grounds that maybe she’s a little bit loony.
"She’s young and irresponsible," he tells the judge. "I’m sure when we’re married, these claims will stop."
Swayed by Joseph’s plea, the judge decides to be merciful. The stones remain uncast. Joseph is flogged.
This unique tableau, unmentioned in the Bible, is a brainstorm from the fertile imagination of Carmen Culver, the scriptwriter for "Mary and Joseph." Miss Culver’s free-wheeling adaptation of the courtship and marriage of Jesus’ parents will air this coming Sunday night on NBC (Channel 3).
It all turns out all right in the end. In line with the Biblical account, Joseph accepts that Mary’s child is divine after the angel Gabriel speaks to him while he is sleeping. It’s a little disconcerting to hear Gabriel speaking in a British accent, sounding a great deal like a BBC radio announcer, but at least here Miss Culver didn’t make up any dialogue.
"Mary and Joseph" reels and stumbles along like this for three hours, mixing the old narratives of Matthew and Luke with modern yarns the old apostles never mentioned. Mary’s father, Joachim, is crucified on this show, for example, as a plot device to set this extravaganza into motion. Hitherto, Joachim has escaped such painful fate, but here it’s just considered good show biz to nail him up.
About the only good thing to be said about this show, which I saw in preview here Tuesday, is that it has been toned down to try to meet some of the protests that have been made about it since the first announcement of it last month.
For example, in the original version, Mary was to have been convicted of adultery. Now, it has been left ambiguous as to whether she is sentenced to die for adultery or blasphemy. You can decide for yourself whether that’s an improvement.
Aside from the question of whether it is wise or necessary to hype up such an old and much-beloved story as that of Mary and Joseph, the result here is a poor television show by any aesthetic standard. As movie critic Judith Crist observes in the Dec. 8 issue of TV Guide, this show is "pedestrian and pretentious...it attempts to ‘humanize’ biblical characters and events and vulgarizes them instead."
Blanche baker portrays Mary with no particular distinction. But Jeff East as Joseph is far worse. He makes the father of Jesus look like a wimp. East is not shocking or obnoxious. He just makes you want to look away from him, and wish that Joseph had been portrayed with more character and strength.
Too often, NBC’s attempt to "humanize" Mary and Joseph just winds up making them look sophomoric. On their way to Bethlehem, Joseph frets, "I should never have taken you. I’m such an idiot." "I’ve known it all along," Mary giggles in reply.
To justify this farrago, three principal arguments have been advanced by defenders of this show.
NBC has developed a theory it calls "writing to silence." In general, this theory holds that if you are doing a show about historical figures, and you come to a place where history is mute, it’s all right to fill in the blanks with newly conceived action sequences like Mary’s trial and Joseph’s flogging.
I remain uncomfortable with this carefree conception. It leaves the door wide open to mischief, misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It is a hunting license with no limit on hipshooting.
Another theory, advanced recently in the Philadelphia Bulletin by TV critic Rex Polier, suggests that TV shows like "Mary and Joseph" are no worse than the old biblical movies produced by the late Cecil B. DeMille.
I think this is unfair to DeMille. His best-known religious movies, such as "The King of Kings," "The Ten Commandments," and "Samson and Delilah," stuck to stories where the Bible contained a great deal of narrative material. The first mistake made with "Mary and Joseph" was to try to make a three-hour show out of the few scarce sentences recorded about them. Inevitably, fresh fables must be forced into service to fill the time.
A third theory is that of Thomas M. Battista, vice president and general manager of KYW, commenting against the backdrop of 5,000 letters of protest his station has received about this show.
"It certainly is a fictionalized version of the biblical story," he conceded. "I wish it were a better show, quite frankly."
But Battista concluded: "It is not a documentary. I am not offended by it. I accept it as a movie, nothing more than that."
One of the problems with TV is that, too often, it plays fast and loose with material like this. One of the reasons this dubious tradition continues is the attitude of TV executives who believe that the show they put on is only "a movie, nothing more than that."

According to Carl McIntire ("A Filthy Christmas Film," Christian Beacon, December 13, 1979, pp. 1, 3), who equated Mary and Joseph with the earlier blasphemous made-for-television movie Jesus of Nazareth:

...Both of these films bear the same stamp of unbelief. In the demonstration [on December 10 in front of KYW-TV] in Philadelphia only about 100 persons came. Only three Roman Catholics held up their hands. The visit of the Pope has so mesmerized them that they did not have either the time or discernment, the inclination or the will to waste any time over Mary’s being presented to the nation as a sinful woman.
Where were the Fundamentalists?
These two films registered the spiritual temperature of the nation, which is very low. Christianity is dying in the hearts of the people...

Rick Warren libels Christian author and activist Scott Lively

Pope Rick I (pbuh) claims to promote "civility," but he doesn't always live up to that. His LETTER TO THE PASTORS OF UGANDA, contains a section titled Key Facts Concerning Recent Media and Blog Reports on Rick Warren’s Position on Uganda, which includes the following:

8. Do you know Scott Lively?
No. I do not know Scott Lively and have had no contact with him regarding Uganda or any other issue. I would certainly not associate with anyone who denies the Holocaust, one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

Mr. Lively is president of Abiding Truth Ministries and co-author, with Kevin Abrams, of the book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, which went through four print editions from 1995 to 2002, with a fifth edition now (2009) available on the Internet. When one thinks of the word "Holocaust," what comes to the minds of most people (including this blogger) is the Nazi genocide of Jews in World War II. Dr. Warren's statement in the paragraph cited above creates the impression in the mind of the reader that Mr. Lively is denying the genocide of the Jews. The frequent use of the term "holocaust revisionist" (even his homosexual activist critics don't call him a "holocaust denier") to describe Mr. Lively has nothing to do with Jews, but rather with a denial to homosexual activists of their treasured status as Holocaust victims. Mr. Lively doesn't deny that homosexuals were killed by the Nazis, but argues that those killed were a relatively small number and were effeminate homosexuals, especially those associated with the Communist Party, as opposed to the butch homosexuals associated with the Nazi movement and party. I call upon Rick Warren to repent of his smear against Scott Lively.

P.S. It seems that the situation regarding the bill in Uganda isn't being reported accurately or completely, according to Last Days Watchman.

A false Jesus on Youtube

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. I John 2:18

One such character calling himself "IAMJESUS" can be found at Youtube as well as his own site, Kingdom of God Cornerstone, where he claims New York as his base. All his "movie" says is, "Jesus Christ has returned. I AM.."

At the top of his Kingdom of God Cornerstone home page, the Star of David, cross, and crescent are depicted, above the words NEW JERUSALEM; JEW CHRISTIAN MUSLIM; UNITED AS ONE. I knew I'd seen something like that before, and I realized that it was similar to the "Coexist" message promoted by the music group U2 during their Vertigo Tour in 2005. For photos of U2's use of the Coexist logo, go here. Coexist now promotes itself as "A Lifestyle Movement."

Looking at the profile of "IAMJESUS," he gives his age as 47, and under "About Me" he says, "I AM JESUS CHRIST," and gives his occupation as "KING."

Interestingly, false prophetess Jeane Dixon claimed to have a revelation that the antichrist was born on February 5, 1962, which would make him the same age as "IAMJESUS." (Not that I believe in the accuracy of Jeane Dixon's "prophecies;" especially do I not believe that her "prophecies" came from God.)

HT: Dracul Van Helsing

September 5, 2011 update: Some symbols have been added to the "Coexist" logo to make it even more inclusive, according to Kurt Schlichter.

Good riddance to Oral Roberts

On the occasion of the death of Oral Roberts (or, as astute social critic James Stolee called him, "Anal Roberts"), I don’t want to take the time to go into detail about his false teachings, false prophecies, and various scandals. I recommend reading the posts at On Doctrine; Surph’s Side; Christian News and Views; and Let Us Reason. The reader may also want to look for the book Give Me That Prime Time Religion by Jerry Sholes, published in 1979.

Carl McIntire put it succinctly in the Christian Beacon:

Oral Roberts Cannot Raise the Dead

Evangelist Oral Roberts has told the world in his assembly of some 5,000 of his people that he has by his miraculous power brought the dead back to life. It was Jesus Christ who had this power and demonstrated it beyond all doubt when Lazarus had been dead for four days. When and where has Roberts performed any deed of this nature?

Roberts shocked many when he gave orders to God that he had to provide him with $8 million; and before he was finished, God had dutifully done so through a man who made his money gambling.

Roberts, if he has revealed anything, has given evidence that his tongues and his visions have come tom him from the prince of the power of the air, the old Devil himself. The one sure accomplishment is that he has further and convincingly discredited the whole charismatic activity, which is deceiving both the public and Christians today.

Roberts went as far as to announce that when he returns at the time of Christ’s return, he will rule alongside of Jesus Christ. He promoted himself to a position which only God can give, and he presumed to invade God’s domain again.

When the disciples asked some questions of Jesus concerning this realm, He did tell them that they would sit on 12 thrones, ruling the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

Oral Roberts presumes to tell God what seat He will give to him alongside Jesus Christ. The man is not senile; he is Satan’s minister. For the Scriptures do say that the spirit of antichrist is already here, and Oral Roberts belongs to that kingdom...

Christian Beacon, Vol. LII, Number 21, July 2, 1987, pp. 1-2

The perceptive reader will note that Mr. Roberts was unable to prevent himself from dying. As Walter Martin said, "There's one illness from which you will not recover, and that is: your last one."

As an aside, Robert Frank, a Swiss-born photographer who moved to the United States as a young man, published a book in 1959 titled The Americans. One of the photos in the book was Restaurant--U.S. 1, Leaving Columbia, South Carolina, taken in 1955. I’ve always found the image rather haunting and disturbing. What makes it more so is that the image on the television screen is Oral Roberts.

Israeli archaeological discovery on Hasmonean rule backs up Josephus

Just in time for Hanukkah (or Chanukah, if you prefer), this report from Israel:

Israeli archaeologists have made a stunning historical discovery: a Hasmonean king conquered Gaza and the Negev, and for decades prevented the Nabateans of 2,000 years ago from using the Incense Road. It was the Incense Road that the Nabataeans used to transport precious spices such as myrrh and frankincense to the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt.

HT: Southwest Radio Ministries

Joe Gray of Chosen People Ministries has a post on Hanukkah at Messianic Moments.

A telephone conversation between Richard Nixon and Billy Graham--February 21, 1973

"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Roe v. Wade, which had the effect of legalizing abortion througout the United States."
"There was no discussion of abortion or the recent Supreme Court ruling."
"That was the curious incident."
Paraphrased from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story The Adventure of Silver Blaze

Bruce Wilson of Talk to Action is a blogger whose perspective I generally disagree with, but he does post interesting items sometimes. One of his recent posts was a transcript that he prepared of a telephone conversation between U.S. President Richard Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham that took place on February 21, 1973. I encourage the reader to examine the transcript, or better yet, listen to the recording and come to your own conclusions.

It was Mr. Nixon who made the call, and it was apparently the first conversation between him and Mr. Graham in some time. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States, with its abominable Roe v. Wade decision, had legalized abortion on demand throughout the United States. One might think that America's best-known evangelist, while he has the ear of the president, might want to bring the topic up for discussion, but there isn't a word on the subject from Billy Graham--a "curious incident" indeed.

The conversation contains some references to events and people that current readers (including even this blogger) may not be familiar with, so I offer the following to fill in some blanks. My source for some of this is the 1974 World Almanac and Book of Facts.

--Watergate was starting to gain momemtum as a scandal, but so far only the men who had perpetrated the actual break-in at the Watergate building in 1972 had been tried. On February 7, 1973 the United States Senate voted to form a seven-member panel to further investigate the affair. The next day, Sam Ervin was named to head the panel. So far there were no links to President Nixon, so it's not surprising that the issue didn't come up in this conversation.

--On December 18, 1972 President Nixon ordered the so-called "Christmas bombing" of Hanoi for the purpose of bringing the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to the negotiating table. The bombing ended on December 30, and on January 27, 1973 the U.S.A., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and Viet Cong signed an agreement ending the war in Vietnam. Operation Homecoming began on February 12 when 142 American prisoners of war were released; they began arriving in the United States on the 14th.

--"Mrs. Meier" was actually Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel.

--On February 21, Israeli planes shot down a Libyan civilian jetliner which had strayed over Israeli-occupied Egyptian territory in the Sinai Desert on a routine flight from Benghazi, Libya to Cairo. The final death toll was 108. Israeli officials claimed that they had intercepted the plane as a last resort after the French pilot had ignored instructions to land. Libyan Foreign Minister Mansur Kikhia called the downing a "criminal act." On February 22--the day after this telephone conversation--Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan called the event a "tragedy," but blamed the pilot. The same day, the Cairo airport produced a tape that indicated that the pilot, having lost his way due to instrument failure, had believed he was over Egyptian territory pursued by Egyptian MiGs and was unaware of instructions to land until he was being shot down. On February 24, Mr. Dayan conceded that Israel had made an "error of judgement" on the nature of the intrusion, but emphasized the shared responsibility of the pilot. On February 25 Mr. Dayan announced that Israel would pay compensation to the families of the victims.

--John Stennis was a 71-year-old Democratic U.S. Senator from Mississippi who was shot in front of his home in Washington on January 30 in an apparent robbery attempt. The Senator underwent more than 6 hours of intensive surgery at Walter Reed Hospital and was still resident there, although reportedly "much improved" when three men were arrested on March 12 in connection with the shooting. Harold Hughes was a Democratic U.S. Senator from Iowa.

--the names of Doug Coe and Mark Hatfield will be familiar to anyone who’s read Jeff Sharlet’s book The Family (2008), about which I have already posted.

--Marc Tanenbaum (correct spelling) was director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee and was known for building bridges of understanding and co-operation between Judaism and other religious bodies, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. For Billy Graham’s attitude toward evangelizing Jews with the gospel of Jesus Christ, see the article about him in the January 1978 issue of McCall’s magazine, which you may be able to find in a public library (the downtown branch of the Edmonton Public Library has a copy in the stacks). Mr. Graham seems to enjoy better relations with Jewish leaders than Jesus did, which I find very suspicious.

--the man with whom Mr. Graham was talking who was vacationing in the same place as he was, referred to in the transcript as "[?]", was Bunny Lasker, who was chairman of the New York Stock Exchange from 1969-1971. I’ll let the reader draw his own conclusions about the people in Billy Graham’s social circle.

--the man referred to as "Carson Beck" in the transcript was actually Eugene Carson Blake, an American Presbyterian minister who was president of the National Council of Churches in the 1950s and later the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. He was a world leader in the ecumenical movement, and was known for making public appearances with Soviet agents who posed as Christian clergymen.

--the man referred to as "Crowe [Kroll]" was John Krol, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia; Terence Cooke was Archbishop of New York. Both were members of the College of Cardinals.

-- "McCloughlin" was John McLaughlin, then a Jesuit priest and supporter of President Nixon. This is the same John McLaughlin who became the host and moderator of the long-running (and still-running) PBS talk show The McLaughlin Group.

--"Rosy" was, I assume, President Nixon’s secretary Rose Mary Woods, who soon gained notoriety for accidentally erasing 18½ minutes from one of the Watergate tapes.

125 years ago: Completion of the Washington Monument--a Masonic structure

On December 6, 1884, workers placed the 3,300 pound marble capstone on the Washington Monument, and topped it with a nine-inch pyramid of cast aluminum, completing construction of the 555-foot Egyptian obelisk. An obelisk is a structure built in honour of Re, or Ra, the sun god of ancient Egyptian paganism. Freemasonry latched on to this when it became popular in the United States (Martin Short, Inside the Brotherhood, Dorset Press, New York, 1989, pp. 81-87). The Washington Monument was built in accordance with Pierre-Charles L’Enfant’s plan for the city. Mr. L’Enfant was hired by President George Washington to design the city of Washington; he was fired in 1792, and his plan underwent some changes, but his avenues and vistas remained, resulting in a city laid out according to Freemasonic symbolism (Nicholas Hagger, The Secret Founding of America, Watkins Publishing, London, 2007, pp. 164-166). The dedication of the monument on February 21, 1885 was a completely Masonic ceremony.

A Shriner who claims to be pure, virtuous--and Lucifer

In 2007, Crossbearer interviewed a man who was attending the Shriners convention in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

An example of "Christian" youth "engaging the culture"

Whenever I see something like this, it makes me more grateful that the Lord saved me when He did. This is more evidence that "youth culture" (especially that which claims to be Christian) is an oxymoron.



HT: Michael Martin

A young neo-Nazi on YouTube

A 23-year old neo-Nazi from Indiana named Jake makes the following comments in "About me" on his YouTube page. Note especially the last part of what he says, and draw your own conclusions.

I'm a young Nationalist, father, student and writer. I can be critical of Christianity, admire (although not yet worship) old European Pagan faiths, and am excited for the new Renaissance that I believe is in its beginning stages - not incidentally occurring simultaneously with the decline of Christian learned absolutism, and an increase of Earth (environmental and animal rights) awareness.

HT: Dracul Van Helsing

Stupid gnostic comment on YouTube

A very thin book could be published titled "Intelligent Comments on YouTube." The following was posted on November 18, 2009 by a British National Party supporter who identifies himself as KaOssis, at a video titled The Second Coming of Dan Brown's Jesus:

Yes it is funny, because you're interpretation of Jesus is of a physical male, when Revelation 22: tell's you the identity of the Lamb/Son of God is infact the Spirit of the Bride, and only the Bride is the physical matter and Jesus the Spirit, which mean's NO man has? Salvation, muhahahaha!

That looks like gnosticism to me, which denies that Jesus has a physical body (see I John). For the record, here's what the first part of Revelation 22:17 says:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.

That's "the Spirit and the bride," not "the Spirit of the Bride." The bride is the church; Christ's church and the Holy Spirit are calling for the Lord Jesus Christ to come. Before KaOssis makes any further comments, he should work on his reading comprehension skills--although if the illiteracy of the comment is any indication, that may be beyond his ability.

HT: Dracul Van Helsing

Scientology acccused of torture, embezzlement, forced abortions, and child molestation in Australia

It comes as no surprise to this blogger to hear of the latest accusations against the "Church" of Scientology. I remember about 20 years or so ago when the leader of the movement in Edmonton was charged with molesting a young girl. His superior came in from Vancouver for a visit, and the charges were suddenly dropped--which those of us who kept an eye on such things found very suspicious.

The Church of Scientology faces the prospect of a police investigation in Australia after being accused of torture and embezzlement and of forcing employees to have abortions.

Nick Xenophon, an independent senator, presented letters to the Australian Parliament from seven former Scientologists which he said showed that the secretive church was a front for physical violence, intimidation and blackmail.

HT: The Blog of Walker

"She blinded me with science:" Ida, another "missing link," is nothing special after all

I can't think of any area of so-called "science" that's more characterized by fraud, cover-up, and wild extrapolation based on insufficient evidence than that of man's alleged ancestors (e.g., Nebraska Man; Java Man; Peking Man; Piltdown Man). When the discovery of Ida was announced, I was skeptical, and wondered how long it would take before it would be exposed as yet another "missing link" that turned out to be nothing of the kind. It comes as no surprise to this blogger that we now have the answer.

It's amusing to read that the scientists are having a difficult time finding a pigeonhole for Ida to fit into, so they might just have to invent a whole new species for her instead. Remember, this is science!

Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction. In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

Speaking of missing links, I wonder when (not if) ardipithecus ramidus will be exposed as something considerably less than is claimed for it by its enthusiasts. It's only a matter of time until this one is shown to be true ape, true man--or hoax. And when that day comes, it will again come as no surprise to this blogger.

A campaign for euthanasia--from 1906

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:22,28

From the front page of The Evening Journal, Edmonton, Alberta, Saturday, January 6, 1906:

HASTEN DEATH
________________

The Startling Doctrine of a Cambridge Professor.
________________

Chloroform the Aged and Mortally Afflicted, he says.
_________________

Special to The Journal.
Philadelphia, Jan.6.--Dr. Charles Elliott Norton, of Cambridge, has joined forces with Anna E. Hall, of Cincinnati and with Mrs. Maud Bellington, in a campaign of killing off of hopelessly insane, hopelessly diseased, and victims of accidents. His views are expressed in a letter written to Miss Hall, and made public here to-day.
Setting aside all doubtful cases, he says that no right thinking man would hesitate to give a dose of laudanum, sufficient to end the suffering and life together of a victim of an accident from the torturing effects of which recovery was impossible, nor should a reasonable man hesitate to hasten death in case of mortal disease such as for example cancer when it has reached a stage of incessant pain and when the patient desires to die. Prolonging of life in such a case by whatever means is criminal cruelty. With old persons whose mind has become a chaos of wild imaginations, productive of constant distress, not only to the sufferer but all who live with and attend him, then the plain duty is not to prolong but to shorten life.

Hornerites: Charismania, 1899-style

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

Remember the "Toronto Blessing" and the "Holy Laughter" that was all the rage in Charismaniac circles in the 1990s? Ottawa had its own version at the end of the 1890s. The following item is from page 6 of The Evening Citizen for Monday, December 4, 1899. Then, as now, Canada seems to have produced more than her share of strange spiritual movements.

A WILD SCENE
______

Where Religion Mounted
Into Frenzy.
______

A HORNERITE MEETING
______

A Vivid Description of the
Sights Witnessed During
the Proceedings.
______

"Today I feel, I know I’m saved, and when I catch sight of the pearly gates, I’ll rush through and no one can stop me."
"Hurrah! Hallelujah! Bless you, sister, religion’s yours."
Above the long-drawn, loud-mouthed supplications and rejoicings of a small army of Hornerites, snatches such as the above, held the attention in the Mission hall, on Concession street, yesterday afternoon. For two hours, the hall, packed and crowded in every corner, resounded to the wild, weird, joyful acclaims of the devoted followers of the holiness movement. Seldom in Ottawa’s religious annals has such an exhibition and outflowing of religious feeling--fanatical, fiery and fervent--been witnessed. Old and young, man and maiden, vied with each other in the intensity of their acclaims, boisterous at times, and accompanied by bodily contortions that reminded the onlooker of an acrobat’s antics. Through it all, however, there ran a deep undercurrent of sincerity of purpose and belief that impressed even the careless one and his brother the scoffer. To one unacquainted with the workings of the movement, the proceedings would appear in a ridiculous, even grotesque light, but a glance at the growth and solid standing of this religious body would seem to indicate that the holiness movement is destined to still further growth.

Challenged the Scoffers.

Yesterday’s meeting was taken charge of by the founder of the movement, Rev. R.C. Horner, and his sermon was a bold challenge to the scoffers, who look on the movement he fathers as one destined to lash the sea of sentiment into foam, but not to work any lasting beneficial results. He called on his followers to manifest the possession of the spirit in no uncertain manner, even as did the component members of the early Christian church. Throughout the meeting the evangelists repeatedly encouraged their followers in their exhibitions. His hearers were neither loath nor slow to take the hint, and the proceedings went with a rush and roar like that of an avalanche.

The mission hall is but a small building, probably 60 by 40 feet in measurement, but though these dimensions sufficed to house the throng of chosen ones and curious ones, they only corralled a corner of the enthusiasm and boisterous acclaims, and the entire neighborhood resounded to the heavy cannonading on the gates of Satan’s stronghold. The body of the hall was filled with chairs, which were at a premium before the meeting opened, while standing room itself was scarcer than flies in February. Seated and standing about the platform at the one end of the hall, were Rev. R.C. Horner and the officers of his aggressive army, preachers, probationers, and evangelists. They faced the congregation, seated on the lower level of the main floor and packed in the aisles and passages. The congregation was a study in itself, but the proceedings furnished material for an extended series of studies. The meeting was divided into periods of preaching, praying and hymn-singing and "experiences," and each period evoked more enthusiasm than the former one.

They Got Religion.

As their need for religion became apparent to the individual followers, this knowledge was made apparent in divers (sic) forms, while the means taken to satisfy it were of a range and variety that included everything from quiet mediation (sic) and wrestling with the spirit, to loud-mouthed ejaculations and startling bodily contortions. All seemed artists in their lines. There was only one handicap and that was a serious one, although not worried over much by the devoted ones--space was at a premium. When a struggler with Satan leaped clear of the seats, he would find his ambitious tendencies blocked by a solid phalanx of fellow-enthusiasts, but nevertheless several successful attempts were made.

The prayer-meeting was itself a cooperative, equal rights service. Though one of the evangelists or other leaders might make a show at conducting the meeting, and be greeted with encouraging epithets from a portion of the congregation, others would strikeout for themselves, as the spirit moved them. One stalwart young fellow, who had been yelling lustily in the hymn-singing and joyful acclaims, suddenly started a vigorous jig, and though dancing, like drunkenness, is on the prohibited list, none interrupted him, all being satisfied the art acquired in sin was on the present occasion but a means of grace. His step was correct and his time true, though, with head thrown back and glassy, staring eyes, he seemed but a piece of mechanism. From the other side of the hall a young woman bounded forth on to the platform. Hands on hips and head erect, she leaped into the air, turning right and left, back and forth, never uttering a sound, and utterly oblivious of the striking figure she made. Again, to the right, a young, thick-set evangelist swayed back and forth on his knees, now rising, now settling back again, all the time beating the breast, and loudly proclaiming that glory was his.

A Miniature Scrimmage.

In another part of the room men and women clasped each other, and in their mutual joy and satisfaction, rolled about regardless of their neighbors or the furniture. Out from the group of exhorters, swaying and shouting, at one side, bobbed up a well-built youth, scrambling and pushing his way down one aisle and up the other. The whole length and round of the room he went, frenzied and wild-eyed, beseeching the onlookers to join in the general gratification of the moment. Over prostrate women and kneeling men, through interlocked throngs, he fought his way with the dash and determination of a Rugby player breaking through the line for a final touch-down. Neither seats nor spectators blocked his way and he made the circuit of the congregation, several times proclaiming the fact, "We’re not crazy; we’re simply washed clean of sin and rejoice in the fact." All were repeatedly exhorted to join in the general wash-up and it took three of his comrades to finally arrest the young man’s energetic canvass. With a shout of exultation, another sturdy seeker for salvation grasped a chair held down by a fellow seeker. There was a loud crash, the chair parted at its weakest point, while startled looks were cast ceiling-wards to see whether the roof had not been actually carried away as well as those it sheltered. At the rear end of the hall a middle aged farmer’s wife groaned and swayed like a pendent sign in a storm. P.C. Hanrahan, who was doing duty on the beat outside, wandered in to get a line on the proceedings at this stage. The female followers in a burst of frenzy let forth a series of blood-curdling shrieks, bounding into the air, and the limb of the law hustled into the street again. Although it was a chilly afternoon, the baton-bearer concluded the proceedings within were a trifle too warm to suit him.

Woman Embraces Two Men.

In different parts of the hall men clasped outstretched hands, pulling and tugging like school children, while others would link arms four deep, rejoicing and glorifying in concert. After giving her "experience" in terms of eloquent gratitude, one woman threw her arms around the two men in front of her, all three trying the strength of the seats in their endeavor to fittingly express their mutual joy. One young exhorter would at times bound onto the platform, and with hands pressed to her head, and eyes shut, dance like a rubber ball on a string. In another part of the room a young woman, a mere girl in appearance, posed as in a trance with arms extended, fists clinched (sic), and eyes closed. For fully five minutes she retained this fixed expression and pose, her face of a deathly paleness and not a single muscle showing a movement. Some of the more enthusiastic would grasp their neighbors, regardless of age or sex, none seeming in the spirit of the occasion to resent the liberty.

All was not confusion, however; here and there about the hall, men and women knelt in quiet prayer, totally oblivious of the storm that surged about them. More would sit or kneel, muttering and talking to themselves, and expressing their approval of the preacher’s remarks. Several women apparently passed after their outbursts of enthusiasm into a trance out of which they would wake with a start and shriek. The very atmosphere was electric with religious fervor and it was a study indeed, to observe how different ones were affected. Strong men and frail women laughed aloud and cheered in a crazy delirium, as though it were a farce comedy rather than a religious service. Others emitted yells and howls that would rival a dog show or a football rooter, while still more resorted to a deep, long-drawn snore, that sounded not unlike the breathing of a Mogul engine. The nervous strain on all was awful, and in many instances the whole frame shook and vibrated with the intensity of the emotion.

A Super-Heated Room.

A large box stove kept the atmosphere over-heated and to the 250 crowded into the hall, it was like a sweltering furnace, but none had time or mind to complain. Gray-haired men and little children, patient mothers, toil-worn fathers, buxom daughters and fun-loving sons all joined in the prayers and supplications, and all forgot self and sex in the general acclaims. The meeting was probably the most successful and enthusiastic yet held in Ottawa, and will be long remembered by spectators and participators alike.

The ordination services which marked the close of the annual conference were attended by scenes of wild and abandoned enthusiasm. The ritual followed is similar to that in vogue in other Protestant churches. Rev. George Comerford, of Billings bridge, and Rev. Geo. A. Moran, lately of Manitoba, were the two candidates received into the ministry. The ordination services were conducted by the Rev. R.C. Horner, and owing to the crush of followers present at the conference, they were somewhat of a private nature. The newly ordained ministers were called on to show and prove the faith that was in them, while all joined in the prayer for their success in their ministerial labors.

At the examinations held in connection with the conference, fifteen students were accepted as ministers on probation, while six others were ordered to complete a course at the college established here in connection with the movement. At present there are 30 students in attendance at this college, at which a three months’ course in theology, elocution and preliminary instruction is given. The principal is Rev. R.C. Horner, who has three assistants associated with him in the work. The reports presented at the conference show that there are in the Ottawa district 51 circuits with a membership of 1,500 followers of the Holiness Movement. For the foreign missions $1,500 was raised during the year. The home missions being self-sustaining. The conference just closed has been in point of attendance of members, enthusiasm and unity of purpose a most successful one.

20 years ago: The Death of Walter Martin

Christian apologist Walter Martin went to be with the Lord on June 26, 1989 at the age of 60. He was the founder of the Christian Research Institute and author of numerous books, most notably The Kingdom of the Cults (originally published in 1965). He died of a heart attack the day after debating apostate Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong. Dr. Martin's messages and writings can be found at Walter Martin's Religious Info Net, a site operated by his daughter, Jill Martin Rische.

25 years ago: The Death of Francis Schaeffer

May 15, 2009 marks the 25th anniversary of the death of Francis Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer was a Presbyterian pastor in the United States for many years before moving to Switzerland to found L'Abri, which was a place for young spiritual seekers to find answers to their questions about Christianity. Mr. Schaeffer wrote a number of excellent books in the areas of Christian apologetics and ethics, including The God Who is There (1968); Escape from Reason (1968); No Final Conflict (1975); How Should We Then Live? (1976); and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979--with C. Everett Koop). How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? each served as the basis for a documentary film series. Mr. Schaeffer was dying of cancer as he wrote his last book; The Great Evangelical Disaster was published a couple of months before his death. In this book, he warned that evangelicalism was in danger of abandoning belief in the infallibility and authority of the Bible, and argued that the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was in the same condition in 1984 that the mainline churches were in during the 1920s and '30s. In 1976 Mr. Schaeffer delivered an address on this theme, titled The Watershed of the Evangelical World, to the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, Francis Schaeffer's last warning has largely gone unheeded.

Social Gospel and postmodern heresy at a Christian and Missionary Alliance assembly

More Books and Things has a post about Erwin McManus being invited to address the biennial assembly of the Canadian Pacific District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Langley, British Columbia on May 19-21, 2009. My views on Mr. McManus’s book The Barbarian Way have already been posted. As a Christian and as a member of a C&MA church in the neighbouring province of Alberta, I was not only disturbed by the invitation to Mr. McManus, but also by what I saw when I clicked on links at the assembly website. Some examples are found below.

"Missional" and "transformation" are currently popular buzzwords in the emerging and dominionist camps. "Missional" is a particularly popular word with postmodernists. Like postmodernism itself, which denies that words have objective meanings, "missional" seems to mean (a la Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland) whatever its users want it to mean. As far as I can tell, "missional" is largely used as a code word for those of like mind to be able to identify one another. "Transformation" and its derivatives aren’t used in the sense of Romans 12:2 (...be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind...), but in the sense of transforming society and the world. These are 21st Century terms for the old 20th Century social gospel heresy of man bringing in the Kingdom of God on earth. For those who want to research these terms and topics further, I particularly recommend Lighthouse Trails Research Project; Herescope; and Kjos Ministries.

Sustainable… Missional…Church… Movement…
The 2009 District Conference
"Living Out - Bringing God's Kingdom into our Communities"

We believe in encouraging an environment that empowers the family of churches in the Canadian Pacific District to be a missional movement where God given dreams, visions and passions can be unleashed with life-transforming power.

About | Mission
Evangelism Life Zone

BIOMES : Environmental Transformational Plan

A 'biome' is a life zone, or a region, where special kinds of plants and animals live in a special climate. A biome is made up of unique environmental factors that sustain a particular type of organic life. The language of ecology can be used to express spiritual realities. For our context, biomes are spiritual life zones.

Our objective was to identify strategic life zones and creatively influence the environmental factors surrounding those life zones to stimulate missional transformation.

Just imagine an evangelistic environment where . . .
1. Believers in local churches are missionary to their core, engaging with their community to discover what people need and how they can meet those needs.
2. The local church is seen by the unchurched as a vital part of the health and hope of a community.
3. Each local church identifies its parish and uncovers opportunities to minister kindness and compassion to the marginalized and least reached.

"How about that!," as Mel Allen would say--"Biomes," "spiritual life zones," and "missional transformation" all thrown together. It reads like the bafflegab that the New Age Movement has been serving up for the last 25-30 years. "Biome" is a word I haven’t heard before, but I won’t be surprised to see it catch on in evangelical circles. Note too, that the word is lifted from its proper context of the physical environment and applied to the spiritual environment.

Take the word "church" out of the three points above and substitute "community social service organization" or some such phrase, and the meaning would be the same. The presence and direction of God isn’t necessary for these things to take place; man can accomplish this just by employing the proper paradigm, strategy, and research. It might be pointed out that the church in the book of Acts didn’t bother doing this kind of research. In Acts 11:27-30 we read that a prophet named Agabus came from Jerusalem to Antioch and predicted through the Holy Spirit that a severe famine would spread throughout the entire Roman world. The disciples there provided help for their fellow Christians in Judea, sending their gift by the hands of Barnabas and Paul. There’s no evidence that they let their community know of the coming famine, or provided for their "felt needs." This was when the church was under the leadership of the Apostles, men commissioned directly by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Ministries | Global Ministries
Global Connecting for World Transformations

Our main purpose is to resource and network Churches, Missions Teams, and Missions Commitees and help in the building of a roadmap for the reinvention of church-based missions.

Ah yes, "reinvention." Why is it that in the new "paradigm shift" everything must change right now? It sounds like the old Hegelian dialectic at work: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. It helps the process along to bring in a lot of changes at once--you may be successful at neutralizing potential opposition by keeping people off balance in this way.

Ministries | Church Effectiveness | Church Conflict Assessment & Resolution

It is not enough to just work through a present conflict but we must help our churches develop a clear pathway to exercise biblical peace-making as part of their spiritual DNA.

An interesting and informative article on the term "spiritual DNA" and its connection with the New Apostolic Reformation has recently been posted at Deception Bytes.

40 years ago: The revised Roman Catholic calendar

On May 9, 1969 a revised Roman Catholic calendar of church feasts, dropping more than 200 saints and adding saints from outside Europe, was published in Rome. Among those dropped because of doubt that they ever existed was St. Christopher. I can't help but wonder how many people wasted their time and effort trusting in and praying to saints who may not have existed instead of trusting in and praying to the God who does exist.

Nowhere in the scriptures are we told to pray to saints, but we're continually exhorted to pray to God. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself told us:

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Matthew 6:6 (NIV)

Jesus also prayed to His Father. Perhaps the best example of this is found in John 17, where He prayed for Himself (verses 1-5); His disciples (6-19); and all believers in Him (20-26).

I can't improve on the Holy Spirit-inspired words of the Apostle Paul:

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:6-7 (NIV)

Libertine University

The reaction of some male students to Carrie Prejean’s recent "chapel" address at Liberty University came as no surprise to this blogger. A book by a young man who went "underground" as a student at Liberty for a semester was recently published (go here to see an excerpt), and the author was surprised to find that except for opposition to homosexual acts, the students were pretty much like everybody else. Indeed, the hooting reaction to Miss Prejean’s mention of the swimsuit part of the Miss U.S.A. pageant helps to confirm that view.

Search the archives of Liberty University founder Jerry Fatwhale's Falwell’s columns at WorldNet Daily, and you’ll find an emphasis on state-of-the-art athletic facilities; the performance of LU’s athletic teams; the contribution of Liberty U to the economy of Virginia; and how well they compare academically to secular universities. Emphasis on molding godly character in LU’s students is much harder to find. Liberty U’s graduation speakers have included John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Ben Stein, whose political conservative credentials are more impressive than their Christian credentials.

Go back 20 years, and you’ll find that Liberty University was denying that it was a Christian university (not to potential Christian donors, but to state authorities):

During January court hearings in Lynchburg relating to Liberty University’s apparently desperate efforts to obtain a $60 million tax-free bond issue, chancellor Dr. Jerry Falwell said LU’s rules requiring short hair for men and bans on rock music and alcohol have no specific biblical basis but are "just our preference" and totally and "entirely" a matter of taste (2/16 Sword). He said the church has no control over the school. An LU dean declined to call Liberty a Christian school when he testified Jan. 11 (1/29 Christian News). LU professor Rod Littlejohn said no teachers at Liberty inject religion into coursework. FBF pres. Dr. Rod Bell says Liberty is not a religious institution, that there is no way fundamental Baptists could recommend Liberty U. to educate and train their children (11-12/89 FBF News Bulletin).

--Calvary Contender, January 3, 1990 (reprinted in Australian Beacon, April 1990, p. 8). "Sword" refers to Sword of the Lord; FBF is Fundamental Bible Fellowship.

Several years later, Liberty U was $73 million in debt, in no small part the result of Rev. Fatwhale’s Falwell’s desire to be competitive in sports. One of those who helped to bail LU out of its financial problems was antichrist Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Do a Google search on Jerry Falwell and Sun Myung Moon, and you’ll find plenty of items. A good short one (with useful links) is by Rick Ross.

The Rock Church in San Diego (Carrie Prejean's church): First Church of Christ, Druckerist

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. Matthew 6:1-4

The Rock Church in San Diego is the church home of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. A look at their website gave me the impression that like so many megachurches, The Rock is more of a social club and community service centre than a church. Other than prayer and worship, almost none of the offerings mentioned on their ministry page have anything to do with Jesus Christ or His gospel.

What statements can be found regarding doctrine are Biblical, if lacking in detail, at least concerning the Bible and the Godhead. However, the emphasis of The Rock is very much on works, especially those that transform society. From The Rock’s A.R.M.Y. page:

What's the A.R.M.Y?
Pronunciation: \'är-me\ | Function: noun | Definition: a body of persons organized to advance a cause

We're an A.R.M.Y. of doers... The Rock Church wants to make a difference in people's lives. You can help change the world!

Jesus wants you to listen to His call. He's calling you to DO Something. He wants to transform people's lives -- but He needs an A.R.M.Y. of believers united and trained and committed to do it. Signing up for the Rock A.R.M.Y. is simple, but it means signing up for a way of life. Why? Because it involves Accountability, Reaching the Lost, doing Ministry, and being wise with Yo' Money.

Here’s some of what The Rock Church has to say about accountability:

It's all about ACCOUNTABILITY

An Accountability Relationship is engaging in a one-on-one relationship that allows you to grow through the challenges of life with someone, while holding each other accountable to serve the Lord and others.

No more slipping in and out of the crowd on Sunday mornings! Being accountable to at least one other fellow Christian is crucial to growing in the Lord. That means you need a Partner to hold you accountable to pray, study the Word of God, worship every week, participate in service, and be a good steward of your resources.

If there’s anything in the New Testament that says "Be ye accountable to at least one other person," I’ve missed it.

Evidence of The Rock’s works-based view of righteousness can be found in its emphasis on numbers:

In 2009, The Rock Church is committed to providing 600,000 DO Something hours of city-transforming ministry service hours to the county of San Diego and the world.
Visit IdoSomething.org

Here’s what you find when you do visit IdoSomething.org:

161,882 service hours completed in 2009
27% towards goal of 600,000

In 2009 the Rock Church is committed to providing 600,000 DO Something hours of city-transforming ministry service to the county of San Diego and the world.

Log Your Hours! After volunteering in your community, record the # of hours you did here or by text message.
Tell us what you did and what God did through you. (Also, upload your photos and videos!)

If this isn’t doing one’s alms to be seen of men, I don’t know what is. Why the emphasis on numbers? I suspect that this church has been influenced by Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven paradigm, which in turn reflects the influence of management guru Peter Drucker, who was very much of a mentor to Rick Warren. Berit Kjos comes to mind as someone who has provided much useful information on the influence that Peter Drucker’s management philosophy has had on churches (go here and the links contained therein for information). Using Peter Drucker’s methods, growth and productivity must be measured quantitatively. How do you measure growth in faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ? It’s pretty hard if your idea of righteousness is rooted in correct doctrine. However, in order to fit into Mr. Drucker’s paradigm, you must have an observable quantity of something that you can measure, hence the emphasis on works. You can keep a record of number of hours spent in community service; an increase in this quantity is then taken to be a measure of one’s "spiritual growth." The church’s view of righteousness has now become works-based, and if it continues in this direction, it will result in a "church" composed of Pharisees. As for the emphasis on community service, if you read the Gospels you'll see that the multitudes loved Jesus when He performed miracles for them--but they hated Him when He started proclaiming doctrine.

Focus on the Family is beyond satire

If an anti-Christian activist were to write a novel or fictitious screenplay mocking early 21st Century North American evangelicalism, he'd have a tough time topping the Carrie Prejean saga. Details (and excellent Biblical commentary from a female perspective) can be found at Slice of Laodicea and Surph's Side.

Focus on the Family is among Miss Prejean's most vociferous defenders, rushing to get an interview with her. The interview is scheduled to run on American stations on May 11 and 12, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were pulled after the latest revelations about Miss Prejean's conduct (May 12 update: the programs were broadcast in the United States and Canada). The Focus programs for May 6 and 7 concerned the National Day of Prayer, and weren't broadcast to Canadian listeners. What Canadian listeners were provided with, however, was a rerun of the programs titled Teaching Sexual Purity to Your Kids I and II. One wonders what lesson kids will learn when Carrie Prejean, whose behaviour can hardly be equated with purity, is the honoured guest of Focus on the Family just a few days later. For a show dedicated to the family, Focus seems to have an increasing number of programs that require younger members of the family to be moved to another room while the broadcast is on.

May 10, 2010 update: The broadcasts no longer seem to be available online, but if you contact Focus on the Family and mention the dates and title or subject matter, you should be able to purchase the recordings.

The Outhouse (aka The Shack) in God's house

Paul Young, author of The Shack (or, as I call it, The Outhouse), made another return visit to his native province of Alberta in March 2009. As a member of Beulah Alliance Church in Edmonton, I was not thrilled that Mr. Young was invited to speak there, nor was I the least bit interested in paying $10 to hear him (other public appearances by Mr. Young that week charged higher prices).

On September 15, 2008, Mr. Young was in Calgary to address an audience at his alma mater, Ambrose University College (it was known as Canadian Bible College when he was a student there). The fact that this heretic was invited to speak there is evidence of Ambrose’s continuing downward slide (see my previous posts). The podcast of Mr. Young’s address at Ambrose comprises too large and time-consuming a download for my computer, but those who are interested can find it here and here. Mr. Young also did an interview with CJCA radio during his recent visit to Edmonton, which can be found here.

Dominionist church in Hamilton loses its charitable status

And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. Luke 12:15

As reported by Kevin Donovan in The Toronto Star on February 18, 2009:

An evangelical church that used donor money to pay for gym memberships, Gucci fashion accessories and trips to Hawaii and elsewhere for its directors has been stripped of its charitable licence by the federal government. The Dominion Christian Centre of Canada was set up in Hamilton by charismatic leader Peter Rigo, a former decorator who says a divine power summoned him in the year 2000 to "encourage believers to live effectively as Christians."...The audit, obtained by the Star, says the transgressions of Rigo, his wife, Peggy (also a pastor), and assistant pastor Dave Barhouma were many.

I don't know if these people will be making these types of purchases now that the economy has gone downhill, but times like these are the perfect opportunity to put the prosperity gospel to the test; after all, it's easy to proclaim such a "gospel" when times are good. And beware of any church where a husband and wife are "co-pastors."

Finding God in The Shack?

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8

Finding God in The Shack is the title of a recent book by Roger E. Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. My immediate reaction to the title is that if God really were in The Shack (go here for my post on that book), a book such as Dr. Olson's would be unnecessary.

When I read the transcript of an interview with Dr. Olson, the words of the apostle James, cited above, came to mind. Here are a few quotes:

But, in brief, a postconservative evangelical affirms the absolute authority of the Bible without privileging the literal interpretation in every portion of it.

Neither do I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I'm working on two books. First, for InterVarsity Press, a book about universalism. My own position is what I call (borrowing from von Balthasar) a "conditional universalism of hope."

Dr. Olson claims to be "postconservative," but not liberal. He claims to believe in the absolute authority of the Bible, but not in its inerrancy. How you can trust in the absolute authority of something that contains errors is beyond me--I guess you have to be a professional theologian to be able to perform such a balancing act.

According to this review of Finding God in The Shack, Dr. Olson affirms the authenticity of The Shack because it conforms to his experience. It's apparent, therefore, that Dr. Olson uses his experience, and not the Bible, as his authority in evaluating the spiritual authenticity of The Shack.