The Radical Watchman

DID JESUS ADVOCATE HOMOSEXUALITY?

2011-07-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

This-morning as I was cruising through the headlines, I immediately came across a story detailing California’s new inclusion of “gay” history in the state’s public school curriculum. After reading the article, I scrolled down through the comment thread, which was rapidly expanding, and found the taunt of a pro-gay promoter who was challenging Christians with the fact that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The responses to the challenge were anemic at best, and prove the difficulty most Christians have responding biblically to this question. To this end, the following is a brief summary that sets the record straight by answering the common misconceptions about Jesus and homosexuality:

Did Jesus advocate homosexuality?

The prevailing pro-gay opinion is that silence, on the part of Jesus concerning homosexuality, is golden. Pro-gay interpreters argue that since Jesus did not explicitly single out homosexuality with some defining statement, then homosexuality is no longer taboo. Erroneously, pro-gay advocates interpret silence on the part of Jesus as approval and a ringing endorsement for everything gay. On the contrary, the silence of Jesus on this matter needs to be considered in light of what we do know. Here are a few defining considerations about Jesus based on what is known. These shed an incriminating light on the stock pro-gay argument from silence:

Jesus was an active agent involved in the act of creation itself (Colossians 1:15-17). As creator, Jesus came to fulfill the creation order, which the first Adam squandered. He did not come to violate creation order (Romans 1:18-32), which would be the case had He endorsed homosexuality or any other sexual sin. Jesus came in keeping with the order (Genesis 1 and 2) He helped establish in the beginning.

Rather than abolishing the Law—to include Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17-19). The whole of the Law is now reinterpreted and filtered through the divine person and finished work of Christ upon the cross. That Christ fulfilled the dictates and demands of the Law does not nullify the moral principles derived from the law. On judgment day unbelievers will be judged in accordance with the Law’s just demands (Revelation 21:8).

There are many sins that Christ never mentioned or focused on. Rather than concentrating on specific acts of sin, Jesus focused on the nature and origin of sin in the heart of man. Jesus taught that because man is constitutionally a sinner by nature, individual acts of sin are the external result—whatever those individual acts of sin might be. Note the emphasis Jesus placed on the internal condition of man:

“there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” (Mark 7:15)

"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. ¹⁹For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. ²⁰ These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20)

In other words, homosexuality is one of a multitude of expressions of the sin nature. So rather than listing thousands of sins by name and filling up volumes of books doing so, Jesus dealt with the root of these external acts of sin. That Jesus mentioned “adulteries” and “fornications” covers the wide array of sexual sins that violate the seventh commandment. Just because Jesus did not mention a specific sin by name does not mean that it is acceptable in God’s eyes. Clearly, Jesus placed a significant emphasis on the internal matters of the heart.

As a result of Christ’s first advent, the OT Law took on universal dimensions as it was applied to the gentile nations through the New Covenant provisions of redemption found in Christ. This means the Christian is to love God and then to love his neighbor as himself, which, given the extreme demands of this, is ultimately an impossibility apart from both saving grace and then enabling grace.

The whole purpose of Christ’s coming was to do what the Law could not do—to save (Mark 10:45 and Luke 19:10). The Law of God is schoolmaster that shows the sinner his need for Christ. The Law only makes the diagnosis of sin. Christ is the only prescription for that sin!

Finally, Jesus upheld and reaffirmed the creation mandate of gender distinction and monogamous marriage when He was queried about divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:2-11). Jesus strongly regarded the priority and prerequisite of male-female requirement for marriage as an absolute necessity. He did not alter nor amend the Genesis 1 and 2 ideal one bit. He underscored it along with the necessity of the two cardinal principles of monogamy and a lifelong commitment.

When Jesus made this marriage/divorce pronouncement He said all that ever needed to be said. As earlier noted, Jesus did not speak out on other sexual sins like incest, bestiality, or polygamy, but He did not need to when He reasserted the creation mandate. Jesus’ statement on marriage is one-size-fits-all ruling on all sexual deviations that depart from the marriage ideal.

So in answer to the question, "Did Jesus advocate homosexuality?" the pro-gay advocate is very hard pressed to substantiate that Jesus condoned homosexuality. If He condoned homosexuality, then we might conclude He condoned bestiality, necrophilia, and incest as well. After all, Jesus never uttered a word about these things either.

NOTE: The preceding is an excerpt from my book Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Really The Same?

The Ecclesiastical Promotion of Homosexuality and the Demise of Biblical Authority

2011-02-02T10:58:00.000-08:00

By Mark Christopher

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

One would be very hard pressed to find a more contentious issue confronting the church and secular culture than that of homosexuality and its correlate same-sex marriage. To prove the point, the next time you read some internet headline related to a gay issue scroll through the comments section! Recently, when the controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the US military was repealed by the US Congress, I archived a related article only to find the comment thread had over 2500 comments and that number was rapidly rising. Most of the comments were emotionally charged and resembled a slander-fest as each side took aim at the other.

Many mainline denominations are splitting down the middle as this one issue reveals the polar opposite views on homosexuality and its promotion through the institution of marriage. The Anglican community has been hobbled by the gay debate, which has led some congregations and dioceses to withdraw from Canterbury. The Anglicans are certainly not alone in this. Some churches have become strident promoters of homosexuality as long as it is qualified by the relativistic parameters of a “loving and consensual” relationship. Other churches have sought a more centrist position by not speaking out against homosexuality as a sin while simultaneously withholding any direct approval of the same. Yet, this vow of silence on the matter usually gravitates to carte blanche approval later on. Then, of course, there are those who have held the line of biblical authority on the issue refusing to concede to popular sentiment and transvalued culture.

What led to this? How did we get to the place where homosexuality has become one of the defining issues of the church of Jesus Christ? We didn’t arrive at this juncture in church history overnight. Incrementally, over time, certain critical assumptions, primarily philosophical in nature, were adopted and given credence under the guise of biblical scholarship. The advances of pro-gay biblical interpreters were relentless and many in the evangelical world were caught off guard and simply didn’t know how to respond to the onslaught of sophistries proffered by the pro-gay interpreters.

Of all the “progressive” assumptions that comprise the pro-gay methodology, the most notable is the pro-gay slant on biblical authority. The pro-gay variant on biblical authority forms the basis from which the pro-gay hermeneutic is derived. To understand the pro-gay method of biblical interpretation demands an understanding of how the pro-gay lobby within the professing church approaches the authority of God’s word. For this crucial presupposition of bibliology is both formative and determinative in the debate. Elizabeth Moreau, in the book Staying The Course, underscores the crucial link between biblical authority and pro-gay interpretations, “…the disagreement over homosexuality is fundamentally a disagreement about what or how much authority the Scripture is to have in the contemporary church … How do we understand and interpret the Bible depends upon how we understand the authority of Scripture.”[1]

It is true that all of us entertain certain presuppositions related to biblical authority and the subsequent interpretation of Scripture. But not all assumptions are equally valid. This is well illustrated by Millard Erickson[2] who underscores the vital interplay between the “nature of presuppositions” in relationship to the “nature” of the hermeneutical enterprise in an essay he wrote for the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy Summit 2: Imagine an airline pilot wrongly assuming the weight of his plane, the fuel load, wind speed, altitude, and air speed while relying on a very unreliable compass. Such a pilot would terminate his flight in a rather unexpected way in an unknown destination! Hence, the importance of beginning the hermeneutical process with valid assumptions, like a commitment to biblical authority, is critical to arriving at the right interpretational destination.

To highlight the importance of a high view of biblical authority in the homosexual debate, we want to briefly examine five considerations related to the demise of biblical authority and the corresponding acceptance of homosexuality in certain quarters of the church:

First, we need to consider the jaundiced view of biblical authority by pro-gay interpreters. The assumption of differing authorities is common to pro-gay scholars. Among pro-gay interpreters there is a good deal of suspicion about the issue of biblical authority. If the Bible is not the ultimate source of authority, than where is the authority located? William Countryman maintains that “Immediate practical authority is located in the ongoing Christian community”.[3] Feminist theologian, Phyllis Bird echoes the same sentiment when she concedes that the Bible is a “product of tradition and a part of the church’s ongoing tradition”.[4] Bird’s “ongoing tradition” necessitates a continual communal interpretational dialogue. In this scenario the weight of authority is shifted away from the past author (authorial intention) to the present community, as the community “continues redefining boundaries”.[5] In two different treatise, Bird further declares that “The word of God cannot be contained in any document”[6] and in keeping with communal authority, the Bible is “a conversation partner not an oracle”.[7] In other words, authority shifts away from the Bible to the interpreter(s) and is predicated on present day realities as the group democratically decides what the Bible means in the present day context. In this, interpretation is substituted for application.

Pro-gay interpreters Daniel Helminiak and Jack Rogers find agreement with the above assertions. Helminiak ad homenizes those who hold to a literal hermeneutic saying, “it is outrageous for any educated person to quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality”.[8] Helminiak casts further aspersion on biblical authority claiming it “does not provide the last word on sexual ethics”.[9] In Helminiak’s estimation, the authority of science has trumped the Bible on this issue.[10] Never mind that this so-called science is inconclusive.

For his part, Rogers rejects an inerrancy of the Bible which extends beyond religious matters and “addresses … science and history”.[11] Why? Because “It encourages a literal reading of Scripture”[12], which is unthinkable to the pro-gay theologians. To this chorus-line of pro-gay voices, George Edwards adds, “Biblical interpretation can never be divorced from other domains of human reflection and discovery”.[13] Edward’s claim equates the revealed truth of the Bible with the incomplete discoveries of humanity. The implication here is that the discovered knowledge of humanity trumps the revealed knowledge of God though His word. Clearly, pro-gay interpreters have an anemic view of biblical authority which has a pronounced influence on the trajectory of their subsequent hermeneutic.

Given this impoverished view of biblical authority, it is fair to ask what has contributed to the pro-gay denouncements of a high view of Scripture? This leads us to our second consideration, which is to summarize the bromides (corrosive agents) of biblical authority. Much could be said here, but for the sake of space only four primary streams of thought will be succinctly entertained:

1. Undoubtedly the Historical Critical method (JEPD) has eroded the confidence of many in any notion of biblical authority, as the Historical Critical approach has sought to emancipate reason from divine revelation. The biblical fallout from this conveniently eliminates any thought of the miraculous and supernatural. The by-product of the Historical Critical methodology so complicated Scripture with the scholarly accretions of man, that any thought of the average Christian being a good Berean has been banished as the primary authority has become the Historical-Critical scholars.

2. Another briefly mentioned bromide to biblical authority is Naturalistic-uniformitarian science which is wed to the concept of Darwinian evolution. By deferring solely to the scientific method, propositional truth could now be abandoned because truth is not revealed but discovered through the process of scientific method. This means that what is axiomatic today can be amended or overturned by tomorrow’s discovery, like the “gay gene”. So when “science” proves one is born gay, then the Bible must give way to such pronouncements of excathedra. But what if science could prove that no one is born gay? I don’t hear of many entertaining that notion.

3. A third bromide that permeates western culture today is pluralism, which claims that all truth claims are of equal value. Therefore, value is found in a divergence of voices. We just all need to sit down, dialogue, and learn from each other. Dialogue can be beneficial, but when it is approached with the notion that there are no absolutes it can only lead to nonsense. From a theological perspective it tends toward a buffet approach to truth which, in effect, nullifies any claim to biblical authority.

4. This fourth bromide is the most germane to the thesis of this article, existentialism and the corresponding rise of moral relativism. William Larkin Jr. defines relativism as the “view that beliefs and principles, particularly evaluative ones, have no universal or timeless validity but are only for the age in which, or the social group or individual person which, they are held.”[14] Thus, there are no binding absolutes. The moral and ethical goal post is fluid and always on the move. One might say that morally and spiritually, the relativist has his or her feet firmly planted in mid-air!

There are two pertinent components to relativism that are helpful in understanding the erosion of biblical authority in the last generation: The first component is historical relativism. In historical relativism the value of the text is limited to the time and culture in which it was originally written. A good example of this is seen in the current debate over the US Constitution. There are those who claim the constitution is a living document to be reinterpreted by each successive generation. While originalists maintain one must study the founding fathers and framers (authorial intention) of the constitution in order to uncover the original meaning and then apply it to present day realities. Those who see the constitution as a living document will always seek to interpret it through the lens of current context. By clipping the constitution free from the anchor of the past, they can then let present culture decide the meaning. In this, primary authority is in the here and now. One can easily see how this is applied to the Bible and homosexuality today.

The second component of relativism is cultural relativism. In this, to paraphrase Larkin, values and morals are relative to their socio-cultural context and are never thought superior to other value systems. This dictates that values and morals are culturally conditioned.[15] Here democracy reigns supreme as the majority arbitrarily determine what is right and wrong. Yet, this is an ever changing value.

Putting it all together, when historical and cultural relativism are embraced Larkin warns that “…the interpreter’s context is determinative … Scripture can never be viewed as absolute, universal, or binding.”[16] In short, everything is arbitrary and ambiguous as this relativistic atmosphere gives way to situational ethics and its dubious consequences. This is the essence of postmodernism and the cherished value of tolerance. So if two people of the same sex want marry, what is to stop them? Relativism dictates that as long as they “love” each other and their relationship is “consensual”, then it is nobody else’s business. Such is unavoidable when absolutes become obsolete. In this relativistic scheme of things where does one draw a distinct line? Are there any relationship combinations that are out of bounds? If so, how do you know? Who are you to judge?: Such questions represent but a few of the conundrums of moral relativism.

All four of these corrosive agents have simultaneously converged on the Bible in an unrelenting manner. It has produced a changing of the guard where authority is concerned as biblical authority has given way to cultural authority and the emotional whims and subjective fancies of the majority. Human reason has become the ultimate authority so the concept of truth can only be understood in a relativistic way. This is the recipe that results in the irrational fury that is now so prevalent.

The outcome of the four mentioned bromides to biblical authority is fleshed out in our third consideration of this topic — the creed of diminished biblical authority. How do those who subscribe to a watered down variant of biblical authority phrase their skepticism? Well, Francis Schaffer in his classic on this topic, The Great Evangelical Disaster, gave some good examples of the weasel words that are employed by skeptics. Here is but one example from the 1974 Lausanne Covenant which illustrates the creed of diminished biblical authority:

“We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”[17]

The question must be asked, what exactly does the Bible affirm and what doesn’t it affirm? In the minds of biblical skeptics and pro-gay interpreters, the Bible only affirms that which is directly related to salvation while other matters related history, science, cosmology, and geography are deemed susceptible to errancy. The loophole here is found in the clause “without error in all it affirms”. This one statement gives many skeptics the latitude they need to justify the latest secular findings without having to suffer the academic embarrassment often associated with maintaining a high view of Scripture.

An example of this creed of diminished biblical authority was advanced by the Roger’s and McKim proposal. In 1981 Jack Rogers, a pro-gay interpreter, and Donald McKim published a tome entitled The Authority and Interpretation of The Bible: An Historical Approach. The thesis of the authors was to prove that the historically central tradition of the church emphasized a biblical infallibility that was limited to matters of faith and practice. Restated, biblical infallibility is confined to redemptive issues not to other areas the Bible mentions in passing like history, science, geography et. al. This means the Bible carries little to no authority in matters outside the circle of salvation.

In close connection to this new creed on biblical authority, the fourth consideration summarizes the roots of diminished biblical authority by surveying one of the key contributors to this thinking: G.C. Berkouwer, of whom Rogers, above, is a disciple. Berkouwer was bothered by the dual authorship approach (human and divine) to inspiration. He held that human involvement necessitated partial annulment of the divine aspects of inspiration. So instead of talking about a God-breathed word, he substituted the word “witness” or “testimony” for the idea of inspiration.[18] Thus, the Bible is only the word of God by virtue of its witness concerning Christ. Scripture is witness to Christ crucified and risen — one can almost hear the echoes of neo-orthodoxy here. Regarding the cosmology and history of the Bible, Berkouwer would maintain there are unintentional errors. This begs the question of how one can be certain there are no unintentional errors in the realm of salvation.

This all leads us to the final consideration which culminates in the fruit of diminished biblical authority. The applications of this skeptical creed of Scriptural authority are multitudinous. Schaeffer rightly notes that “… compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.”[19] When the standard of biblical authority is lowered it leads to the general worldview of the world infiltrating the church, to include the approval of ethical issues like homosexuality and its corollary same-sex marriage.

If anyone doubts that the abandonment of biblical authority leads to gross moral relativism just weigh the words of leading pro-gay interpreters Walter Wink and William Countryman:

“The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history … The Bible knows only the love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominate in any given country, or culture, or period.”[20] (Walter Wink)

So, according to Wink, the moral bubble in the level is always fluctuating as the ever-shifting consensus of society morally mutates.

“To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature. The Christian is free to be repelled by any of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them. What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others …Bestiality, where it is casual recourse of the young or of people isolated over long periods of time from other humans, should occasion little concern.”[21] (William Countryman)

In essence, Countryman is waving the green flag for Christians to pursue all that the sexual revolution has on offer, so long as you do not impose your dogma on others. But wait, isn’t that exactly what gay activists are doing (imposing their view) by legislating acceptance of their lifestyle and criminalizing all opposing views?

Another pro-gay advocate, Marvin Ellison, goes so far as to champion polyamory[22] (group marriage) in his “Christian” treatment on sexual ethics. In light of his callow view of biblical authority, Rogers pushes his creed to its logical terminus in his 2006 book Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality. Making use of his own Roger’s and McKim proposal, Rogers promotes the acceptance of same-sex relationships and unions inside the Presbyterian Church USA. It proves that when culture is supreme and the Bible is thought to be in error in non-redemptive texts, then any interpretation is not only possible, but is unavoidable.

The depreciation of biblical authority morphs Sola Scriptura into Sola Cultura. As Schaeffer put it, “The Bible is bent to the culture instead of the Bible judging our society and culture.”[23] Practically speaking this means that personal relationships are no longer governed by moral absolutes, so holiness is replaced with happiness as the chief goal and virtue of life. When relational happiness is the sum of life one can expect abortion on demand, easy divorce and remarriage, gender role reversal, homosexuality with its whole LGBT parade of pride, and euthanasia all marching right down the aisle of the church on the way to the altar. Those who disparage biblical authority and who then board the train of relativism, must ride that train all the way to its morally abhorrent end.

Unquestionably the deconstruction of biblical authority by professing evangelicals has swung the door wide open for the aggressive promotion of homosexuality within the church. In response to this, all confessing evangelicals need to ponder and act on Schaeffer’s poignant reminder: “We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take the full view of Scripture and those who do not.”[24] Schaeffer would say this is to include not only the belief, but the accompanying practice (obedience) as well.

In order for concerned evangelicals to begin reclaiming some of the valuable territory lost in the same-sex debate, it is first necessary to unapologetically reassert a high view of Scripture while striving to consistently model the holy demands of Sola Scripture!

[1] MOREAU, E. 2003. The real disagreement. (In Dunnam, M. D. & Malony, H. N., eds. Staying the course: supporting the church’s position on homosexuality. Nashville, TN : Abingdon Press. p. 97-98.)

[2] ERICKSON, M. J. 1984. Presuppositions of non-evangelical hermeneutics. (In Radmacher, E. D. & Preus, R. D., eds. Hermeneutics, inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan Publishing. p. 593-612.)

[3] COUNTRYMAN, W. L. 1990. Dirt, Greed, & Sex. Philadelphia, PA : Fortress Press. p. 3.

[4] BIRD, P. A. 1994. The authority of the Bible. (In The new interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1. Nashville, TN : Abingdon Press. p. 63.)

[5] BIRD, P. A. 2000. The Bible in Christian ethical deliberation concerning homosexuality: Old Testament contributions. (In Balch, D. L., ed. Homosexuality, science, and the plain sense of Scripture. ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans. p. 146.)

[6] BIRD, 1994: p. 63.

[7] BIRD, 2001: p. 144.

[8] HELMINIAK, D. A. 2000. What the Bible really says about homosexuality. New Mexico : Alamo Square Press. p. 13.

[9] Ibid. p. 19.

[10] Ibid. p. 26.

[11] ROGERS, J. 2006. Jesus, the Bible, and homosexuality. Louisville, KY : Westminster John Knox Press. p. 7.

[12] Ibid. p. 7.

[13] EDWARDS, G. R. 1984. Gay/lesbian liberation: a biblical perspective. New York : The Pilgrim Press. p. 13.

[14] LARKIN, W. J.,JR. 1988. Culture and biblical hermeneutics. Eugene, OR : Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 18-19.

[15] Ibid. p.21.

[16] Ibid. p. 23

[17] SCHAEFFER, F. A. 1984. The great evangelical disaster. Westchester, IL : Crossway Books. p. 56.

[18] KRABBENDAM, H. 1980. B. B. Warfield vs. G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture. (In Geisler, N. L., ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan. p. 413-446.)

[19] SCHAEFFER, 1984 : p. 44-45.

[20] WINK, W. 1999. Homosexuality and the Bible. (In Wink, W. ed. Homosexuality and Christian faith : questions of conscience for the churches. Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press. p. 44.)

[21] COUNTRYMAN, 1990 : p. 243-244.

[22] ELLISON, M. M. 2004. Same Sex Marriage? : a Christian ethical analysis. Cleveland, OH : The Pilgrim Press. p. 155.

[23] SCHAEFFER, 1984 : p. 60.

[24] Ibid. p. 64.

The Anatomy of a Nazi

2011-01-20T01:58:00.000-08:00

I am intrigued with those pundits who are quick to reach into their ammo pouch and pull out the “Nazi” label and apply it to those with whom they vigorously disagree. In recent days it has become all too fashionable to tar-and-feather one’s ideological opponents with the “Nazi” brand. If one doesn’t buy the popular promotions of climate change then one is branded a “climate Nazi”. If one disagrees with Obamacare and nationalized health care, then according to one US congressman you are a “Nazi” propagating Hitler’s Big Lie. If you oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality then not only are you a homophobe, but a “Nazi” to boot. But all of this labeling begs that all essential question: What is a Nazi and what did they really believe?

Here is a short summary and assessment of who the Nazis really were and what they believed:

1. Nazis believed in socialism--hence The National Socialist Party of Hitler. Do conservatives believe in socialism? Hardly.

2. The Nazis were committed to existential philosophy and its correlate nihilism i.e. “God is dead” (Nietzsche). Does this sound like a mainstream conservative belief? Hardly. Rather, postmodernism is closely wed to this thinking. Postmodern thought can be directly traced back to the very philosophers who had a very pronounced influence on Hitler. Who is it that subscribes to postmodern deconstructive thought today? Certainly not those who believe in absolutes and the authority of God’s word.

3. The Nazis were obsessed with Darwinian evolution and especially the tenant of the survival of the fittest. This belief led Hitler on the eugenics crusade along with "progressives" around the world. While some conservatives might hold to a belief in evolution, many deny it. But who are the main cheerleaders for this ideology?

4. The Nazis and Hitler were morbidly infatuated with the occult. In fact the swastika, along with many other Nazi symbols, was an ancient occult symbol from Hinduism and Buddhism. The whole notion of the Aryan race stems from this and was then coupled to the dogma of survival of the fittest. Hitler was a disciple of occult practitioner Guido Von List, an Austrian German. So when you hear someone say Hitler was a Christian, they are ignorant of the facts. Again, does this sound like the belief of someone who would classify themselves as a conservative? Hardly.

5. When you add up all of the above, what does the sum of this equation equal? A transvaluationist: a transvaluationsit is someone who calls good evil and evil good ... black is white and white is black. Though the Bible does not use the term, it does perfectly describe what a transvaluationist believes and does: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Interestingly, Isaiah’s depiction of a transvaluationist is clearly set in the context of spiritual and moral apostasy. As absolutes are abandoned and replaced with the sweet-nothings of relativism, transvaluations become the norm. Those who really stand for truth and righteousness will be recast as unrighteous obstacles to the truth and to progress itself. One need only to look at the issue of homosexuality and how the transvaluations have been applied to legitimize what God clearly calls sin. Those who disagree with the PC screed on this issue are readily demonized and vilified as hate-filled rubes.

Hitler was a master transvaluationist often guilty of the very things he accused others of. This is what enabled him to deceive millions with the Big Lie. Even a majority of the churches in Germany bought into the transvalutionist creed, as 100 years of higher critical thinking foisted on the Bible prepared the way. As the German church kicked God’s word to the curb with Redaction Criticism, they replaced the vacuum it left with Hitler’s lies and transvalued assessments. It is no wonder that many German churches replaced their crosses with swastikas. The transvaulation was complete.

Does any of this sound familiar? A liberal media can scream about "civility" while calling others names and using incendiary rhetoric. Under the guise of “free speech”, they try to censor the speech of those with whom they disagree. They have even gone to the extreme of criminalizing metaphors, as if they have never made use of the same! They liberally accuse others of crimes which they didn’t commit. This is the hallmark of a transvalutionist.

How many churches have replaced God’s word with so-called “science” to justify homosexuality, abortion, and left-wing politics to include socialism? How many pulpits have jettisoned the cross of Christ in favor of mainstream culture? How many churches and denominations have marginalized the gospel with recycling, curbing carbon emissions, and pursuing everything “green”? It is all a direct result of substituting God’s word for the lie and succumbing to the transvalued version of the gospel, devoid of sin and repentance. No doubt they have worshiped the creature rather than Creator (Romans 1:18-32).

Based on the above summary, whom does this really describe? Not conservatives that is for sure! Not those who classify themselves as Bible-believing Christians. Maybe those invoking the “Nazi” label need to go take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and ask "Is it I?"

The Koran: To Burn, Or Not To Burn?

2010-09-10T00:12:00.000-07:00

In light of the present flap over a small church’s burning of some 200 copies of the Koran, those who know Christ would do well to reflect on the following words of Paul to the Corinthians:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)!

Just because we live in the flesh does not mean we battle in accordance with it. We must correctly identify the real enemy here, which in this case is spiritual, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but ... against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12). Rightly identifying the enemy is critical to mounting an effective assault. When engaged in a spiritual battle, Chuck-Norris-type tactics are inconsequential on the battlefield and will make about as much of an impression as a water pistol on a forest fire, or a meat tenderizer on an aircraft carrier!

By burning the Koran--or wanting to burn the Koran--this pastor evidences that he is fighting on the wrong battlefield using an outdated, antiquated arsenal. The Believer's weaponry is divinely provided and energized by the God of all grace. The best way to engage the enemy here is not through arson-rage, but through the collective of prayer and proclaiming the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and then to the Greek--not to mention the Muslim!

In quoting Acts 19:19, Pastor Terry misquotes. As pagans came to Christ they in turn burned their own books and relics. It was not the Apostle Paul who started the conflagration of consecration here. It would be a bit different if Muslims who came to Christ were instigating such--though given the modern-day media it might not be wise to publicize such an event because of how it might affect others.

In the end, Pastor Terry, and all who agree with him, would do well to ponder the words of our Lord Himself who said just prior to His crucifixion, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered
up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36). Neither is ours!

Hermeneutical Devolution: A Mutated Approach To Genesis

2009-10-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

The following is a response to an article in Joy Magazine here in South Africa. The pastor I am responding to was trying to make a case for a figurative interpretation of the Genesis creation account. His point was that it is theological and poetic in nature, therefore one does not need to interpret it literally. This was in the context of whether or nor children should be taught evolution in school. Here is my response:

After reading Pastor Howard Wylie’s letter in favor of evolution, I would like to respond primarily to Wylie’s contention that not “…every part of the Bible should be interpreted literally.” This unsubstantiated statement is as disturbing as it is dangerous because it leads to an arbitrary hermeneutic (interpretation).

My question for Wylie is how does he know where to draw the line between a literal approach verses a figurative approach, unless the Bible itself gives us direct warrant for such an approach? If Genesis 1 is taken figuratively, then what about Genesis 2 or 3? Then, what about Genesis 1-11, is it all non-literal? How does Wylie know, especially when this whole section of Scripture is written in normal Hebrew prose, not Hebrew poetry.

If Genesis 1 is to be taken theologically, as Wylie insists, does that necessarily mitigate against any scientific implication the passage might unintentionally allude to concerning creation? In the end, isn’t the whole Bible theological in one way or another?

If the Genesis account of creation is not to be taken literally, than what about the many passages throughout the Bible that view the Genesis 1-11 account as real historical events and actual people? The following four examples illustrate the literality of the creation account:

• In Exodus 20:8-11, when dealing with the 4th commandment, Moses declares that our 7 day week is predicated upon God’s creation week. The Hebrew word used for ‘day’in both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 is yom and clearly indicates a 24 hour diurnal day is meant. Moses certainly did not see billions of years in Genesis 1, and yet, he was under the same inspiration Wylie professes to believe.

• Jesus referenced the creation account in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8 when he answered the Pharisees concerning divorce. In so doing Jesus cites both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as literal and authoritative, just as He articulated the veracity of Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-38), as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-29). If Jesus, who was a participant in creation, regards Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal account, who are we say otherwise? Who is the authority on the subject, Christ or Darwin?

• The Apostle Paul verified the reality of the first Adam in contrast to the second Adam—Jesus Christ (Romans 5:12-21), he promoted a literal approach to creation (Ephesians 5:31; 1 Timothy 2:13-14), as well as the certainty of the fall (Genesis 3 cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3). No one was ever more theological than Paul, yet his theology did not dismiss his literal belief in the Genesis 1 account.

• The writer of Hebrews believed the whole Old Testament was historically accurate, even the statements regarding creation (Hebrews 11:3-7). How can we believe the people and events of Hebrews 11:8-32 are literal, but not those of 11:3-7? To make such a distinction would evidence an arbitrary method of interpretation that lacks hermeneutical brakes.

The real question that confronts Wylie is, if the ‘days’ of Genesis are figurative, then why not God? Why not the fall of man? For, if the fall is figurative, then there is no need for redemption i.e. Christ. To dismiss the authority and literality of Genesis 1 in such a subjective fashion runs perilously close to denying the miracles and the bodily resurrection of Christ. It is but a step or two from denying the one to denying the other.

As for the H1N1 virus being an example of evolution, as Wylie maintains, it is not. Rather the H1N1 virus is a classic example of a mutation. Mutations never result in the addition of new information, which would be needed for evolution to be true. Instead, mutations always result in the loss of and rearrangement of existing information, which is often harmful, sometimes static, and at other times beneficial. But this illustrates the adaptation of kind that the Bible speaks of, not evolution.

Even though I believe evolution has more in common with a man-made religion than true science, I certainly do not mind if my children learn evolution as long as the horrific social and moral consequences of this dogma are fairly and honestly taught. Young people need to be reminded that the logical outcomes of evolution made the 20th Century the bloodiest and most immoral century in the history of civilization. Let us learn from this sad saga of history. Let us teach our children that evolutionary theory, combined with German existentialism, led to the nefarious deeds of a Hitler and World War 2. Then let us prepare them to answer the critics they will encounter in their tertiary education.

To depart from the plain sense of God’s authoritative word, as Wylie has done, will only lead to further concessions down the line. To oscillate between a figurative and the literal approach ultimately turns the plain sense of God’s word into nonsense.

Pastor Mark

Climate Craze—Making Biblical Sense of the Man-Made Global Warming Debate!

2009-08-18T07:28:00.000-07:00

The headlines in the media have been relentless and extreme in their pursuit to convince us all that a climate apocalypse is just around the next corner. We have been told that unless we “act now”, by curbing our carbon emissions, catastrophic doom awaits us all. So what are Bible-believing Christians to make of all the scaremongering rhetoric? Further, in light of the Bible, what should Christians think about the whole man-made climate change debate? Is the sky really falling this time around? If so, how should we respond?

In formulating a response to this very important issue Christians need to remember the Wisdom of Solomon who said, “He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” (Proverbs 18:13). In other words, there is usually more than one side to a story. It would be foolish only to listen to one person’s take on an issue, or circumstances related to an accident, or crime scene, and then make a final determination based on that lopsided knowledge. Yet, when it comes to the issue of man-made climate change, most people have uncritically embraced what the headlines declare without giving it another thought. I know I did until I began researching the issue for myself. What I learned was that there is a whole other side to the global warming debate that the media refuses to consider for a variety of reasons. Beyond that, I learned that there is no “consensus” amongst scientist on this issue.

In order to gain a better understanding of man-made global warming and the issues surrounding it, we first want to consider a few of the scientific assumptions taught as infallible fact. Then we will summarize the philosophical assumptions that serve as the launching pad for this contentious issue. Finally, we want to survey some of the biblical assumptions that will help you to piece together a wise and measured response to the headlines.

Here are but a few of the highly speculative scientific assumptions that have been used to convince the public that mankind is responsible for climate change:

Assumption #1: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant that drives the temperature ever upward. If this is true, then by simply reducing the amount of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere the current trend of rising temperature should be reversed. But is CO2 really the bogey man in climate change? Consider the following observations from climatologists who disagree with the popular promotions of this issue:

• Historically increases in atmospheric CO2 have always lagged behind rising temperatures. Examples of this are cited during both the Roman Warming Period (200 BC—AD 400) and the Medieval Warming Period (AD1000-1400), which was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. Ice core samples and other proxies, like tree rings, bear witness to this fact.

• CO2 is but a colorless and odorless trace element in the atmosphere. In fact, the primary Green House Gas (GHG) is water vapor which accounts for at least 94% of GHG’s. Because CO2 is a trace element it is measured in parts per million (ppm). Most of the atmospheric CO2 is a result of water evaporation and is not due to man-made causes.

• To put the above thought into perspective, only 3% of the atmosphere is made up of GHG’s. Then, less than 4% of GHG’s is comprised of CO2. Of That 4% of CO2, less than 4% of it is man-made. That means 96% of the atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring.

• CO2 concentrations are logarithmic, which means we could double the current amounts of CO2 (386 ppm to 772 ppm) without doubling the supposed negative effects of CO2, as increasing levels of CO2 would have a negligible effect. As Dr. Harold Ohlmeyer notes, “Yes, atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but most of it is due to the warming of oceans which releases some of the CO2 they contain. (Our oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.) In other words CO2 increases did not produce much global warming; warming produced most increases in CO2.”

• One fact you will never hear the media or politicians talk about is that CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, without CO2 we could not survive because plants could not photosynthesize and produce the oxygen we need to breath. For this reason, greenhouses normally operate with CO2 concentrations between 800-1200 ppm, which allows the plants to thrive.

• It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant. It can hardly be compared with other man-made emissions like sulfur dioxide, which, when it rains, returns as sulfuric acid.

• In the end, one must not confuse correlation (rising temperatures with rising levels of CO2) with causation. If CO2 is a catalyst for temperature increases, then why has the global temperature dropped in recent years while, correspondingly, atmospheric levels of CO2 have gradually increased? If correlation equals causation, then is the recent decline in atmospheric oxygen, since 2003, directly attributable to the rise in the use of biofuels, which began in earnest in 2003? In the words of one climate realist, to say that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature is a lot like saying lung cancer causes smoking.

Assumption #2: Computer Generated Climate Models are accurate in forecasting the future of climate. This crass assumption is the Holy Grail of the man-made climate change debate. Robbed of this presupposition, the whole foundation of the climate change debate falls flat. Yet, there are some climatologists who seem to have an almost infallible faith in their climate models. But is this an ill-founded faith? Are climate models really that reliable? Here are but a couple of important thoughts that must be factored into climate model equation:

•Climate is an extremely complex system and as such there are a multitude of unaccounted variables which drastically affect the outcome of the predictions. In order to accurately gauge the future of climate change, the current models would need to factor in all of the following variables into their equation: solar variation, gravity, pressure, temperature, cosmic wind, density, humidity, clouds, topography, rotation of the Earth, the sea’s changing currents, greenhouse gases, and CO2 dissolved in the oceans — to name a few of the needed variables. The current models are unable to include all of these vital factors, because they are either unknown or ever-changing.

•There are a variety of different climate models used, none of which completely agree with the others. Even in ‘hindcasting’ the past weather, which we do know, these models have proved imprecise.

•The following comments on climate models represent the assessment of many climatologists:

Dr. Patrick Michaels concludes that reliance on climate models amounts to “… scientific malpractice … If a physician prescribed medication that demonstrably did not work he would lose his license.”

A recent headline in the New Scientist warned, “Climate is too complex for accurate predictions.”

More to the point, Howard C. Hayden, in his book A Primer on CO2 and Climate (pg.33), claims “…it is impossible to perform the well established procedures for laboratory science on the climate system. Nobody has done it. Nobody can do it. Nobody will do it … All climate models are based on unperformed experiments for which the modelers presume to know the answer.”

Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many to be the godfather of modern day climatology in the USA, concludes that data fed into the climate models overemphasizes CO2 and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds — water vapor. So when asked about the long-range predictive ability of climate models, Dr. Reid answers with another question, “Do you believe the five-day forecast?”!

Such an evaluation of climate models is hardly the stuff of “irrefutable science.” Some have gone so far as to call reliance on these models “climate astrology”.

Assumption #3: Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate. How often has this been used like a hammer to convince us all of the urgency of curbing our CO2 emissions? The images of melting icecaps and the corresponding rise of the world’s oceans, while polar bears struggle to swim to land to keep from drowning are emotionally effective. But are the world’s seas really rising? If so, how much are they rising? To answer that question one would need to consult a true sea-level-rise expert like Dr. Nils-Axel Morner from Sweden. Dr. Morner makes the following observations based on nearly 40 years of actual field studies. It is important to note that the UN IPCC makes its sea level rise predictions based on the notoriously faulty computer generated climate models:

• The actual data, via tide-gauges and satellite altimetry, indicates there isn’t any significant sea level rise — a uniform 1.8 mm per annum over the last 100 years, about 7 inches in the 20th century. At this rate it will take several millennia to reach Al Gore’s fictional 23 foot rise in sea level by 2100. Recent data suggests that sea level rise has temporarily halted.

• Dr. Morner discovered that in the early 1970’s the Maldives saw the Indian Ocean recede by 30 cm, a loss that has yet to be recovered.

• In the case of the South Pacific Islands like Vanuatu and Tuvalu, which are the poster children for sea level rise, local conditions like subsidence, erosion, tectonic uplift and the like are simple explanations for the seeming rise in local relative sea level.

• In order to fulfill the doomsday forecasts of rising seas, a substantial amount of land-based ice would have to melt at a rapid rate. Even if the arctic completely melted it wouldn’t affect sea levels, except for some expansion, as the arctic ice sits over open water.

• The embellished hype surrounding glacial melt in Greenland fades into the clear light of reason when one considers that while some of Greenland’s western glaciers are receding, others — sometimes a few kilometers away — are advancing. Dr. Morner believes this is a result of oscillating ocean currents rather than temperature increase.

• Even if the Arctic is experiencing a bit of melting at present, Antarctica’s massive amounts of land-based ice seem secure as current ice mass has advanced by 33% above recent norms. For that ice to melt the temperature would have to exponentially increase above the normal mean of -37C to facilitate such a scenario.

• In studies just released, it has now been determined that the world’s seas may actually be experiencing a cooling because of unanticipated shifts in ocean currents, which will produce cooler air temperatures in the days ahead. This is something the climate models did not anticipate.

• Even the UN IPCC has drastically altered its predictions of sea level rise in its most recent 4th assessment report (2007). In 1990 the IPCC forecasted a maximum sea rise of 367 cm by 2100. In 2007 they significantly revised their maximum prediction for 2100 to 59 cm, which is much closer to reality.

Assumption #4: The Polar Bears are in danger of drowning, and becoming extinct. We are told if the ice melts, then the Polar Bears won’t be able to hunt. This piece of propaganda has been a great marketing tool for the promoters of man-made climate change. It is especially effective when used on children who do not know any better. The thought of these seemingly lovable and huggable creatures vanishing really tugs on the heart strings. But do the Hollywood-type promotions of the vanishing polar bear mesh with reality? :

• I wonder how many people know that the images of the polar bear in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth were computer generated? Indeed, such a truth is inconvenient!

• The polar bear’s name Ursus maritimus, which means ‘marine bear’, or ‘sea bear’, indicates these bears can swim vast distances in search of food. Given their God-given aquatic abilities, drowning is very rare!

• In 1969 the number of polar bears was estimated at 5,400 bears. Today, I am happy to report, the number is five times what it was just 40 years ago. Presently there are an estimated 25,000 bears in the arctic region. The greatest threat to these wonderful creatures is not climate change, but man.

• If a warming climate is so catastrophic to polar bears, then why did they survive the Medieval Warming Period a thousand years ago, when temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today? Undoubtedly the bears adapted.

Assumption #5: All true scientists agree that climate change is primarily man-made, ergo there is a scientific consensus. Based on this bold assertion, climate alarmists claim “The debate is over, so we won’t even discuss any dissenting views.” Any one who questions this democratically-determined science is classified as “a denier”, a “flat-earther”, even a “climate Nazi” who doesn’t believe in real science. But is this “consensus” contrived or real? Here are a few thoughts to consider:

• Since when is science determined by the majority-rules approach? Even if all scientists, save one, were in agreement on this, it would only take a Copernicus or a Galileo to cast a question mark over the consensus.

• Dr. Michael Crichton responds to the idea of a consensus saying, “Consensus is the business of politics … There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agree that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the Sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

• If there is such an overwhelming consensus that believes man is the culprit in climate change, than why have over 31,000 scientists — 10,000 of them PhD’s and 3800 of them in the climate sciences — signed The Petition Project (www.petitionproject.org), which is a statement that rejects man’s responsibility for the change in climate?

Why have nearly 1,000 dissenting climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and economists joined the Non-governmental International Panel for Climate Change (NIPCC) if there is such an irrefutable mountain of evidence pointing to man as the reason for rising temperatures? The NIPCC serves to critique all the climate assertions of the UN IPCC. To this end the NIPCC is the unofficial watchdog of the UN IPCC.

• The truth is that every day more and more scientists are declaring their skepticism for man-made global warming, but they are ignored by the media and politicians who are on a mission to promote their green agenda regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The above are but a few examples that illustrate how lopsided the man-made climate change debate is. Those who disagree with the headlines are not saying the earth hasn’t warmed in the past 120 years, because it has experienced modest warming as we came of out the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850). In the 20th century the earth warmed .67 a degree Celsius. What is being argued here is who or what is responsible for the warming. There is a growing and substantial body of evidence that exonerates human activity as the cause of climate change. Many scientists now contend the recent rise in temperature has more to do with natural climate variation than CO2 produced by man. This is not to say that man doesn’t pollute, because he does, but that is a separate issue from climate change.

So why has this one issue of climate change received so much attention? Why all the hysteria and emotionally charged headlines? What is driving this issue? Why the adamant insistence that man is responsible? Essentially there are three primary reasons (philosophical assumptions) why some have become so rabid on this issue. These, whether taken individually or collectively, serve as the motivating force behind the headlines on this issue:

1. The first is politics. The first clue that this is a political issue is evidenced in the United Nation’s involvement—hence the UN IPCC. Here we have a political body doing science. True, there are a number of scientists they have assembled to gather some expert advice, but few know that the UN’s policy assessments on this issue are written by bureaucrats, not the scientists themselves. Consequently, much is left out of these documents. Any observations that conflict with UN dogma on the topic are conveniently omitted. The UN is hardly a dispassionate and objective scientific body. They are a political entity with the objective of promoting globalization. I can’t think of a better issue to achieve one world governance and a one world economy than the issue of human-induced climate change. As H.L. Mencken astutely remarked, “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule.”!

2. The second contributing factor to the popularity of the global warming craze is postmodernism. Postmodernism is basically a philosophy for interpreting life from the vantage point of the interpreter. In the postmodern scheme absolutes are banished while relativism is extolled. At the heart of postmodernism is deconstructive thinking. Deconstructionists vacuum meaning from words, history, religion, and even science. There are a number of scientists today who are concerned about postmodern deconstructive influence in the realm of science. It would be naïve to think that postmodern interpretation of scientific observation does not take place, especially in a highly emotive issue like climate change. Doubtless, the relativistic influences in postmodernism can and do lead to junk science.

3. The third major premise fueling this global warming debate is pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that “God is all and all is God”. In other words, God is not transcendent, but is in all that exists. This way of thinking leads to an impersonal view of God where all distinctions are erased to achieve some mystical union between ourselves and the universe. The creed of pantheism deifies humanity while doing the same for thistles and pigs. The result is that humanity loses all God-ordained uniqueness, which leads to the denigration of man. This is why many environmentalists are willing to sacrifice humanity for the sake of nature. Ultimately saving the environment becomes a religion in which salvation is found through the sacraments of recycling, vegan diets, hybrid cars, and compact fluorescent bulbs. It should be no surprise that Al Gore has pronounced pantheistic tendencies. In his book Earth In The Balance, Gore nails his pantheistic flag to the mast.

So what is a Christian to make of all this? Though the Bible doesn’t mention global warming, it does give some timeless principles which can be used as a guide for making a determination about how to both view and respond to the issue:

1. The Glory Principle (Psalm 33:6; 19:1-6; 8:1-2, & 9; Psalm 104; Jeremiah 10:12-14; John 1:1-3). As the Psalmist looked at the splendor of creation it produced his exuberant praise of Psalm 8:1 “O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth …” Creation is primarily meant to be a testimony to man of God’s glory and wisdom. As one gazes at the awesome beauty of all God made, it should evoke praise to His name. This is a strong inducement on the part of humanity to preserve and care for that which reflects the greatness of the one who made it. So the Believer’s motivation for maintaining the environment is first theo-centric before it is ever man-centered.

2. The Stewardship Principle (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8:3-8; 115:16). While God holds the title deed to earth, man is to be the custodian and manager of all that God has made. Humanity does not own the earth, but is granted the authority by God to adequately care for creation. This God-ordained stewardship has three prongs to it:

• Stewardship requires that we protect and preserve creation within the tension of the following two stewardship considerations.

• Stewardship includes wisely using the resources of creation for the provision of humanity. Simple examples of this include replacing trees used for building, requiring permits for hunting, and restocking fish from fisheries.

• Stewardship also includes the component of counting the financial cost of the above. Luke 14:28-32 reminds us that no king goes off to war before carefully counting the cost!

In light of these three prongs of stewardship, it is clear that what is being proposed concerning man-made climate change is poor stewardship. Given that most of the recent warming is part of a natural, varying climate cycle, the astronomical price tag for cap-and-trade schemes and carbon offsets is not equal to the supposed benefits gained. One Danish economist calculated that the annual cost of a climate initiative, like the Kyoto Protocol, would cost the participating countries one trillion dollars per annum. Even then, carbon-belching countries like China, India, and Brazil are exempt from such treaties, because they are developing nations. All of the proposed climate legislation is based on the faulty assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature.

It remains to be seen how any of this will help the poor. What man-made climate promoters are loath to publicize is the stratospheric price tag of their “green” policies. This will result in much higher energy costs, which in turn will affect everyone, especially the poor. It is nothing but wishful thinking to promote wind and solar as viable alternatives. The present cost, effectiveness, reliability, and efficiency of wind and solar energy make them poor substitutes for fossil fuels. Given time and more research this may change, but we aren’t there yet — it is dishonest to imply that we are.

Our stewardship responsibilities certainly include investigating and pursuing technologies that are safer, cleaner, more efficient, and cost effective. But until those new technologies are proven, stewardship mandates we must continue to refine the current technology framework presently in use.

3. The Uniqueness Principle—humans are distinct from the rest of creation because we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:19-20; Psalm 8:5-8). The image bearing qualities refer not to the physical characteristics of man (i.e. men and women) or to our human essence, but rather to those intangible qualities that aid us in the fulfillment of the mandate to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ the creation in which God has placed us. The ‘who’ of mankind as an image bearer is directly related to the ‘what’ of man, which is to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ the rest of creation.

This derived stewardship to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ is well illustrated in Genesis 2:19-20 where Adam is commanded to name all the animals. To name something or someone was to exercise dominion and authority over the thing named. Admittedly exercising such dominion in a post-fall world is a lot like trying to push start a vehicle uphill with the handbrake on.

As an image bearing creation of God, mankind is meant to preside over creation, not the other way around. Sadly, many of the policies and legislation sought by modern day environmentalism are designed to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ humanity by allowing non-rational creation to preside over man. The sum of this equation is idolatry.

4. The Priority Principle—People are not a pathogen (Genesis 1:26; 2:15): This is alluded to in the previous point, yet it bears repeating that misanthropic (hatred for humanity) attitudes toward man are tightly wedded to the environmentalist movement. I have read outlandish and bizarre stories about young women in their prime getting sterilized so they don’t add to the world’s “carbon footprint” by bringing another human life into the world. In Australia, in a recent medical journal article, Dr. Barry Walters called for a “baby tax”, which would amount to an initial tax of 4,000 Australian dollars at birth, and then an annual tax of 800 dollars until the child is of age. Thus, it is no wonder that the vast majority of environmentalists are pro-abortion. After all, in the New Age scheme of things a rock is a tree, is a pig, is a boy. Only the credulous could deny the link between this misanthropic attitude and the solutions and policies proposed by many of the promoters of everything-green.

To illustrate the point, radical environmentalist David Forman said, “A human life has no more intrinsic value than an individual grizzly bear life. If it came down to a confrontation between a grizzly and a friend, I’m not sure whose side I would be on. But I do know humans are a disease, a cancer on nature.” With friends like that who needs enemies?

5. The Imposition Principle (Genesis 3:14&17; Romans 8:18-23). All of non-rational creation ‘groans’ and ‘suffers’ and is imposed upon as a result of the fall of man in Genesis 3. The fallout of human sin resulted in a cursed earth. This curse on the rest of creation is a lot like a world class marathoner, running a full length marathon with both legs shackled by leg irons.

As a result of the curse tsunamis arrive unannounced, volcanoes spew cinder and ash into the atmosphere, earthquakes rumble, tornadoes ravage homes, violent storms scar the landscape, heat waves blister the earth, and cold snaps silently kill man and beast alike. Where temperature is concerned, the Sun’s solar variables will change without notice. Why? Not because of man-made causes, but because of the curse.

Due to the curse, the balance of nature sought by many does not exist. There is no balance of GHG’s that is known to be optimum, so how do we know that current concentrations of GHG’s, like CO2, are not within an acceptable range? Because the earth ‘groans’ and ‘suffers’, natural disasters and altered weather patterns are the norm, not the exception. Someday the curse will be reversed when Christ returns, until then weather happens whether we like it or not!

Still, the curse does in no way abrogate our God-given mandate to act as God’s custodians for His creation. It just presents more of a challenge.

6. The Preservation Principle (Genesis 8:22-9:17; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Even given the fall of man and the resulting curse on the earth, God still preserves and sovereignly sustains His creation. Man may harm the environment, but God promises in Genesis 8:22 that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” He will uphold all things by the word of His power. This is not an excuse for inactivity on our part, but it is a promise that the earth will never be completely destroyed by man. God’s providential care for His creation ensures the earth is more resilient than is often acknowledged by man.

How many times have we heard some headline declaring “This is it … we are all doomed for sure this time.”? In 1989 the UN predicted that we must act with immediate effect on climate change initiatives or we would only have another 10 years at best. That was 20 years ago, so they keep moving the goal post to save face. Likewise, all of the eco-apocalyptic predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970 have come to naught 40 years later. God is in charge here, not the UN.

7. The Future-Promise Principle (Roman 8:18-23). God’s promise to non-rational creation is that the ‘anxious longing’ will give way to a future emancipation. The redeeming work of Christ on the cross for sinful humanity has far reaching implications for the rest of creation at the Second Coming of Christ, when the curse will be reversed. Then the wolf will lay with the lamb (Isaiah 11:1-10). Any damage done to earth by man will then be completely reversed. (Again, this is not license to do as we please with God’s real estate in the meantime. His command to act as stewards is clear and irrevocable.)

8. The Superiority Principle (Hebrews 2:5-9). The New Testament book of Hebrews portrays Jesus Christ as superior and supreme as the savior and redeemer. The superiority of Christ is amply demonstrated in a series contrasts with angels (2:5), man (2:6-8a), creation (2:8b), and even death itself (2:9). During His 3 year ministry Jesus tamed the colt, calmed the angry seas, stayed the wild winds, transformed water into wine, walked where most would swim or sail, healed the sick, and raised the dead. In His own death He demonstrated, through His bodily resurrection, superiority over the final enemy of the grave.

Because the wages of sin is death (both physical and spiritual), Christ tasted death, so that a fallen humanity might have a way of salvation. Christ, by virtue of His sinless sacrifice on the cross, provides eternal life for those will acknowledge their sin, repent of and confess their sin, while believing in Him as Lord and Savior.

Hebrews makes it patently clear that salvation is not by works of righteousness, whether they include saving the whales, cleaning up oil slicks, or curbing one’s carbon emissions. Good works, or sacraments of whatever kind, cannot undo what sin has done. Christ alone is the antidote for wages of sin. The risen Jesus is the sole agent of saving grace. Eco-philanthropy, no matter how noble and just, ultimately comes to naught in light of eternity. Saving the earth will not save the soul, but a saved soul should do all it can do to protect, provide, and care for the earth in a biblically prudent way, because God’s glory is at stake.

In the end we must “…examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). For the Christian this includes examining the issue of man-made climate change from a biblically informed mindset and then pursuing the most prudent course of action. While we pursue our God-given stewardship, we must also ensure that Christ the Savior does not become Christ the eco-activist!

Pastor Mark Christopher

Free Love or Free Fall?

2009-05-18T04:17:00.000-07:00

The following was written in response to the recent sex-carnival called Sexpo, which came to town hocking its wares and plying the mantra of “free love”. The media reports praised Sexpo, while the event’s organizers glamorized Sexpo’s licentious creed. Local letter-page pundits took aim at any Christian group that criticized the event using the standard pejoratives like “fundamentalists” and “narrow minded”.

Oddly no one took aim at Islam. The local Muslims take a vow of silence on such issues. I think primarily for two primary reasons: First, they really don’t care and speaking out would prevent them from being invited to the postmodern table of dialogue. Secondly, Islam knows that lewd and licentious behavior will be the ruin of the west to include South Africa. Thus, they are content to let this postmodern culture self-destruct, so they can then advance their agenda when the moment is ripe.

Below is the letter I fired off to the local papers in response to Sexpo:

Dear Editor;

Is God a cosmic prude who disapproves of sex? Listening to the media, the organizers of Sexpo, and letter-page pundits could easily lead one to such a conclusion. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, in Proverbs 5:17-18 husbands are admonished to “…rejoice in the wife of your youth … Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.” As the sovereign designer of sex, God reserves the right to establish the boundaries of sexuality, which is heterosexual monogamous marriage. Inside of God’s prescribed framework sex is not only encouraged it is commanded. These boundaries are for our own benefit and the good of society at large.

The organizers and promoters of Sexpo paint a facade that encourages sex without limits, sex without norms, sex without accountability, sex without goals, sex without love and commitment, harmless sex, and sex without unintended consequences. But as British sociologist, J.D. Unwin, discovered 90 years ago, free love isn’t so free.

Unwin set out to test Sigmund Freud’s theory about sexual repression harming societies and culture the world over. In response, Unwin analyzed 86 civilizations large and small over a 5000 year period to determine the effects monogamous matrimony on society. In every instance all 86 societies were at their peak morally, economically, militarily, and socially when sex was confined to marriage!

Then, Unwin observed as each society “…extended its sexual opportunity [lowered standards]; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.”

Unwin concluded that a society is free to build, innovate, and grow or to enjoy sexual emancipation, but it cannot do both for more than a generation. Restricting sex to marriage makes a nation strong, while removing sexual borders weakens a nation as it incrementally progresses to collapse. What does this say about South Africa?

Though a microcosm of Unwin’s findings, my own counseling experience underscores the pain and trauma produced by the creed of free love : illegitimate births, abortions, single parent homes that struggle in every way, fragmented families, depression, and the increased incidence of drug and alcohol abuse. These all testify that Unwin, like the Bible before him, was right.

Going to Sexpo to learn about sex and relationships is a lot like trying to find a gourmet meal in the rubbish bin. One is free to do as one wants, but today’s liberated pansexuals are not free to choose the terminus of all things sexual. As the sage of Proverbs (5:22) warns us, the price tag of free love results in each one being “held with the cords of their own sin.” Is this really a price tag South Africa can afford?

Pastor Mark Christopher

Note: It is of extreme interest that end time’s prophecy mentions that one of the defining characteristics of the Great Tribulation to come is that of sexual immorality—among a whole range of immoralities:

Revelation 14:8 “And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality.’"

The perversion of God-ordained sexuality is so entrenched within the psyche of the one world system that they even coerce compliance with those who do not follow suit. While the term “immorality” stands for a host of other sins as well, it most certainly includes the promotion of the sexual revolution during the tribulation period, as the verse below again indicates,

Revelation 17:2 “…with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality."

The result of this politically inspired and propagated perversion will target those who disagree. The Christians during that time will receive more than a few verbal attacks, many will lose their lives as they stand as a righteous indictment against all that Anti-Christ stands for:

Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered greatly.

Revelation 18:24 "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth."

The prelude to all this is the sexual apostasy of the church of Jesus Christ, which is well underway as I pen these words. 2 Peter 2:1-22 and Jude 6-8 stand as a warning to all who would abandon God’s holy standards for sex and sexuality. One of the over-arching features of an apostate church is that God’s sexual standards for the same are deconstructed and reconstructed to more closely resemble the culture of the world around us. It usually begins with churches that refuse address the sexual sins in both the pew and the pulpit. Any shepherd that can wink at sin in the front row is well on the road to apostasy, because he (or she) has to ignore the clear commands of Scripture. Ignoring eventually leads to deconstructing, and then assimilating the world’s omni-sexual creed into the life-blood of the church.

Therefore, it should not surprise us to see such blatant and brazen promotions of pornographic perversion as main-stream. The mandate of the true Bible-believing church is to boldly proclaim God’s truth on the subject and then practice God’s truth on the subject. In this may we not grow weary in the well doing as we simultaneously seek to guard our own hearts!

To God Be The Glory!

The Gospel According To The Green Bible

2009-03-20T01:32:00.000-07:00

I just became the proud owner of the recently released Green Bible. Thanks to Amazon.com and a recent trip to the USA, I was able to procure my very own copy of this latest study Bible. After thumbing through it, I can only conclude that the Green Bible is a tragic statement on where some segments of the church are today. Now every mom who has ever told her kids to eat their green vegetables, can now also rally the family around the Green Bible for family devotions, as the family contemplates everything green—including a green God.

Now I need to preface what I am about to say with a couple of qualifiers: First, I certainly support and believe that every Bible-believing Christian should exercise diligent stewardship over the creation God made and then entrusted to man (Genesis 1:26-28; 9:1-7; Psalm 8:1-9). Admittedly, there are many things advocated by the eco-evangelists of our age that are not necessarily wrong, like recycling for instance. On the contrary, what I am about to disagree with is the underlying eco-apocalyptic ideology that so-called evangelical environmentalist have bought into. In short, what the Green Bible proves is that today’s eco-evangelists have just borrowed the world’s radical categories for everything green and have baptized them with some Christian labels while sprinkling in a few Bible verses, emancipated from context, for good measure. In this, the proponents of evangelical environmentalism show little originality.

Here are but a few of the soul-warming features of the Green Bible which are suppose to give rise to a more eco-friendly devotion:

• For starters, the Green Bible (GB) is constructed of eco-friendly materials: The cover is made from cotton/linen, the pages are recycled paper, and the ink is soy-based with a water based coating. All of which should lead to many hours of guilt free Bible study and devotion! Does this mean that once the GB is no longer usable as a Bible you can throw it into the compost pile instead of the trash?

• The translation the promoters of the GB chose was the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV is not one of the strongest translations on the market. NRSV translators relied on aspects of dynamic equivalency, this, in turn, led to the gender-neutral tone of the final product. It is noteworthy that the NRSV is renowned for being theologically deficient in the areas of Bibliology and Christology, which makes the NRSV a good purveyor for the eco-gospel.

• One of the unique features of the GB is that, instead of the standard red letter edition most Christians have come accustomed to, the GB highlights in green all passages that are some how related to the environment. There are over 1000 passages that are highlighted in this manner. As I looked at many of the green verses it was not apparent what any of this had to do with all the doom-and-gloom scenarios seen in the popular promotions of modern day environmentalism. In fact, there are many green passages that are actually prophetic in nature and relate to God’s judgment on Israel due to their disobedience to His direct commands for them as a people and a nation (Deuteronomy 28). In accordance with Deuteronomy 28, God either blessed the promised land and all that was in it, or cursed it. The blessing and the cursing in the Old Testament were always in proportion to Israel’s obedience or lack thereof. It is never asserted that Israel was punished because they failed to take care of the environment. The destruction of the land God had promised and provided the Jews was always a result of their failure to love and obey Him.

• Another feature of the GB is the green topical index at the back, which is a lot like a green concordance. Then there is a Green Trail Guide, so the green disciple can lead his or her own Bible study exclusively centered around environmental issues. There are even guidelines on how to become a “Deep Green Family”.

• In the front of the GB, there are a number “inspirational” essays written by several of scholars, most liberal and some quasi-evangelicals. More popular names like N.T. Wright, Calvin De Witt (a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison), and emerging church guru Brian Mclaren headline these green essays. Therefore, it is not surprising that the GB is a truly ecumenical enterprise which includes liberal protestants, professed evangelicals, Roman Catholics including the Pope, and Jewish clergy.

• The forward to the GB pretty much says it all. Fresh from his recent save-the-whales campaign, the former Arch-bishop of the Anglican Church in South Africa, Desmond Tutu, regales GB readers with his save the earth serenade. Tutu is a noted liberation theologian who denies the deity of Jesus Christ as well as the inerrancy of scripture. In other words, he doesn’t really need the Bible, or the God of the Bible. It is all downhill from there. Here is one Tutu excerpt based on John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." From this passage, Tutu enthuses, “As if in this cosmic embrace, Jesus would wish to enfold all that God has created, the entire universe, into unity. His supreme work is to reconcile us to God and to one another, and to reconcile us to all God’s creation.” To be blunt, this esoteric drivel sounds like something Deepak Chopra or the Dalai Lama might say. Christ is making a statement about the cross and His subsequent resurrection, which will pave the way of salvation for those who follow Him! Jesus was not making a statement about the environment, but about the sinful estate of man and the remedy for that sin, which is found exclusively in the cross. Only through the cross is fallen humanity reconciled and restored to a holy God.

• Then there are the secular endorsements from the God-fearing Sierra Club and the Bible-thumping Human Society of the United States. When the world approves of your message you must be doing something right? Right?

• Interestingly, not one climatologist endorsed the GB. The closest to expert testimony they could get were a couple of medical doctors. While physicians might know quite a bit about the human body, most MDs know about as much about climatology, and the issues surrounding climate change, as a Jack Rabbit knows about playing ping-pong. In some cases the Jack Rabbit has a better grasp on ping-pong. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change was able to round up a dietician and an herbalist as part of their expert panel on climate excathedra!

• Some of the titles to the essays in the GB are a good indication of what the real agenda of the GB is all about:

The Power of The Green God by J. Matthew Sleeth, M.D.

Reading the Bible through a Green Lens by Calvin De Witt. So we also have another hermeneutic to consider when interpreting the Bible—the green hermeneutic. I wonder if one’s hermeneutical abilities are enhanced when studying under the luminescence of a compact florescent bulb?

Jesus Is Coming—Plant a Tree! By Dr. N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham. Maybe I am just old fashioned, but my title would probably look something like Jesus Is Coming—Confess Your Sin!

Loving the Earth Is Loving The Poor by Gordon Aeschliman, editor of the publication Green Cross. And all the time I thought that loving God led to loving my neighbor, which includes the poor

• In the back of the GB there is a section entitled Action Ideas for Churches which includes suggestions ranging from hosting green Bible studies to setting up a booth at a local Earth Day Rally. Then there is a section detailing 50 Practical Tips to Get Started, which covers a variety of common sense ideas that many people already practice as good stewards, like turning off the lights or an appliance when you leave the room, or insulating both your attic and your hot-water heater.

Some of their ideas, however, are just plain silly, like cutting back on soft drinks by drinking tap water, or no longer eating at fast food outlets. On page 1237, the GB advises readers to “Consider vegetarian alternatives, which cause less pollution.” This, despite the green light given by God in Genesis 9:3 to eat meat!

Well, once the green machine gets all the climate change legislation passed, the eco-food-patrol won’t have to worry about my soda-drinking ways or my occasional visitations to McDonalds, as most of us won’t be able to afford soft drinks, fast food, or meat. Why? Because of the tax burden placed upon us by Fabian socialists, who are using this issue to float Big Government and exert Big Brother like control over us. Exorbitant taxation and penalties for those who use too much energy will be the result of draconian governmental eco-laws imposed by the new eco-imperialists. All of this will be enforced by the eco-Gestapo, of course.

One potential GB suggestion conspicuous by its absence is “the need” for churches to own a church building. Think of the money and resources a church could save by forgoing ownership of their own building! Instead, what if churches rented or leased an existing property? Our church has been in a rental facility for 8 years now and functions quite well without owning a building that would only get used a couple of times per week. It would be nice to have our own building, but where is it written that it is an absolute necessity? Why didn’t the GB editors include this suggestion? One wonders how the architects of the GB could miss something so patently obvious?

So, what, in summary, are the egregious errors of the GB?

1. The GB is driven by the same basic liberal ideologies and crass assumptions that the drive the secular environmentalists. At times, many evangelical environmentalists border on pantheistic tendencies—God is all, and all is God--as Desmond Tutu’s quote above demonstrates. This whole approach makes God a convenient means to an agenda driven end—eco-topia! As if mere man can usher in the Kingdom age apart from the coming of the King by merely curbing CO2 emissions. In this whole scheme God is incidental to the plot and plays a support role that aids the agenda driven end.

2. The brand of environmentalism used in the GB plays fast and loose with scripture. Sound exegesis of passages is often replaced with eisegetically (reading ones assumptions into the text) derived meanings as real meaning is substituted for desired meaning. A classic example of this is John 3:16, which is highlighted in the verdant green hues of the GB. This familiar passage reads, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The question is to what or to whom does the term “world” (kosmos) refer? Evangelical environmentalists will see in this the inclusion of the material universe. But sound exegesis and a literal hermeneutic, not the deconstructed postmodern hermeneutic of the eco-interpreters, clearly indicates that all of humanity, not just the Jews, is included in the redemption that only Christ provides.

3. The promoters of evangelical environmentalism have a very hard time believing in the sovereignty of God. Oh, they will quote with great redundancy Psalm 24:1 “The earth is the LORD's, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it.” But by their desperate rhetoric and radical emphasis they deny what they profess with their lips. They really think the polar icecaps will melt and the seas will rise submerging vast tracks of land while the rest of the earth bakes into a drought saturated wasteland. They have believed the lie that CO2 drives temperature, when it is actually the other way around; temperature drives up the volumes of atmospheric CO2 through water evaporation.

Obviously, many eco-evangelicals have no confidence in the preservational power of their God to keep His creation from being utterly destroyed. Though man can significantly harm the environment, we can’t completely and irreversibly destroy it (Though I must add, this is no justification to wantonly abuse creation). Colossians 1:16-17 is wonderful testament to this fact, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

The sky is not falling and the earth is not coming apart at the seams. In the end, when the Lord returns, He will fully restore the earth as He reverses the curse. Until then, we must maintain it as best we can for God’s glory, without becoming too indifferent, or wildly irresponsible like those behind all the warm-mongering rhetoric of the man-made global warming cult. Sadly, the proponents of the GB fall right in line with all the climate-change drama queens of the day, believing all the pseudo science that masquerades as fact. Where is their faith? Is it in God, or man? What is their authority, the Bible, or some research project that finds its grant funds dependent upon proving man is responsible for climate change?

4. Finally, because of the undue emphasis of the GB on environmentalism, it demeans and devalues the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the primary message of God’s word. The priority of the gospel gets sidelined by an important, but lesser issue. One can host all the environmental friendly Bible studies one wants, but apart from the gospel, no one will ever come to Christ. You might impress some secular warm-monger with your eco-emphasis, but he will leave your eco-study seven fold more a child of hell. Clearly the GB marginalizes the gospel message. An unsaved person who picks up the GB could easily conclude that they are well on their way to glory because of their recycling ways, which amount to works righteousness. This is nothing less than another gospel, which Paul so vividly and forcefully addressed in Galatians 1:8-10:

“But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.”

The gospel of the eco-evangelist is an entirely different gospel whereby one merits favor with God through the sacraments of creation care, whether it is forgoing soft drinks, eating a carbon neutral diet, or insulating your hot-water heater. The over-arching message of the Green Bible is just another in a long-line of distractions and diversions that detract from keeping the main thing (the gospel) the main thing. To slight the gospel, as the GB does, is to slight Christ, because Christ epitomizes the gospel! The color of the cross is blood red, not green.

Before coming to Christ I never had the slightest interest in preserving God’s creation. Once saved, I realized God was and is the sovereign maker and owner of all that is. It then dawned on me that I had an awesome responsibility to take care of that which reflects His glory, power, and majesty. But my reasons and motivations for creation conservation are entirely different than those being offered by the eco-shamans of evangelical environmentalism. It isn’t the scare-mongering tactics of radical-secular greens that is driving me to pick up after myself. It is my desire to please God that gives rise to my motivation to properly care for His creation in a balanced and reasonable way.

In the end, scripture asserts in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” Upon close scrutiny, the Green Bible fails that test. It does not teach things which become sound doctrine. Therefore, be a good steward of what the Lord has entrusted to you and don’t waste your hard earned cash on the Green Bible. You would be better off using your money to buy a soda. Better yet, buy a Happy Meal for some hungry child!

The Obamanation of Gay Rights!

2009-01-20T22:46:00.000-08:00

What a follows below is an excerpt out of my new book Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Really The Same?, which will be in the shelves by the end of February. Given that Barack Obama was just inaugurated yesterday, I think it only fitting to share with my brothers and sisters in Christ just what kind of "Change" a President Obama will bring to gay civil rights in America. I sincerely hope what follows will aid you in your prayers for Obama and his cabinet:

9. What is Barack Obama’s (US President Elect) position on gay rights and same-sex marriage?

Given that during the US presidential campaign Barack Obama claimed he did not fully support same-sex marriage, what are we to make of his position on the issue? In short, his position on gay rights and SSM is as radical and far reaching as his views on abortion, which amount to infanticide[1]. The best way to answer the question is to use the words of Obama himself from a statement he issued to the gay community:

“Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and
a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”[2](Emphasis added)

The first sentence says it all, “Equality is a moral imperative.” It is basically all downhill from there. Though he may have tried to distance himself from gay marriage during the campaign, it is evident that was only because it was politically expedient for him Obama to do so. He has no moral convictions or ethical squabbles with homosexuality or its related issues. Essentially he will try and promote comprehensive gay rights legislation that will irrevocably empower this tiny minority to enslave the many who deem homosexuality morally abhorrent.

Once this wide ranging list of gay friendly legislation is signed into law, Bible-believing Christians will be in the cross hairs of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and gay rights crusaders, who will tar and brand all who disagree as “right-wing bigots” and “homophobes”. We will see the professed “tolerance”, gay rights sympathizers preach quickly, morph into tyranny as these cultural transvaluationists begin applying hate crime laws and hate speech legislation to Christians and conservative congregations.

President elect Obama has also called for the complete repeal of the federal version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Obama is on record saying, “…I believe we should get rid of the that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell …”[3]

The federal DOMA was enacted by a Republican led congress in 1996 to regulate matters related to tax status, immigration, and social security as it relates to SSM. As the basis of the regulation, the DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman. In addition, this DOMA gives all 50 states the autonomy to reject the same-sex marriages from other states that performed them.[4]

By completely repealing the DOMA, Obama will jeopardize every state DOMA in the country—most states have their own individual DOMAs. This will probably require one state with a DOMA to recognize another state’s same-sex marriage. For example, a state like Texas would be forced to then recognize the same-sex marriages of those who were married in the state of Massachusetts, should such couples relocate to Texas.

To further substantiate his extreme position on gay rights, it should not be surprising Obama uses Scripture to advance his gay rights panacea. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama maintains that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[5]

Only a thorough-going postmodern trained attorney (Harvard Law School) could make such an outrageous assertion regarding of the following passage:

Romans 1:24 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ²⁸ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper”.

There is absolutely nothing obtuse or opaque about Romans’ graphic portrayal of homosexuality. One must intentionally determine not to understand what Paul is saying, in order to be so dismissive of what is as plain as the nose on your face.

Obama’s ignorance regarding both the Romans account and the Sermon of the Mount is glaring given the subsequent considerations from the sermon:

· Where in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is homosexuality ever promoted or approved even tacitly? Further, where in the Sermon on the Mount is Romans 1:24-28 ever contravened or questioned?

· In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus upheld even the lesser laws like those related to tithing, so it is unreasonable to think that Jesus abrogated the sexual ethics contained in OT Law.

· In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used six antithesis to expand the dictates and demands of the Law by applying it to matters of the heart (mind, will, and emotions). The sum of these antithesis was to target the thoughts and motives of any would be follower of Christ. Two of the six antithesis relate directly to marriage and sexuality:

Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; ²⁸ but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Matthew 5:31 "And it was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; ³² but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

These two passages cover the essential terrain of the seventh and tenth commandments (adultery and covetousness)[6]. If anything, Jesus is actually increasing the demands of sexual laws to include one’s thought life. Not only is it a sin to adulterate, formicate, commit incest, to rape, and to perform homosexual acts; it is a sin to even ponder such things in one’s thoughts.

· In these two antithesis, Jesus emphasizes the distinct priority of male-female union only afforded in heterosexual marriage. He never intimates any other arrangement is acceptable. Jesus also underscores that the nature of the heterosexual union is to be both a lifelong commitment and monogamous.

· It is true that the sermon addresses other themes like loving your enemies (5:43-48) and hypocritically judging others for small matters when much larger issues loom large in our own life (7:1-6). As Robert Gagnon concludes, “However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed.”[7]

· Given that Obama uses the Sermon on the Mount as support for his “moral imperative” for gay rights legislation, it is interesting he says nothing of the end of that sermon where Jesus sternly warned,

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves … Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' ²³ And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'”(Emphasis Added)

God’s will regarding sexual ethics is straightforward and obvious throughout Scripture. Jesus considers violation of the Genesis 2:22-24 mandate for marriage lawlessness, which includes homosexuality and SSM. Just because Barack Obama passes legislation favoring homosexuality, does not make it any less lawless in God’s eyes.In the end, Obama’s “moral imperative” amounts to moral impudence from Christ’s perspective.

Indeed, President Elect Obama needs much prayer regarding both his views on gay rights, and his eclipsed understanding of what Jesus really thinks about this issue.

Note: Subsequent to penning the above words, the media began reporting that one of the first orders of business for the Obama administration will be to repeal Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for gays in the military. Regarding same-sex marriage, Sean Hannity on FOXNEWS recently did a short piece which revealed that in 1996 Obama told the premiere gay periodical in Chicago, The Windy City Times, that he supported gay marriage and would fight for gay marriage. Hence, his distancing himself from the issue during the campaign was pure political posturing to pander to the majority who are against same-sex marriage (I will get the link to Hannity's story). This is certainly the kind of change I can't believe in!

[1] Barack Obama, as Illinois state senator, voted against the Born Free Act, which would allow babies born alive during abortion the chance to have access to medical care.

[2] See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS, Accessed 11 November 2008.

[3] Ibid, p.2.

[4] The US Constitution has a “Full Faith and Credit Clause” which mandates that states must recognize the “acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states. In the case of the federal DOMA, this clause is suspended and not in force.

[5] Online: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27532 , Accessed 11 November 2008.

[6] The Ten Commandments serve as paradigmatic law, which means these laws are more extensively explained and expounded in the rest of the law, where specific applications are given. For example, Leviticus 18 is an application of the both the seventh and tenth commands.

[7] Robert Gagnon, “Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex,” Online at: www.robgagnon.net , Accessed 11 November 2008, p.3. Also see Robert Gagnon, “Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over Homosexual Practice and Abortion,” Online at: www.robgagnon.net , Accessed 11 November 2008.

Rich Man Poor Man

2008-02-26T10:12:00.000-08:00

This past week I began reflecting on the following verses related to poverty, riches, and impartiality:

Leviticus 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.”

Exodus 23:3 “… nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.”

Deuteronomy 1:17 “You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God's. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.”

Deuteronomy 16:19 "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. ²⁰ Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

What strikes me about these passages is the corrective they prescribe for the current imbalance that is all too apparent today. According to the verses above, Israel was not to show favoritism to either the rich or the poor, especially in court. To favor one social class over the other would ultimately lead to a distortion of justice. There is a tendency to gravitate toward the imbalance of pitting one social class against the other for some form of personal gain. This can only lead to injustice and a degradation of the truth, because favoritism requires a lopsided modification of the facts. This is a subtle form of bearing false witness and violates the ninth commandment.

When most people think of showing partiality, they probably instinctively equate displays of favoritism for the wealthy, because of their riches and the status that accompanies wealth. No one can doubt the reality of such a scourge. James 2 highlights this abuse of showing preference to those of means while relegating the poor to the back of the sanctuary. This is nothing less than discrimination, which has no place in the Body of Christ!

Favoring the rich is only part of the equation that must be addressed. It is just as likely that the poor and their poverty stricken situations are so emphasized that the sum still leads to impartiality and favoritism. This is just as unjust as favoring those with untold treasures. It leads to a basic inequality and perpetuates the class-envy and strife that is all too common in our age. This only serves to fuel existing tensions as the differences between the two classes are exploited for some kind of political or personal expediency.

Abuses of both polar extremes are plentiful today. Yet, the current headlines seem to lean decidedly in favor of the poor. Almost every political issue today some how uses the theme of poverty in the promotion of policy acceptance. If policy, or proposed legislation is seen to benefit the poor in some way, then it must be the right course of action. The inclusion of poverty alleviation sanitizes almost any policy. Or so the thinking goes.

One caveat at this juncture is probably in order. It is not my intention to seem uncompassionate and unsympathetic to the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. Scripture is clear about issuing a helping hand to those in need. What is under scrutiny here is the exploitation of poverty for political or personal agendas. The fruit of such action will only produce schism. Politicians, self-righteous social activist, liberal clerics, the media, and of course Hollywood-types all love to smugly pit the poor against the rich and thus perpetuate class envy and hatred. Anyone with even meager means has become fair game for today’s avant-garde guilt-mongers.

This overemphasis on the poor, cited in the passages above, is seen on many fronts today. I will restrict my comments to four popular promotions of the Rich-Man-Poor-Man syndrome:

1. Liberal and socialist regimes the world over have exploited the rich- man-poor-man divide with great effect. Elections are now won or lost by promising to eradicate, or at the least alleviate poverty. Politicians get a tremendous amount of useful mileage out pitting the social classes against one another, the haves at odds with the have-nots. This attitude implies that government needs to play Robin Hood and equitably redistribute the wealth so all can have a bigger peace of the pie. To achieve this, liberal politicos must remind the poor of their victimization and their right of entitlement. Essentially the message that socialistic politicians send is the poor are helpless victims who need the government to liberate them from their bondage.

I can think of no modern day examples where this has succeeded. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society in the USA, implemented in the sixties, has never materialized. America’s welfare state approach tackled poverty from the wrong angle. It only succeeded in creating an entitlement mentality while further contributing to the fragmentation of the family. As a result it further polarized the rich and the poor.

One of the political slogans already being bandied about in the run up to the presidential elections in the states is “change”. “Change”, in part, is code for poverty eradication. So the next time you hear a presidential candidate talk about the need for “change”, what he or she really means is, that by the time the rich are done being financially fleeced the only money they will have left is a bit of pocket “change”! After all utopia isn’t cheap. So much for justice and impartiality.

2. Closely related to the abuses of governments exploiting the poor, comes Liberation Theology (LT). Promoters of LT in both Africa and South America have effectively advanced the cleavage between the rich and poor. With the eisegetical (subjectively reading into) slight of hand, LT interpreters pervert portions of God’s word to dovetail with their radical Marxist ideology. In their deconstructive processes, they vilify wealth and extol the plight of the poor as the original righteousness. The outcome of this approach is always the same: the poor are still poor, while the promoters of LT now enjoy the spoils denied them during the fight for “freedom”. That has certainly been the case here in South Africa.

3. In recent days, no movement has trumpeted poverty alleviation more then the climate change alarmist. A headline from the paper the other day read “Rich must help the poor”. In the context of man-made global warming, Brazil’s president maintains that the rich should pay for climate change initiatives in order to help the poor. What the alarmist doom-and-gloomers of climate change haven’t yet acknowledged is that the complete implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will require an estimated one trillion dollars per annum from developed countries—developing countries like China, India, and Brazil get a free ride here despite their record as the worst polluters in the world.

According Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, if one fifth of that one trillion dollars were used for the poor, this would be enough to provide sufficient drinking water and adequate sanitation for the billions who have no access to these essential poverty alleviating measures. Think of how the health of untold numbers of impoverished people would dramatically improve with these two simple commodities. But in their short-sightedness, climate change alarmists insist on exploiting the poor to extort the rich with costly climate change legislation, which will at best reduce the temperature in 2050 by only 0.2 degrees Celsius. The only achievement here will be the advance of globalism along with the corresponding demise of the free market. This will only make the poor even poorer. In this, the poor have become a necessary tool to advance the draconian initiatives desired by the greens. My question for the greens is this, why are you only waking up to the plight of the poor now?

4. Finally, another sect of Christianity-the emerging church-has seemingly replaced The Great Commission with an emphasis on feeding schemes and social action. While one cannot deny the need for the Church to proactively reach out to those in need, one has to question the whole-sale secular methods and motivation often employed in this endeavor. I personally know of so-called Christian organizations who are reaching out to the poor and HIV infected. In the process they have abandoned the gospel. You see, governmental funds and secular help are in the offing for those who aren’t fanatical about their faith. Yet, Christ emphatically reminds us that “…man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

Yes, the Church should reach out to those in need, but not at the price of compromising the gospel. We must avoid resorting to the secular reasoning and humanistic methods when addressing the issue of poverty, as such only breeds a partisan spirit of class envy. We must scrutinize our motivation and ensure it is gospel centered. We must ask the difficult questions like: What are the reasons for the poverty? How can we best help the poor in the long run? Will the methods we use address the poverty effectively by equipping them and preparing them to provide for themselves? Is the gospel central to the aid that we render? Is our approach toward poverty alleviation really the best possible stewardship of the Lord’s resources? Apart from a tough line of inquiry, we will only perpetuate their plight while pitting the poor against rich.

To illustrate the need for a thoughtful inquiry, the situation here in South Africa is dire. Poverty abounds in the midst of riches untold. There are many complex reasons for this to include the apartheid past. But one of the primary contributing factors to the extensive poverty in South Africa is directly related to the African world view. The traditional African world view has produced an outlook on time, money, work, life, and morals that has by-in-large contributed to the gross cycles of poverty that currently exist. The break-down of the family along with culturally approved promiscuity has all coalesced to assure poverty’s continuance for some time to come. Until this errant world view is adequately addressed there is little chance of the tide turning in the affirmative. But to date, the probing questions needed to address this issue aren’t even being asked. In this, the gospel is the only effective anti-dote that will promote the necessary change of world view, through a transformed mind found only in Christ.

In final analysis, an equitable balance must be maintained between the rich and the poor. Neither group must be marginalized nor singled out. Money is not the root of evil, only the love of and greed for such is condemned, which, by this definition, even the poor are capable of.

The cross of Christ provides a level spiritual playing field for all concerned. Economic disparities and distinctions will exist in this earthly life, but eternity will reveal a vastly different picture as the current disparities will be dissolved! All who are in Christ are and will be equally rich in His presence, regardless of their financial station in this present life. To this end the Church at large would do well to heed the concluding scriptural insight:

^“7 For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. ⁸ And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. ⁹ But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. ¹⁰ For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang. ¹¹ But flee from these things, you man of God; and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. ¹² Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” (1Timothy 6:7-12)

Personal Experience Verses The Bible

2008-01-17T01:24:00.000-08:00

Recently my wife bought me a copy a popular South African Christian periodical. I hesitated to crack the cover and see what was on the offing in pop evangelicalism. Sadly, my initial skepticism was amply confirmed as I glanced at the table of contents. From cover to cover, the magazine in question can only be described as a tribute to shallowness as it was filled with candy-coated approaches for living the Christian life and articles saturated in spiritual transfats. I can only conclude that a regular diet of such spiritual junk food will most certainly lead to spiritual malnutrition and rickets.

One article immediately caught my attention “23 Minutes In Hell” about one man’s claim to have visited hell in an out of the body of experience. What is so significant about the article is not what it says about hell, but rather what it illustrates about the state of the church at large. Bill Wiese’s claim to have visited hell for 23 minutes is a perfect example of how many professing believers are more disposed to believe someone’s alleged experience than they are to believe God’s word.

In his own words Wiese explains why he had to visit hell:

“The reason I was shown this place was to bring back a message of warning. My story is not one to condemn, but rather to inform you that hell is a real place … I have since discovered that my story coincides with what scripture details about hell.”

It is certain the doctrine of hell has fallen on hard times in our postmodern world that eschews judgment and authority. But the advancement and recovery of this fundamental doctrine will not be revived by alleged claims to have personally experienced the horrors of the second death. My thesis is simple, God’s word is sufficient apart from any one’s invalidated experience. Our knowledge about hell should be formed by the anvil of God’s holy word, not sensationalistic experiences, regardless of how closely they may “coincide” with scripture.

Some might ask at this point, “What is wrong with Wiese’s claim? After all, people are getting saved and coming to Christ as a result of his testimony!”

Let me answer the question by stating a few of problems with relying on experience above the Bible:

1. First, when those, like Wiese, make such outlandish assertions about their personal experiences the tendency is to replace the word of God with the experience. The experience becomes primary and the Bible is relegated to a role of secondary importance. Whether intentional or unintentional, experience is canonized as supreme, thus detracting from God’s word while placing undue emphasis on someone’s personal claims. Luke 16:29-31 clearly addresses this very issue, "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' ³⁰ "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' ³¹ "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"

The story is a familiar one. The rich man is in torment and desires that someone return from the grave to warn his relatives about the impending doom that awaits unbelievers. The rich man’s logic is simple, if some one from the dead pays a house call, then his relatives are sure to believe and so avoid the torments of Hades. But note the unmistakable response—they have “Moses and the Prophets”. In other words they have the word of God, the Old Testament at that time. Refusing to believe what God has already declared in His word on the matter leads to the same end as the rich man.

In John 11 another man by the name Lazarus was brought back from the grave, but not everyone was converted (John 11:47-50; 12:10). In fact the Pharisees were even more determined to murder Jesus as a result of this miracle. To think that a quick trip to hell and back will result in a harvest of souls is as naïve as it is misinformed. Yet, Wiese explains that he had to experience the horrors of hell in order to come back and “inform” us that hell is a real place. The advice Jesus has for Wiese and all who believe him is “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” Simply put, we don’t need Wiese’s story to tell us what God’s word has already said for thousands of years.

2. Another problem with an overt reliance on personal experience, as a carriage way for truth, is that salvation is never a result of someone’s experience, but only and always a direct result of the faithful and accurate proclamation of the Bible. Romans 10:17 is a cogent reminder of this principle which is often avoided today, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” God’s word serves as the catalyst for bringing precious souls to saving faith in Jesus Christ. One wonders how Wiese’s road show would fare if he scrapped the sensationalistic story telling and stuck strictly to the Scriptures on Hell? Some how I have to believe his popularity would quickly plummet if he stuck solely to the script God has once delivered unto the saints! This would serve as the ultimate litmus test for his claims.

3. Beyond the above, the promotion of experience above God’s word leads to the very real danger of elevating the one who claims to have had the experience. Christ becomes an addendum to the story rather than the central theme. There are two classic examples of this warning and concern uttered by both Paul and Peter. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-9 Paul discusses his inexplicable trip into heaven, but he qualifies it with the fact that God gave him a thorn in the flesh to keep him from thinking more highly of himself than he ought. In addition, Paul, unlike Wiese, is at a complete loss to explain what even happened to him. What is of interest is that God gave Paul a glimpse of heaven, not hell.

The Apostle Peter also had some experiences worth recounting. One such incident was the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-13). Yet, Peter didn’t emphasize that incident. On the contrary he distanced himself from that remarkable experience. In 2 Peter 1:19-21 he clearly downplayed that event (2 Peter 1:16-18). He concludes :

“19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. ²⁰ But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ²¹ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Peter clearly ranks the importance of scripture over and above personal experiences. As John MacArthur notes, Peter views God’s word as more complete, more authoritative, and more certain than experience. Why? Because the Bible finds its point of origin in God not man (1:20), so it is externally objective as opposed to the subjective embellishments resident in experience. God’s word is supremely reliable (“more sure”) and should always serve as the port of call for our Christian walk.

4. A fourth problem encountered when placing too much emphasis on experience is that it is extremely difficult to exegete some one else’s experience. There is no way to verify or validate the claims made. I constantly challenge my congregation to check out what I preach. When it is God’s word that is preached, this is a relatively simple enterprise as they can contrast what I said with God’s word to see if what I said was true to the Bible. This is impossible when someone has had an experience on the scale of Wiese. We only have his word on the matter.

At this juncture some might be asking how we explain what really happened to Wiese. There are really only three possibilities:

He could be fabricating the story. I don’t know this to be the case in his instance. But it must be considered as a viable possibility.

It is also possible that he had a dream that seemed real. How many times do we wake up after a dream that was so vivid that it seemed real? Is it possible he had read or heard a message on hell at some stage that was relived in a dream?

The third option is that his dream or vision was demonically inspired and influenced by the agents of hell who are more intimately acquainted with the reality and compounded horrors of their ultimate destination than man is. As Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 11:1-13 Satan comes as an angel of light to deceive.

I don’t pretend to know which of the above categories Wiese falls into. He may be completely sincere in his claims to have been to hell and back, but he is sincerely wrong. Again, God’s word is the authority, not Wiese and his experience. Even if Wiese came back with a PowerPoint presentation of his journey, I would still defer to the Bible as the ultimate authority.

5. Another dangerous precedent set by those who rely on experience is that it becomes the grid by which they interpret the Bible. The experience becomes the imperious governor that determines the meaning of the passage. The result is that the real meaning of the text in question is sacrificed on the altar of experience. Rather, our experiences must be subordinated to the real meaning of the text, even when there is no satisfying explanation for what we experienced. It has become too common place in our postmodern culture to start with where we are and then to interpret the Bible on that basis. Instead, we must start with God’s word and work to where we are at once we reach the application of the text!

6. Finally, Wiese’s claim to have briefly gone to hell is biblically irrational. If true, then Wiese tasted the second death—eternal death (Revelation 20:13-14). There is not one instance in the Bible where some saint went into the bowels of hell and returned with an eyewitness account. Isaiah saw God high and lifted up. Paul caught a glimpse of heaven, but not one person in scripture is ever said to have visited hell and then returned. The only one to have ever tasted the torments of hell and live to tell about it was Jesus Christ when He was agonizingly nailed to the cruel cross! For a few brief moments, as the Father turned His face away, Christ suffered the full weight of God’s eternal wrath for sin-- past, present, and future. I am not implying the Christ went to hell, but rather that He tasted of the torments of hell while on the cross. Through His resurrection He triumphed over death to include the second death.

The conclusion of this debate is inescapable, God’s word is supremely sufficient and authoritative for the task of godly living (2 Timothy 3;16-17). Regardless of the issue we face, the Bible must serve as the primary point of departure lest we set sail on the sea of sensationalistic experiences. God’s word is ultimate. Therefore, let the word of Christ richly dwell in you (Colossians 3:16)!

Equivocating Evangels

2007-12-18T05:59:00.000-08:00

Last week as I was preparing for my Sunday morning message on the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:2-8), I couldn’t help but think of two interviews I heard earlier in the week. In the first interview, emerging church guru ,Doug Pagitt, was being quizzed by Way of The Master Radio. In the second interview, Joel Osteen was being queried by Larry King.

The interview with Pagitt was as revealing as it was disturbing. When questioned on sin, heaven, hell, and salvation Pagitt was evasive and tried to avoid any certain implications of the doctrines queried. What was painfully obvious was that Pagitt doesn’t believe heaven and hell are real places. I am not sure what he does with passages like John 14:3 where Jesus tells the disciples “I go and prepare a place for you”! In fact, Pagitt sounded a lot like 20th century liberals who maintained that hell is a state of mind.

For someone who lauds and extols tolerance as a cardinal virtue, Pagitt grew increasingly intolerant and hostile with the direct line of questioning. When asked about the eternal destiny of Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, Pagitt tried to escape into hyper-space by hiding behind a curtain of verbal fog. On this issue he was more illusive than the Loch Ness Monster. Bottom-line, he sounds like a universalist—all will eventually be saved.

The only thing certain in Pagitt’s mind is that nothing is certain. Of this he is certain.

For his part, Osteen had a 43 minute interview with Larry King. As King pressed concerning issues like sin, salvation, heaven, and hell, Osteen countered with a certain “I don’t know” 39 times! One thing listeners can be sure of is that Osteen doesn’t seem to know much. Yet, every week in Houston, Texas 47,000 people crowd around to hear Osteen pontificate about something, that by his own admission, he doesn’t know much about. Go figure!

I wonder how many of Osteen’s fans would go to a doctor who admitted he didn’t know much about the basics of medical science and human physiology? Yet, every week millions entrust their eternal destiny to those, like Osteen and Pagitt, who confess ignorance on such matters. This is all reminiscent of what Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3-4,

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.”

The over-arching similarity between Pagitt and Osteen is that both promote theological ambiguity as a cardinal tenant of their faith. They don’t know and they are proud of the fact that they don’t know. They both seem to think that ambiguity on cardinal, central doctrines is some how more humble than certitude. Old Testament prophets they could never be, because they would be unwilling to say “Thus saith the Lord”!

The example of Jesus is most instructive for us. In Matthew 4:1-11 when the Lord was tempted by the Devil, how did He respond? On three rapid fire occasions He declared “It is written”. In like manner, the Lord’s forerunner, John the Baptist, was introduced with same formula of certainty, “It is written” (Mark 1:2).

The “It is written” construction was used in Hellenistic times of legal orders and proclamations. Such a formula conveys both certainty and authority. When used in the Bible, it declares the absolute, permanent, divine record of God to man. This record is forever settled in heaven—the same heaven Pagitt isn’t quite sure about. Where sin, salvation, and the Savior are concerned, there can be no ambiguity. There are no loopholes or exception clauses for those who try to by-pass Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. Human ingenuity and artistic imagination cannot successfully remove God’s exclusive demands for the sinner.

Just as John the Baptist prepared the way for the Lord’s earthly ministry by preaching the message of “repentance” (Mark 1:4), we are called today to prepare the way for the Lord’s second coming by preaching the same message. To equivocate here, as both Pagitt and Osteen do, is to commit spiritual malpractice, which has eternal consequences for those who listen.

Paul warned Timothy about such non-sense (theological ambiguity) when he said that such men are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth,” (2 Timothy 3:7-8).

In the end, there is no virtue in avoiding the truth, and there is no real humility in equivocating on issues of eternal significance. Jesus considered John the Baptist to be the greatest among men (Matthew 11:11-12) not because he was ambiguous, but because he obediently proclaimed the message of repentance. True humility is found in the obedient proclamation of the gospel. Of this I am certain!

Man-Made Global Warming: Hot Air, Hype, and Honest Science--A Biblical Response (Part 1)

2007-11-29T01:43:00.000-08:00

The moment one expresses doubt regarding all the popular promotions of man-made global warming (MGW) the assaults begin. Statements like "He doesn't believe in global warming" and "He sees nothing wrong with polluting the planet" begin to surface. Let me unequivocally state from the outset, though I doubt all the hype related to MGW, that doesn't mean I don't believe in global warming. On the contrary, the earth has warmed by .67C degrees (or 1.2 F). But the big question is, is this man-made or just the ebb-and-flow of natural causes and cycles?

Secondly, I am not in any way advocating trashing God's wonderful creation we enjoy. Quite the opposite, I believe we need to be good stewards and custodians of the environment without allowing it to control us, and without exchanging worship of the Creator for that of the creation (Romans 1:18-32). What most don't realize is that CO2 is not a pollutant, it simply isn't toxic. The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 is the result of oceanic evaporation (98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere).

Psalm 8 is wonderful example of what God expects from man concerning our care-taker responsibilities of all He spoke into existence. Psalm 8 hearkens back to Genesis 1:26-28 where it is said that we (man) were created with the primary responsibility to care for and tend the rest of creation. From the very beginning humanity was tasked with dominion, which is expressed in both ruling and subduing. As Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill notes, the ruling and subduing are very strong verbs in the original Hebrew, which essentially mean that man was created with the functional duty of "treading down" creation. Implied here is the residential idea of the coming fall in Genesis 3. Unarguably, dominion became exponentially more complicated with the entrance of sin into the equation. Interestingly, God never revoked man's primary earthly responsibility of dominion, even in light of Genesis 3! Now, in a post-fall world, all of creation groans and travails in the convulsive aftermath of sin. This makes our current dominion mandate all the more arduous and tenable, but not entirely impossible.

It is my contention that what is really driving the MGW train has more to do with politics and the New Age movement than real science. What better way for neo-marxists, like Al Gore, to finally exert the kind of governmental power and comprehensive control they desire then through environmental issues? The draconian legislation being proposed by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) will significantly increase both the reach of government and expand their tax coffers. Capitalism and the free market as we now know it will be drastically altered and impaired by big brother bureaucrats around the globe.

Add to the above, the pronounced New Age influence. Environmentalist tend to favor New Age spirituality because of its pantheistic center (God is all and all is God). For this reason, the enviros see man as the number one enemy, because we are encroaching on the environment (creation), which is their sacrosanct shrine. Since the environment is sacred to them, protecting it--even at the expense of humanity--is a solemn sacrament and a cardinal tenant of their nature based faith. This view dramatically collides with the Bible. Psalm 8 makes it clear that man is to look up at God not to confine one's gaze to the earth beneath. When man fails to look up, this earth is all there is. As Romans 1:18-32 reminds us, we then become subservient to creation instead of the creator, with our priorities drastically out of balance. In short, the MGW promoters are trying bring man under the dominion of creation rather than the other way around!

In final analysis, we are called of God, the Sovereign of the universe, to manage the sky, the earth, and the sea (Psalm 8:5-8). This must not be reversed. In the end, do we really think we can change and affect weather? Only Almighty God can achieve this (Mark 4:35-41). Therefore, weather happens, whether we like it or not.

The following is a brief assessment of some of the science involved in this debate. These two letters were recently published in The Cape Argus :

Dear Editor,

Tragically the lopsided scaremongering tactics by the SA media, government, and education department, on man-made global warming have produced the predictable response evidenced by Vuyo Mabandla (People are clueless on climate change 15-10-07). It is precisely because the masses are clueless that they are “freaked out”.

I would like to assure Mabandla that he will keep his scalp for yet another day. The alleged iceberg off the coast of St. Francis is not the first iceberg spotted off SA’s coastal shores. In fact, Captain James Horsburgh, a hydrographer for the East India Company, wrote about numerous iceberg sightings off our shores between 1828-1830 (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 120, [1830], pp.117-120).

Horsburgh noted in 1830, “It appears that icebergs, until lately, have seldom been seen by navigators in their passage near the Cape of Good Hope and the coast of South Africa.” Some of the sightings reported sizable ice flows that towered 300 feet above the water and were 2 miles in circumference. How can this be? Remember there were no petrol guzzling SUV’s then!

No doubt, Mabandla has been further influenced by Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore and his propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT). Mabandla can rest easy where Gore is concerned. What Mabandla hasn’t been told is that just last week, in the UK, a court ruled that Gore’s documentary is as inaccurate as it is misleading (probably why he won the Nobel Prize).

The judge determined that if Gore’s movie is to be shown in UK schools, the learners must properly be informed of two things: First, the movie is not about science but politics. AIT is a lopsided propaganda piece that is not meant to inform, but to politically indoctrinate.

Secondly, the judge highlighted 11 gross inaccuracies (and there are far more) in Gore’s “science” that must be highlighted to learners if the movie is shown. From Lake Chad, to the retreating glaciers on Kilimanjaro, and even the 4 dead seals, the movie is an unqualified farce hardly worthy of honest science.

Like all SA’s learners, Mabandla has been led to believe that high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have produced a corresponding rise in temperatures. Therefore, we must legislate to regulate CO2 emissions. But the UK judge concluded, contrary to Gore, that there is a convincing body of evidence which states the rise in CO2 levels is actually the result of a preceding increase in temperature.

This makes complete sense when one considers the earth has been thawing out from the Little Ice Age (1400—1850 AD) for the last 150 years. As the temperature has increased (.67C), correspondingly so have water evaporation levels (H2O evaporation accounts for 96% of our atmospheric CO2). If the current CO2 levels are the result of the rise in temperature, then what can we do to curb water evaporation? Absolutely nothing.

According to some leading climatologists, who will never be heard in the mainstream media, there is every reason to believe the modest rise in temperature is part of the natural ebb-and-flow of creation. Sadly, SA’s learners aren’t presented this side of the debate. Instead, learners are force-fed Gore’s science fiction as fact. So much for open-mindedness and the free exchange of ideas, which are supposed to be the hallmarks of true education.

I would like Mabandla to rest well tonight by considering this: If the same people who are chortling about man-made climate change can’t even get the 5 day forecast right, then what are the odds their 100 year predictions of doom-and-gloom are correct?

Mark Christopher

Dear Editor,

Len Stevens (A wake-up call to young people everywhere, 22-10-07) poisons the well with his straw-man claim that the politically correct version of man-made global warming is “irrefutable science”.

Stevens’ egregious assertion is predicated on the faulty assumption that the computer generated climate models are infallible—never mind the great disparity between these models.

The reason for climate model fallibility is simple, weather is a very complex system. All complex systems, like the financial markets, have a multitude of unaccounted for variables which affect the outcome of the predictions. This makes it impossible to accurately predict the ultimate results.

In order to accurately gauge the future of climate change, the current models would need to factor in all of the following variables into their equation: solar variation, gravity, pressure, temperature, density, humidity, clouds, topography, rotation of the Earth, the sea’s changing currents, greenhouse gases, and CO2 dissolved in the oceans—to name a few of the needed variables. The current models are unable to include all of these vital factors, because they are either unknown or ever changing.

The dirty little secret regarding climate models is when one attempts to test them, they fail, sometimes spectacularly so. For this reason, climatologist Patrick Michaels concludes that reliance on climate models amounts to “scientific malpractice”!

All of this hardly makes for “irrefutable science”. Such a claim is as narrow minded as it is irresponsible. As Mark Twain once said, “I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life and most of it never came to pass.” All the present PC hype about man-made global warming will prove no different.

(Open-minded learners looking for information about websites and articles refuting the PC propaganda regarding this issue can contact me at: weatherhappens@gmail.com)

Mark Christopher

I can only conclude the sky will not fall, nor will the earth spin off its axis because of man. We might harm the environment (all because of sin), but we can't destroy the earth. Only God can do that. When it is all said and done, someday there will be God-induced Global Warming (GGW)! "10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness ..." (2 Peter 3:1--11).

Until then, we need to promote and serve Him and His gospel, not the dogmas of earth worshipping idolaters!

*Note: Pastor Mark will be writing a 60 page booklet on this subject in the next few weeks, which should be available early in 2008!

What's Love Got To Do With It?

2007-11-23T03:15:00.000-08:00

Subsequent to Desmond Tutu's vitriolic attack on the truth surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the debate was once again revived in the papers here in South Africa. Predictably use of the "God is love" argument was copiously employed to silence critics of the gay rights movement in the church. I have always found it amusing that people who never open the cover of a Bible all of a sudden find need to quote from it to advance their cause. Why don't they ever quote from the Koran? Sad that those who use this argument have no concept of God's love. Those who try to leverage this "God is love" logic assume that love is pure emotion. Below is my response to such fallacious thinking :

Dear Editor,

There is no dispute that God is love (God’s love unbiased, Mark Kleinschmidt, and Love your neighbor, Sharon Cox 22-11-07). What is never discussed, when this argument is inveighed as a trump card to promote gay rights, is love’s definition and context.

Both Kleinschmidt and Cox set sail on the choppy sea of subjectivity and relativism with their respective utilitarian notions of God’s love. Because God is a complex of attributes, to include His infinite holiness, righteousness, justice, grace and mercy—not just love—His love must be defined within the broader context of these respective characteristics. Wrenched from these other qualities, God’s love is subjectivised and infused with soppy sentiment. This is not love, but wishful thinking.

The logical conclusion of the Kleinschmidt-Cox equation for love is that almost any behaviour or lifestyle can be justified and validated by invoking the “God is love” argument. Many an adulterer has rationalized their sin by quoting “Love your neighbor as yourself”. But God's love is not a blank check. Once other attributes, like holiness, are added to the love matrix, love takes on moral parameters and ethical imperatives, grounded in the whole of God’s person.

The Bible also says “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:16) and “…holiness, without which, no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14). Unless holiness, along with the rest of God’s attributes, is factored into the definition of love, love will be reduced to ambiguity and arbitrariness.

Until one is willing to repent of what the Bible labels sin (adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, murder, rape, pride, corruption, homosexuality … etc…) on the basis of the person and finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, no one can honestly claim they are loving God and their neighbor as themselves. The good news is that God is neither biased nor prejudice. All who seek Him on His terms will find forgiveness and true love. Only then will the world truly be better place!

Rev. Mark Christopher
Living Hope Bible Church

One Flew Over The Tutu's Nest!

2007-11-23T02:53:00.000-08:00

This past week saw former Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu, libel all who disagree with his pro-gay position. He used the same old worn-out arguments to try and advance his cause. The sum of Tutu's rant was that he refuses to worship a "homophobic God". It seems, then, his only other alternative is to worship the god of this world. Though it would not be an accurate statement to say God is homophobic, it is correct to assert that God is anti-sin--as argued below.

True to form, Tutu invoked the gay orientation argument. Robbed of this salvo, the gay rights movement would fall flat in a blink. Yet, I know of no DNA test ever performed that was able to discern one's sexual preferences through DNA testing! Being gay is simply not the same as one's skin color. To claim such is disingenuous. It is an emotive argument devoid of any concrete proof.

Below is my public response to Tutu's outrage:

Dear Editor;

In his latest bloviating diatribe (I wouldn’t worship an anti-gay God—Tutu) Desmond Tutu gave a clinic on the use of ad hominem logic. Tutu’s hurling of acerbic invectives at his detractors is a favorite smoke-screen to cloud the weakness of his own arguments on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Tutu’s transvalued (calling good evil and evil good) viewpoint on this issue has far more in common with a postmodern, pluralistic culture than the Bible. For Tutu to argue as he does, he must supplant the Bible with the popular interposing of a politically correct culture. To achieve this, he, like many today, must ignore the obvious and argue the ridiculous. This he has done well!

The question arising from Tutu’s tantrum is whether or not God is “anti-gay”? Rather, the question should be is God anti-sin (adultery, fornication, lying, theft, corruption, pride, homosexuality etc…)? The answer is an unequivocal, Yes.

Because God is a complex of attributes, to include His infinite holiness, righteousness, and justice—not just love--He will not “welcome” any sin into His presence. This is precisely why God sent His only begotten Son to die and serve as the perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin. For those who repent from their sin on the basis of Christ’s finished work on the cross, there is forgiveness and the eternal embrace of a welcoming God! But God only welcomes those who come on His terms.

Therefore, the real question isn’t is God anti-gay, but is Tutu pro-God?

For those who would like to receive a copy of my book Same-Sex Marriage:Is It Really The Same?, please contact me at harborofgrace@gmail.com

Rev. Mark Christopher

The Gay Community's Non-Sense On Stilts!

2007-05-27T11:12:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I read one of the more absurd articles I’ve read in recent times. The article was entitled “Churches Ban Gay Marriage”. This article was in response to South Africa’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage. The gay community is now lamenting the fact that some denominations, churches, and pastors refuse to officiate same-sex weddings, even though the recent legislation in South Africa provides for ministers to exercise their conscience on the issue.

The gist of the article was that, in light of some refusing to perform same-sex unions, now the issue had advanced from one of “gay rights” to one “human rights”. The letter below is my response to this absurd notion of marriage being a “human right”:

Dear Editor;

As a pastor I found the comments of Vista Kalipa (Churches ban gay marriage 17-05-07) telling. According to Kalipa and Triangle Project, marriage is now a "human rights issue".

I have always approached marriage as a God-given privilege. As such, there are a host of reasons why I won't marry some couples--being same-sex is but one.

If I don't think a couple is ready, or prepared, or fails to meet other biblical criteria, my policy is simple: I am not obligated to marry them. To date none of those I have turned away have ever died, gone hungry, suffered from lack of shelter, or been psychologically harmed as a result of my policy.

Since marriage is now a "human rights" issue, what about the following scenarios? :

Refusing to marry polygamists, which is technically legal here?

A case of pedogamy, whereby an intergenerational couple, ages 12 and 50, wish to marry. They are both consenting, loving, and the 12 year old has a signed permission slip from his or her parents. Am I obligated to marry them?
In the UK, animal rights activists have filed a court case on behalf of a chimp, to accord the chimp "human rights" status. If chimps are granted "human rights", would their human rights be violated if I refused to marry them?

In the end, Kalipa's absurd statement has more to do with trying to legislate opposing thought than human rights. For this reason I urge all truly God-fearing pastors and denominations to lovingly, yet firmly, stand true to their God-given convictions, and to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29)!

Rev. Mark Christopher

The paper did print the letter and I did not receive any responses, either positively or negatively. What the original article underscored was the fact that the gay community isn’t interested in equal rights. Rather, they desire special rights whereby their “rights” trump everyone else’s. This is about them holding Bible-believing Christianity hostage with their transvalued logic. I have read enough of their own literature to know their goal is to destroy traditional Christianity and all of its institutions like marriage and family, which is all seen as the progenitor of their plight.

What I find interesting in this whole debate is that it is always Christianity that is the target of the gay lobby’s attacks. My questions is, what about Islam? As this debate has raged here in South Africa for the last several years, not one word or peep from the Islamic community or the Muslim Judicial Council—Why? Why hasn’t one of these avante-garde, postmodern journalists investigated Islam’s position on the whole homosexual, same-sex issue? For some inexplicable reason Islam has slid under the radar here. While the papers printed the names of churches and pastors that will marry same-sex couples, why didn’t they print the names of Imams and Mosques where same-sex couples could exchange their vows? –PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE!

Though I don’t pretend to know why Islam has been so silent on the subject here, I do have a theory. Could their silence be because they know this watershed event, of same-sex marriage, heralds the demise of western civilization as we know it? Is their silence part of their strategy to win the ultimate victory over the perverse infidels? Or is it because they hope the sanctioning of same-sex unions will lend greater credence and acceptance to the polygamous marriages they endorse? At this point I can only surmise, because the media is conspicuous by its silence toward Islam on this matter.

What I do know is, if the media were to pursue Islam on this topic the way they have Christianity, they would find themselves in a similar situation to that of Salmon Rushdie, after he wrote “Satanic Verses” a few years ago. Quite frankly, the modern day media doesn’t have the courage or the stomach for such an investigation. So it is that the gay community and its obedient lap-dog, the media, will content themselves with relentlessly attacking Bible-believing Christianity and making the true Church out to be the villain. This, of course, will ultimately fail, as Jesus Christ has built His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail!

Streams of Spiritual Subterfuge--Part 2

2007-05-22T12:11:00.000-07:00

In part one of this article I began discussing some of the major streams of thought that insidiously seduce many professing believers and poison the well of thought in the Church. In the former article I briefly examined the nature and consequences of individualism. Though the Bible teaches aspects of individualism, it does so within the confines of Christ and His blood-bought community, the Church. For this reason, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves!

Another dangerous contagion of thought that has mutated and made major inroads into the minds of many is the philosophy of radical egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is more practically known through the various equality movements … a.k.a equal rights. While some of the goals of the equal rights movement are noble and even laudable, like most secular philosophies many have gone to seed and burst the banks of all reasonable thought. It is one thing to promote equal pay for equal work, or to seek social and legal equality for those of a different ethnicity and culture. But when egalitarians seek to erase all known, observable God-given distinctions, reason has jumped the fence and given birth to radical egalitarianism.

The Bible clearly recognizes an equality of essence, whereby all men and women of all races, classes, and creeds share an equality of derived essence (or being) from God as Creator. The New Testament underscores this equality of essence in the very nature of the gospel message. In passages like Galatians 3:28; Colossians 1:28; & 3:11, it is clearly taught that there is no segregation or apartheid at the foot of the cross. The finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary provides a level playing for all who desire salvation and the forgiveness of sin. There is one salvation for all mankind that transcends the barriers sinful man has constructed.

This God-given equality underscored in salvation through Christ, gives way to the obvious distinctions found in function, form, and responsibility. It should be obvious to all (sadly it is not) not all were born with equal abilities. Some are stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, more talented, more skillful, more experienced, more qualified, and more proficient. In the Christian economy such distinctions of ability are duly noted in the function of the Church. All believers are gifted differently and variously (1 Corinthians 12:4-31; Romans 12:4-8). Apart from such variation and degrees of giftedness, the Church couldn’t adequately function. Further, God established a simple hierarchy of leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11), without which the Church would cease to fulfill her divine mandate.

Radical egalitarianism endeavors to eradicate all such distinctions of form and function from society. The result is the homogenizing of culture into a bland and ambiguous tolerance. When all distinctions are expunged, all perversions become acceptable. Many academics and postmodern think-tank elites promote the notion of the androgynous ideal. In the androgynous world there is neither male nor female, as these are constructs of society. Hence, the neuter-gender ideal is ardently promoted. Radical Feminism has advanced this cause for over forty years now. The gay rights movement has this as their cardinal virtue. This why we see them tenaciously embrace trans-sexuality, trans-gender, and transvestitism. In this bazaar world without boundaries everything is acceptable except the obvious—distinctions.

How has such none-sense on stilts influenced the Church? Here are but a couple of ways:

The feminist movement—both the secular and evangelical versions—has so conditioned men through the various appendages of the media, academics, and culture, that many are now confused. Many men have become frustrated and now suffer from Gender-Identity Crisis (GIC). Men no longer know what it means to be a man, let alone a godly man. We have been told to get in-touch with our feminine selves. The result is that men are in the process of being feminized, while the women are being masculinized. Many men are now on the pathway of emasculated masculinity. Think of the impact of this on the family, the Church, and society. As a pastor, one of the greatest challenges I have is to get men to be godly men and lead their families in a truly spiritual way. This is why godly, qualified leadership in the Church is becoming increasingly harder to come by.
Closely related to the Gender-Identity Crisis, is the breakdown of the family. Radical egalitarianism has sought to subvert biblical gender-roles. This has produced a situation where the wives are often actively in-submissive, while the husbands are subjugated and passive. There has been a role reversal and a corresponding blurring of authority. This has produced more confusion and ultimately chaos in the home, as God-given guidelines are ignored. The believing husband is to always love his wife as Christ loved the Church (sacrificially), while the believing wife is to voluntarily and functionally submit (Ephesians 5:23ff). In this, they both realize their fulfillment as they mirror the relationship Christ has with His Church! This is the only antidote for the current ills that plague our homes.
Radical egalitarianism has negatively influenced the Church in profound ways. Thus, it is now fairly common-place for women to pursue the pastorate (1 Timothy 2:9-15). It is no mere coincidence that homosexuality in the Church and homosexuals in the pulpit, has become the issue de jure of the day. What few realize is that the same hermeneutic used to justify women in the pulpit, is the one-in-the-same hermeneutic marshaled to advance homosexuality in the Church. A Church that advocates women in the pulpit today, will more than likely either soften, or abandon altogether, its stance on homosexuality tomorrow. The issue as it relates to women is not one of individual ability, but rather an issue related to divinely sanctioned suitability for a God designed role.

There is no doubt radical egalitarianism has gone to an unacceptable extreme as its advocates have sought to influence all of society. But they have forgotten not all ideas are equal. Not all have equal strength, intelligence, or ability for a given task. Not all who ride in The Argus Cycle Tour have equal talent, training, experience, or equipment, as the results clearly attest. Though the lowly private is equal in essence to the general, in function there is an observed hierarchy, apart from which the military could not operate effectively.

Outside of death being the great equalizer, there is only one place where all of humanity has an equal footing—in the shadow of the cross of Christ. God’s provision of salvation does not discriminate. Yet, in the living out of that salvation there is a biblically prescribed form and function that must be observed. The Church ignores this to its own detriment. Our true identity and fulfillment as the Bride of Christ is at stake. If we, as the Church, are to comply with our divinely appointed mandate, we must shake off the fertilizing effects of radical egalitarianism by refusing to compromise with the spirit of the age.

(Part Three of this article will address the issues of democracy and freedom respectively)

The Radical Watchman

2006-09-25T05:39:00.000-07:00

The Radical Watchman Streams of Spiritual Subterfuge-- Part One

As a shepherd I am always concerned about who or what is influencing the sheep God has entrusted to me. In this age of mass communication this is an almost impossible task. There are countless ways in which one can be imperceptibly influenced, either positively or negatively. Rather than assuming the role of thought police, it is much easier to try and teach believers to think more biblically. True wisdom from above is required to keep from becoming another fatality to the world’s ideals and philosophies. This must be taught as well as caught.

The book of Proverbs addresses the very dilemma I pose:

Proverbs 22:3 “The prudent sees the evil and hides him, But the naive go on, and are punished for it.”

Proverbs 27:12 “A prudent man sees evil and hides himself, The naive proceed and pay the penalty.”

Proverbs 14:16 “A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless.”

These three verses all convey the same central idea. The point is that the truly wise person is aware of the dangers that surround them. The wise-one responds by taking the necessary steps required to avoid the potential trap and the accompanying consequences. Contrast this with the naïve or the simple. They ignore the danger signs and subsequently make no effort to avoid the raging stream that is headed right for them. As Matthew Henry rightly notes, “The simple who believe every word that flatters them will believe none that warns them.” I shutter to think how many times I’ve warned some senseless sheep who thought they knew better than God on some issue, and ultimately they suffered the due recompense of their rebellion. God is never mocked.

The wise on the other hand are discerning and maintain an acute sense of what is going on around them. They are honest with the subtlety of hostile thought before them. The wise consciously acknowledge the pesticide of the world’s perverse logic and ideas. Therefore, they are not deceived by self or otherwise. They both see and acknowledge the temptation that confronts them, so they clothe themselves in the full armor of God and stand their ground in the might that only Christ can afford!

What amazes me today is the pure subtlety of the seduction of our minds. Yes, even the believer’s mind is never exempt from this. This is why Paul warned the Colossians to take heed so that they would not be taken hostage by the world’s false systems of knowledge and faulty erudition (Colossians 2:8). I maintain that the church of Jesus of Christ is being inexorably seduced in a very surreptitious manner. Many well meaning Christians think they are orthodox in their doctrine and practice, yet they are being influenced in ways they don’t understand or acknowledge. This has led to the weakening and distillation of their faith and ultimately the church.

There are four cardinal streams of thought that I would like to introduce (This is by no means exhaustive) . These four tributaries are impacting us in ways we are not even aware of. Thus, if we are not conscious of these influences, we are probably being commanded by them without even realizing it. These are the four major influences we should be alerted to: individualism, egalitarianism, democracy, and freedom:

The world’s cultic obsession with the notion of individualism has not left the church unscathed. Though the Bible acknowledges the fact that we are individuals, it certainly never elevates this truth beyond its limits. In the Untied States we have a wonderful document called The Declaration of Independence, which has sadly become the creed of many individuals, even in the church. This creed of strident independence has produced the love of self over and above love for God and for fellow man.

The rugged individualism espoused by the west today has spawned the whole human rights movement. The crux of the human rights movement is nothing more than an attempt to rid oneself of any form of discipline, obligation to others, and the avoidance of moral imperatives. It has become another way in which to camouflage sin.

The Bible, on the other hand, seeks to focus christian thinking not on human rights, but rather on christian duties that are often other oriented. Man has a duty first before God, and secondly a duty toward his fellow man. Hence, the greatest commands-- to love God and then man! The very concept of duty implies an authority that is external to us. This further implies that we are accountable beings, not islands unto ourselves. We actually answer to someone other than ourselves .This external authority means we are accountable rather than responsible. The word responsibility is currently in vogue. Responsibility is a word that infers we are in charge; we control the situation in some way. This is why it is common to hear someone speak of their “responsibilities”, but rarely will one hear it said that one is “accountable”. Where the things of God are concerned it is more accurate to speak of our accountability to Him rather than our responsibilty

The sum of individualism finally leads to division, not unity. Yet, unity is the goal of the politically correct jet-set and the intellectual elite. In this, the world is oxymoronic, they scream “unity” while at the same time sowing the seeds of division through their pious platitudes on individualism. How ironic.

Practically speaking the fruit of this dogma can be seen in a variety of ways in the twenty-first century church:

Through novel interpretations of God’s word--I have encountered this more times than I care to remember. Though believers should be encouraged to be good Bereans this doesn’t imply they should come up with their own self-styled, designer fashion labels for the Bible. Because of the mass media explosion and the cyber space revolution, well meaning Christians are often exposed to an avalanche of bad or, at the least, questionable teaching. This often leads them to individualize what they have learned into their own unique theology. This is what I call idiosyncratic theology.

Suddenly every one is an expert peddling their own self-styled brand of theology that often runs contrary to the truth. The kicker is that these unique interpretations are often promoted as cardinal doctrines that their defenders tenaciously promote to the detriment of the major pillars of the faith. Such people are a like a guitarist that only plays one note in the same key over and over again. This becomes monotonous and boorish in a relatively short time. It is often a reliable indicator of a person’s true maturity level in Christ. Practitioners of this approach usually swat at a gnat while swallowing a camel. They emphasize the minors to the exclusion of the majors. They prate on endlessly about issues like tongues speaking, spiritual warfare, the KJV 1611 only, diet, allegorical interpretations, conspiracy theories and the like. They love to be heard for their much speaking. They pretend to be authorities on something they really know nothing about. These self-proclaimed experts are both a danger and a menace to the church because they thrive on a crowd. Thus, they are influencing others in the church.

In some instances it becomes necessary to apply Titus 3:9-10 to such persons,
“But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the
Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and
second warning.”

A second fruit of individualism is subjectivism. Because self is firmly ensconced as the premier authority of one’s life, it goes without saying that what “I” think or feel is paramount. One can hardly have a conversation with another believer without hearing “Well, I just feel…” As David Wells so poignantly pointed out “We have been feeling a lot these days. The problem is we aren’t feeling so well.”! The rugged individualist makes life transforming decisions without thought or regard for others that might be affected adversely by the decision made. How many a marriage has ended because one or both partners make important decisions without consulting the other? God created us to be proactive creatures not reactive. When we live life from the cuff, then we are pursuing a subjective course of life. This is a direct result of rugged individualism.

A third fruit of individualism is that of ecclesiastical (church) isolationism. The autonomy of the individual asserts that church is no longer necessary. What really matters is my personal relationship with the Lord. The mantra of those who suffer from this malady is “I really don’t need church. I actually feel closer to the Lord when I stay home and listen to CD’s and read my Bible and pray.” What they are really saying is, “I avoid authority and accountability. I will selfishly pursue my own course without regard for the church for which Christ gave His own life blood (Acts 20:28). I will intentionally withhold my gift of service from the body of Jesus Christ and serve myself instead.”

Tragically this blatant creed is epidemic today. Yet the command of Hebrews 10:24-
25 still rings true, “…and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of
some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing
near.” This is a command not a mere suggestion. The imperative nature of this
passage is reminiscent of the old saying which states, if Christ thought enough
of the church to give His life blood for it; well might we think it important enough
to expend a little sweat for it. In the end, true love for Christ portends a real love for
His church in some local expression. To profess Christ and then remain
unchurched is a contradiction. One’s love for Christ will naturally lead to a love for
His church.

A fourth fruit of individualism in the church is an unteachable spirit. When one is completely self-centered and the highest authority is self, then what can they possibly learn that they don’t already know? I have actually had people in the congregation who sat with their feet kicked out and their arms folded, with a look of utter defiance that said, “Go ahead and try to teach me something I don’t already know. I dare you!” Their body language says all that needs to be said. They refuse to listen. Pride and arrogance circumscribe them. Though they refuse to be taught, they are always ready to teach you and others. Yet their lives usually reveal how little they really know, for they are long on talk, but short on action.

Finally, the fruit of individualism is the catalyst for disunity in the church. The ardent individualist is always pursuing his own agenda at the expense of others in the church. They selfishly promote their own idiosyncratic theologies and contradict the pastor at every turn and undermine what he and the leadership are trying achieve. Confusion and disruption are their specialty. Like an arsonist, they throw lit matches into the brush causing conflagrations amongst the flock. You can always tell where they have been because of the charred, barren landscape they leave behind.

It is interesting that in the New Testament there are thirty-five one another passages. Certainly the word of God is loudly promoting the fact that the lone ranger approach to Christ is to be avoided at all cost. Philosophical individualism is impacting the church in a profound way. We need to be wise to this and on guard against the nefarious affects of this pernicious dogma. As the ancient sage once said, “A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is arrogant and careless.”

*(In part two the other three streams of thought will be considered—egalatarianism, democracy, and freedom)

The Radical Watchman

2006-09-25T05:33:00.000-07:00

The Radical Watchman

A Hideous Hypocrisy

2006-08-09T11:15:00.000-07:00

In 1 Timothy 3:15 the Apostle Paul challenged Timothy with these words, "... I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." Without attempting an exhaustive exposition of the passage, the essence of the passage is a staunch reminder of the important marriage between sound doctrine and sage behavior. In short, when doctrine is amended so is human conduct. In like manner, when morals and ethics slip so does sound doctrine. The church of Jesus Christ is to be the ground for both sound teaching and corresponding behavior.

Sadly many churches and denominations have long since forgotten or ignored Paul's admonition to Timothy. This has evidenced itself in a thousand different evils. One prominent illustration of this is seen in the current debate around same-sex marriage. In South Africa, where I currently minister, it never ceases to amaze me how many churches are quick to take up the saber against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the many heterosexual sins in their own midst.

This prompted me to respond to a recent article in The Cape Argus by The Marriage Alliance against same-sex marriage ( same-sex marriage was recently legalized in South Africa). Though I agreed with most of what was touted in the article, I still took exception because of the blatant hypocrisy of most churches who ignore a myriad of other sexual sins in their own pews. A lack of sound doctrine has produced pews filled with convival instead of revival.

The following is what the paper printed of my response:

Dear Editor,

Though I whole heartedly agree with Errol Naidoo (Allowing gay marriage will undermine the foundation of our society, 07-06-06), as a pastor I must demur. Sadly, I know there are many churches that inconsistently and selectively maintain the biblical standards of sexuality and marriage.

On the one hand there are churches that will fight tenaciously against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Yet, on the other hand they are hypocritically undermining the same God ordained institution (marriage) they piously profess to preserve.

It is nothing short of crass hypocrisy for churches and pastors to hurl polemics against homosexuality and same-sex marriage while entertaining fornication, cohabitation, adultery, and easy divorce in the pew. What is even worse is when a church turns a blind eye to their pastor in the pulpit, who is guilty of the same ( One can be forgiven of such vice, but the consequences of such failures render one disqualified from the ministry).

Ironically, by maintaining this double standard, the church at large is contributing to the demise of the very institution it seeks to save. Until God's people, both in the pew and pulpit, consistently apply all that God has to say on matters of sexuality and the sanctity of marriage, how can we expect His blessing in this realm? After all, "Judgment begins at the house of God"!

My point is simple, if the church is to begin winning this most important battle, then we are will have to consistently wed sound doctrine to sanctified morals. Until that is done "Ichabod" will be the only echo we hear being whispered down our corridors of the church.

Introduction To The Radical Watchman

2006-08-09T03:51:00.000-07:00

The ancient watchman in the Old Testament were tasked with the duty of perching themselves on the city walls or watch towers while scanning the immediate horizon for any danger. Any suspicious persons or signs were met with the sounding of the alert. Old Testament prophets were sometimes referred to as watchmen for God. It was their duty to hearld both bad and good news to the nation of Israel. In keeping with this background, I am launching this blog site with the view of commenting on dangerous cultural and societal trends, and fads that are antithetical to the cause of Christ and the truth of God's infallible word!

As a missionary pastor I've learned that biblical discernment is a must in the 21st century. Yet, this attribute is conspicuous by its absence in the Church at large. Therefore, I am throwing my voice out, through this medium, to hopefully encourage some and win others for the sake of Christ! To that end this blog is not meant to politically correct nor is it intended to be popular. As the old saying goes "Truth is usually in the minority"!

Indeed, truth is outraged by silence. The Radical Watchman is intended to crack the airwaves of silence that seem to paralyise the Church at large and seeks to say what few are saying today. As Isaiah, a watchman of old, once said, "On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; All day and all night they will never keep silent."(Isaiah 62:6)!

Thus, the goal of this blog is to blow the trumpet of God to His tune though few may listen (Jeremiah 6:17). This in itself is radical. In this may some be encouraged, others warned, and God be glorified!

Yours For The Master's Use
Pastor Mark