Where Chuck Smith JR stands

Well we really don't know yet where Chuck Smith SR stands but here is where junior stands in his own words. There are two very different camps at work here make no mistake. You will have to choose where you stand. I hear that junior is in his early 50's but as you can see even with Charles Stanley -people are being deceived.

Here is the information....

chuck, the jr. says:Added on May 27th, 2006 at 3:03 pm -
Okay . . .I shouldnt be here right now. My weekend services begin tonight.
So this has gotta be brief!First, thank you for the grace with which you have received me (I wont say my remarks, because that is less important).Anon. I fully understand your feelings regarding my withdrawal from CC. When Wimber was squeezed out, I had exactly the same response. My friends Tom Stipe, John McClure (Dons older brother), and Kenn Guliksen, to list a few, pulled away from CC and joined John. I was disturbed by the fact that some of our more articulate and thinking colleagues were leaving us. At the same time, some of the most vehement voices against John did not demonstrate either the spiritual depth, intellectual agility, or integrity that I hoped would characterize the CC community. So I prayed, Lord, please dont let CC be taken over by those people with lesser minds, less compassion, less grace, less biblical depth, or less integrity! I received a clear response from him: I do not endorse any brand names. The only name I honor is that of my Son, before whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess. Otherwise, I honor those who honor me and are faithful to me. But I do not stand by any label. From that day on my heart was free from any concern regarding the destiny of CC.Organizational, denominational, even our own personal names are like grass, but Jesus name (and the name of the LORD), like his word, are eternal.Lamp, Yes I have a prayer request. I am human (damn it!). I have several different kinds of critics, and of course I appreciate those most who lovingly point out where my thought or lifestyle are inconsistent with Scripture and the Person of Jesus. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a couple of sociopaths who slander me with lies every chance they get. In between are a variety of critics with inscrutible motives and varying degrees of cleverness in seeking to do damage to me or my ministry. But the truth of the matter is the fact that I am my own worst enemy and can destroy myself faster (and more seriously) than anyone else. So, if anything (or among other things), pray for me that whenm going through bouts of depression, the Lord mercifully guides or forces me along his path. I do console myself that my depression resembles to a remarkable degree the way C. H. Spurgeon described his own spells of despair in the chapter entitled The Ministers Fainting Fits in LECTURES TO MY STUDENTS.Papias, I have enjoyed your comments and will continue to take them with salt and light, which is essentially what we find in each other through Christian fellowship. Not all of the wounds we sustain in discussions like this are bad for us. And even what is interpreted as a mean word can sink deep enough to effect an important change.Andrew. Et tu, Brute? Well, of course. Faithful are the wounds of a friend. But seriousness aside, I do appreciate you.A Believer. Given the time I (dont) have, all I can do is briefly say:Fundamentalism to me represents both a theological commitment (leading to a lifestyle) and a culture. I am not opposed to the theology of The Fundamentals (published in the early twentieth century and worth looking into). The folks that published those documents were the professors who greatly influenced Francis Schaeffer, for whom I have always held a great respect and admiration (and most of them were within the Reformed–i.e., Calvinist–tradition).My problem is more with the culture of fundamentalism, which grew out of the fundamentalist fight against modernism (aka German theological liberalism) and fundamentalism’s hostile position toward culture. Early fundamentalist preachers condemned everything that went on in the old west saloons: gambling, drinking, prostitution, vaudville, smoking (and chew), etc. By the time I was a teenager, those old strictures were still in force and were applied to any sort of card-playing, all drinking, dancing, movies, and in some quarters even other activities in popular culture such as sports events. Of course rock-n-roll was soundly condemned.I am not fundamentalist for several reasons, but, briefly, I am opposed to one community of Christians determining what is right and wrong for all communities of Christians. I am not thinking of clear biblical teaching, but of issues like those Paul addressed in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 & 9eating meat, Sabbath days, drinking wine, etc. Fundamentalists do not often admit that they speak only for themselves, but give the impression that anyone who disagrees with them, no matter how biblically centered their lives, is most likely, if not absolutely certainly, going to hell.Believe it or not, thats my short explanation.Dispensationalism is a lens through which people look at Scripture and a method for interpreting Scripture. I think we should, as far as possible, put away all lenses when reading the Bible and let it speak for itself. There are verses from Old Testament prophets that dispensationalists say apply to the return of Christ, whereas in the context of the prophets had a specific event in mind that occurred within their own time. It is absolutely clear, reading the minor prophets (like Joel) that the day of the LORD is not one specific day at the end of time, but that there have been many such days of judgment in biblical history. I do not use Dispensationalism as a grid through which I interpret the Scripture. But I have no grievance with those who do (however, they tend to have grievance with me).Anti-intellectualism does not mean a person is opposed to being intellectual (or using their brain), and there have been brilliant anti-intellectualists. But in conservative Christendom, anti-intellectualism is the position of saying something like, All we need in order to know God is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. To read anything else is likely to taint your understanding of Gods Word.I have spoken with Pentecostals who refused to read Francis Schaeffer because he wasnt Pentecostal.Now is Christianity so fragile, our minds so weak, our discernment so poor, Gods truth so vulnerable that reading a variety of works by a variety of authors is in some way going to jeopardize our faith? If I had stuck to the community of faith from my childhood, I would have never read Calvins Institutes. But I have heard people say, You dont want to read them theologians; they dont have the Holy Ghost.Primitivism is the rejection of church history from the end of the book of Acts to the present. Or to say it another way, it is the belief that only in the book of Acts do we find the design for the true church and that everything that happened from that time to the Reformation (or from that time to Dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, or the present) was so twisted that it holds no value for believers today.It also consists in a repudiation of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. A lot of the Protestant antagonism against the RC and Orthdox churches has been fueld by Alexander Hislops THE TWO BABYLONS, in which he invented Babylonian rituals and non-historical relationships between paganism and the Roman Catholic church. Unfortunately, few Christians who have read Hislop realize the erroneous nature of his work; the same way that many skin heads dont realize that the antisemetic work, The Protocals of the Elders of Zion is all hogwash.Calvin and Luther were both great fans of Augustine. They also quote freely from other church fathers. Luther obviously felt the church was in need of reform, but he by no means repudiated all of church history nor the churchs doctrines or rituals. Though the Reformers called into question the edicts and decrees of councils and Popes, and stressed the Scripture as the final authority, they still embraced the conclusions of the historic church regarding the nature of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.And here I must bring my comments on these things to a close for now.Baby D. Well, first I have to admit Ive never read the Calvary Distinctives, so Im not up to date on the Moses model. I have studied arguments for different forms of church government and I have some rather fluid ideas about that. But heres a surprise: I have on a number of occasions been in church membership meetings at Calvary Chapel of Costa Mecca, which were publically announced (in accordance with the by-laws of their non-profit corporation) and in which important decisions that had been put to the board of directors (including major purchases and the voting in of new board members) for a church vote. These proceedings took place in the church sanctuary and were attended by as many as 2,000 people. Any CC that has adopted the by-laws of CCCM have the same terms of congregational procedure. However, not everyone reads or follows the by-lays.Another surprise: even churches that with congregational governments and strict rules of accountability have egregious examples of financial and sexual misconduct. The same is true of presbyterian forms of government. In fact, there has not been, in the history of the church, a from of church government that has protected believers from being deceived, abused, swindled, and exploited, nor kept the leaders above reproach. The bottom line is that integrity resides in the hearts of individuals. Or it doesnt.Now here is something you can debate with me (if not with anything else Ive said already): I think Evangelicals should stop putting so much emphasis on doctrine (Im not saying exclude it, but give it less emphasis than we do now) and focus instead on teaching Christian character (my emphasis). What good is it if a woman from our churches can out-argue a New Ager at the car wash if she demonstrates nothing of the person of Christ in her life? The people in our culture who hate the Christian religion, do not hate it for its doctrines, but for its representatives. They dont care what we believe, they want to know if Christianity makes us good people. The reason we dont win more of them to faith is not because were crippled by false doctrine, but because we do not live according to Jesus new commandment or the two greatest commandments, on which he said all the law and prophets hang.
Oh no!
Ive gotta rush . . .chuck

chuck, the jr. says:Added on May 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pm -
Hey all!
Lamp, beautiful prayer, and there is no way you can know how appropriate it is for today and my reading in Scripture this morning. Thank you.As for doctrine and character. My concern is not that we de-emphasize the role of doctrine in our understanding of God and his self-revelation in Scripture and Christ, but that we not make it the supreme concern of our Christian experience or spiritual growth. I guess I can ask the question this way: Do we love Jesus or our doctrine of Jesus? A too great an emphasis on doctrine can lead us into the futility of searching the Scripture because we think that in them we have eternal life, but they tell us about Jesus, to whom we do not come so that he can give us life.To grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior is more than improving our ideas about God. Spiritual growth is the development of the life of Jesus within us and transformation by the Spirit into his image. This kind of knowledge is not purely intellectual nor can it be mastered with a bright mind and rational methodology. If that were the case, then the things of the Spirit of God would not be incomprehensible to a natural man and we would not need the Spirit of wisdom and revelation to know Jesus.I am concerned here (as opposed to other places where I am concerned with doctrine) with the kind of knowing that is tied to lived experience and not merely intellectual reflection like one would expect from a detached observer.To say it as simply as possible, James urged us to be doers and not just hearers of the Word. In his John 13 foot-washing lesson, Jesus gave a benediction, not for knowing the things he was demonstrating and teaching, but for doing them.As you most likely know already, the same Greek word is translated doctrine and teaching. Doctrine, to me, seems to have a more ossified character, whereas teaching is dynamic. Whats the difference? The difference is not that teaching is more flexible (I do not think that is the case with the apostles teaching), but that teaching stresses communication and implies application. Doctrine may be memorized to pass a test, complete a catechism class, or prepare for the next debate. It can fall into the repository of the sort of stored knowledge that puffs up.Doctrine, as the formulation of truths revealed in Scripture is vital for believers. After all, we want to know the true Jesus and not another Jesus, of which Paul warned believers. Now I do not know that the best way to learn doctrine is to sit down and read a list of doctrines that have been deduced from Scripture or a book of biblical doctrines. I prefer to learn doctrine reading and studying the Scripture again and again. To say it another way, I prefer to study the teaching of Scripture by reading the teaching of Scripture. However, I do read the doctrines formulated by others in order to test my own understanding of Scipture.I heard an Evangelical theologian once ask, How much information does a person need in order to be saved?Well, it isnt information that saves a person. Sam K. said, Who Christ is and what he has accomplished is doctrine. Well, yes, but it is not the doctrine (i.e., the statement or the articulated belief) that is most important, but the historical fact of Jesus life, death, burial, resurrection, acension, ongoing intercession, and so on that provides salvation. And a person can believe the doctrine (even fear and tremble), but not be transformed by it. Creeds are meant to embody the truth that saves, but the creeds themselves to not save.And my concern is that people who get carried away with doctrine tend to become doctrinary (requiring everyone else to see the truth in exactly the same way they see it and condemning those who do not).We want to know the true Jesus. We find in the gospels that Jesus is both the Son of Man and Son of God. This revelation is apparently central to the gospel itself, because when Paul begins to lay out the gospel in Romans, he begins by noting that Jesus is descended from David according to the flesh (Son of Man), but declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit.So what I discern from this New Testament teaching, would indicate two natures; one human and the other divine. Now I can learn the term Incarnation or not, but what is important is that I appreciate the fact of Christs two natures and what the New Testament makes of it regarding his role as mediator, substitutionary death, and so on.Please forgive me for taking so long to develop my point, but I dont want to give the impression that I am naive about doctrine or its role in Christian faith.Now what do you suppose about HOW the two natures exist in one person? Do those natures fuse together or do they exist separately from one another? If we decide that the answer to this question is really critical, then we find it is also easy to err to one side or the other. For example, the Nestorians believed that the two natures were separate, and that there were actually two persons: Jesus (Son of Man) was indwelt by the Logos (Son of God). The Nestorians were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (causing a major church split in the east). But when one looks at the doctrine embraced by the Assyrian Church (which speaks of essences rather than persons), it doesnt look all that different from what later came to be official church doctrine in the west. Anyway, the Council determined that Jesus was truly one person, regardless of the two natures.So we have resolved the problem, right? Not quite. One of the opponents of Nestorius was Eutyches who was so opposed to the two persons doctrine that he argued the two natures of Jesus were fused somehow within this one person. His position became known as monophysitism. Because he was opposed by several bishops, another assembly was convened in Ephesus, in which monophysitism (or the one nature doctrine) was accepted as orthodox. But it turns out that they were wrong, as determined at the Council of Chalcedon, where Eutyches doctrine was branded as heretical and it was determined that the two natures existed within Jesus without being mixed or comingled.Does this mean that the people whose view of Christ is that his two natures somehow fuse are in such serious error that they have embraced another Jesus and are therefore without salvation? And what of those who have never even asked themselves the question whether Jesus two natures are mixed or not? Are they less orthodox or unsaved for not knowing? And what about Protestants, like Martin Luther, who said, I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other? Does this mean that Protestants have to hammer out all of these doctrinal issues all over again? And once we have cleared up the issue of the hypostatic union of Jesus two natures, we have only scratched the surface of one member of the Trinity (which is another doctrine we also must reestablish if we dont accept church councils).If we do accept church councils, are we allowed to pick and choose which ones we accept? What about the church council that gave the final word on the use of icons in churches? (And the fact that the earlier 754 council and rejection of icons was based on the fact that the only authentic representation of Jesus was the bread and wine of Eucharist, which they took to be the real body and blood of Jesus?) Do you reject icons with the iconoclasts based on their doctrine of Transubstantiation?And thus we descend into the rabbit hole. Eventually you come to the place where the pursuit of the purest possible doctrine (like blogging) will leave you no time for real life. But more seriously, you are left with no affection or compassion for those who disagree with you or hold different opinions. (Even such a devout theologian as John Calvin could prove to be overly harsh with those who held to views different from his own, as in the case of Servetus.)Whatever else we know about the Christian life, we know that we no longer live for ourselves. We are bound to love God above all else, to deny ourselves and follow Jesus, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to put others in the church before ourselves, and to live as witnesses to the risen, living Christ in the world.My concern is this: How can we be most effective in our role of salt of the earth and light in the world? I try to keep in mind that the light, according to Jesus, is “your good works,” which have nothing to do with works righteousness, because the issue here is witness and not salvation. So what is effective? What shows people the love of God? For myself, I find that I am more receptive to being loved than being corrected, and that if I am corrected I am more apt to receive it if given in love than smugness or contempt. To the degree that my doctrine makes me more loving toward God and my neighbor, it is serving the purpose God intends for his commandments, for the end (telos, aim or goal) our faith is the salvation of souls.I know we need to test our experience of God by our doctrine, but have we paid attention to theologians (like Lutheran scholar Paul Hoon) who tell us to test our doctrine by experience, because if you cant live it, theres something wrong with it?On other notes: lets rethink what we mean by social gospel, because it became one of the buzz words of early fundamentalists to label modernists or liberals. What I remember from my childhood is that there were Christians who carried no concern for the starving, the homeless, the refugees, the victims of natural disasters or physical epidemics and so on. Given that Jesus was moved by compassion for people who had not eaten for only three days and that a great deal of his ministry was a response to human need, I have never understood the callous attitude of Christians who believed their only duty was to save souls. Pure religion, according to James, consists of doing the very thing the Bible tells us to do from the torah, through the prophets, and into the New Testament care for the orphans and widows, the strangers and the poor, the powerless and voiceless. Or, in the words of Jesus, the least of these his brothers (who may be sick or in prison or without a home or clothing).I could understand why a relative (by marriage) who was in Religious Science did not give a thought to people in pain, and that was because according to their beliefs, people in pain have brought it on themselves (by their negative thinking). Jesus, however, gave less concern to how a person came to be in his condition than he did with the condition and the fact that the person needed his touch.Regarding the Alnors, I doubt that they are sociopaths. I dont know them and I imagine them to be well-meaning in what they are doing.I dont want to say too much about the sociopaths I had in mind, because I hate riling them up. One of them was asked to leave our church because he refused counsel and restoration to fellowship after a serious moral lapse that had been brought to our attention. He then decided we were in the wrong and to my knowledge has not repented of he had done. But the danger he poses to others goes beyond that particular incident.I am only guessing that the Alnors have been influenced by the Dave Hunt type of apologetics and therefore take issue with what they have perceived in our church as a turn toward Catholicism or the emergent camp. But, in my humble opinion, their perception of CBC and myself is myopic. I suppose that is why they cut most of the biblical quotations out of my sermon they transcribed and posted on their site. There is so much more to our ministry than having speakers like Ron Martoia and Barry Taylor (no one reported on their site the fact that Pancho Juarez spoke at CBC last year), and there is more to our church than the icons thatlike the variety of artworks we displayhung for a season in our Sanctuary.And for whoever cares, it was neither a Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholic who suggested I sign the cross when giving the benediction at the end of our service, but an Episcopalian and a professor at Trinity Law School, which was founded by John Warwick Montgomery, Harold Lindsell, and Walter Martin (for heavens sake!).
Pax,chuck

Ok so satire day is over

Well Chuck Smith and Chuck Smith JR have been a hot topic lately.
Some unfortunate souls have still not figured out what the Emergent Church is all about.
I just posted a comment from Shelly who came up with some interesting information on a conversation with Chuck Smith JR on the Emergent website Skinny Kiwi.
Here is the entire conversation it is very interesting.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/05/the_chuck_smith.html#c17664609

Now I do not believe that the Emergent Church would not spread mis-information just to get Christians who believe the Bible chasing their tales.
So procede with caution and we will see what comes out of this.

Friday will now be satire day.

We discuss some very serious issues that affect the Body of Christ here at Simply Agape.
But it is good to laugh sometime.
And Ive been laughing all morning so I thought I'd share the love.
Here's another funny link.
Who ever thought Calvinists have a sense of humor?
Accessorize Me from those wild and wacky folks at Purgatorio.
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=395

You might be Emerging if...

This post is dedicated to Wade , Claude, Larry and all my old pals at First Baptist Church in downtown Modesto.
Who are probably still not sure if their youth pastor Scott Ramsey is Emergent or not.
Hope this helps
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=105

Who let the dawgs out.

I do love those guys over at Fide-o. From posting pictures of Richie Abanes in his little silver suit (don we now our gay apparel fa la la la la) to posting hard hitting articles on music.
Check this latest post out.
http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2006/05/would-christian-music-industry-survive.html#links

A picture is worth a thousand words

Beam me up Scotty
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=338

Chuck Smith-Beth Moore and "Where do you Stand"

Many years ago Martin Luthor took a stand for what he believed was right.
Now Chuck Smith takes a stand seemingly against the Emergent Church here-
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/CCSpecialReport.htm
I think its a great first move but we need to be careful and see where this goes.
My prayers are that Chuck will stand firm on his statement.
But I cant help think about Beth Moore and her less than honest statement posted on Slice of Laodicea here-
My Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Recently I was interviewed for a program on prayer in which I was asked certain questions without any knowledge of what other participants would say or share. Since its release, I've been baffled by some inquiries into whether or not I am a proponent of approaches to prayer with overtones of Eastern meditation. Not only is my answer no, the thought never even occurred to me. I'm a Southern Baptist, for crying out loud! I'm afraid I have to convey the full extent of my ignorance when I tell you with stark honesty that I wasn't even aware of the controversy. I am not involved in any kind of emergent church movement or any kind of mystical prayer movement. Seeing people come to know Christ Jesus through the study of His Word is the only movement I'm part of. I thought I was simply one of a number of people who were being interviewed about approaches to prayer. I also thought that our different approaches would be part of what made the program interesting. In no way did it ever occur to me that each participant would be seen as part of the same movement.
I was told that I was asked to participate because I'd written Praying God's Word. I'm not sure you'd find anything further from a mystical, almost out-of-body prayer experience I'm being asked if I support. If I have participated in something unsound, it was hugely accidental and I ask your forgiveness. Nothing could be further from my desire. I have shared platforms with other speakers and teachers a number of times. My frustration is that any of us would be at a loss to take responsibility for every point of doctrine the others hold. I humble myself before you and ask that you would please hold me responsible for my words and answers only and, even then, please keep in mind that editors can use bits and pieces of interviews to convey something the interviewee might not have intended to say. Here's what I intended to say: pray, pray, and pray some more and learn how to listen for God's response.
Rest assured I have been greatly helped by this experience and will be more careful in the future. Thank you not only for your concern but for the accountability. I want very much to be a solid servant of God and His Word. I want to keep growing in Christ. In that process, I am more than willing to receive sound correction. I am honored to serve you.
In Christ's Name,
Beth Moore

Beths statement here never made it to her website.
Ive never seen any effort from Beth to withdraw from the Be Still Project.
And (wait let me pull the hook out of my mouth)-Umm better.
To this date I have never heard Beth speak out against Emergent or contemplative prayer.
Beth is pro-Catholic and hangs with the Word Faith crowd.
That to me says a lot.
So much around this Emergent Church movement seems to be weaved in lies, deceit and coverup.
If Emergent is so good why cover it up?
The church I went to before taught Emergent church rituals and when I confronted the leadership with the facts they merely denied involvement, covered it up and changed the names of the rituals around.
They are still promoting Emergent and contemplative its just packaged different.

So where do you stand?
I think we should take a wait and see stance with Chuck Smith.
We already know Beth Moore just wants to play to the crowd.
Lets be careful.

Article by Paul Proctor-THE NEW JESUS AND A LOVE CALLED TOLERANCE

Older article by Paul but a must read for the discerning Christian during this time of the great falling away.

http://www.newswithviews.com/religion/religion13.htm

What To Do About The False Teacher, Prophet or Anti-Christ Next Door:

New article by Cassandrah Batya-
I would highly suggest you read this its very good.
http://achristianjourney.blogs.com/achristianjourney/2006/04/what_to_do_abou.html

MEGACHURCH ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

"MEGACHURCH ASSOCIATION of AMERICA"-by Frank Chase.
Megachurch Association of America,
1950 Slippery Slope Drive,
Bald Tyre, California 92630.

Dear Saints,We, the leaders of the modern phenomenon known as the churchgrowth movement or megachurch movement, wish to correspondwith the leaders of the past, namely the Old Testament prophets,Jesus Christ, the apostles, the reformers and the revivalists, aboutsome differences between your methods and ours that are becomingincreasingly apparent. We cannot help but acknowledge that you did a commendable job in advancing our heavenly Father’s Kingdom.We are especially inclined to admire your accomplishments giventhat you labored under such difficult circumstances and without the knowledge of our modern methods. How you built such greatand enduring walls for the King without the contemporary strawand mortar that we find so helpful is a puzzling mystery to us.

Our motivation in writing to you is twofold. First, we would like to obtain your official blessing on our new methods. We are sure that you already approve of them and perhaps are envious of our great success as you sit in glory watching us reap a tremendous harvest for the Kingdom of God. However, we feel that an official sanction from the leaders of the past is warranted. Second, we have spent many months examining your methods, and we feel that in light ofour modern advances a few of the numerous mistakes and errors that you unfortunately fell into must be pointed out.

We do not consider ourselves superior to you. It is only by our methodology that we have surpassed you older saints. By the providence of God, we were born on the cusp of this progressive and superior methodology. While we greatly respect the methods employed 2000 years ago by our Savior, Jesus Christ, we flatly reject the use of His methods in today’s culture. We desire our ministries to glorify Jesus, not necessarily by following His example or by using His methods, but, instead, by reaping a large harvest for Him using our contemporary methods. Our hearts overflow with thanks to God who has graciously shown us a better way to live and minister in these turbulent times.

It cannot be denied that ours is an important movement in the annals of church history. In 1970 there were only 10 megachurchesin America. Today there are over 800 such churches. Last yearbrother Bill Hybels in Illinois had over 100,000 church leaders attending his church growth seminars while brother Rick Warren(of Purpose-Driven Life fame) had 250,000 leaders attend his seminars. Please note also that our dear brother Joel Osteen at Lakewood Church in Texas is soon projected to have 30,000 in weekly church attendance.

We have managed to grow our churches aggressively, by the grace of God, in an era of declining church interest and blossoming secularization. We could not have achieved such success without much help from those who came immediately before us. More about them will be discussed later.

Our movement has been dubbed “the seeker-friendly movement.”This title sums up our criticism of the ministries of all those towhom this letter is addressed.

As we read the Bible looking for corroboration of our methods, wehave to conclude that God is doing a new thing among us. One of our brothers the “Pastor of Greater Arts” in Rick Warren’s megachurch, was recently quoted in a newspaper saying, “Don’t forget, Christ used user-friendly language. He spoke to his followers in parables” (The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 30, 2003). We thought this idea might serve as some type of Biblical precedent for our approach of broad appeal and inclusivity. Then someonepointed out that in the 13th chapter of Matthew, Jesus stated that the reason He spoke in parables was so that people might hearHim, yet not understand Him. This idea sent our search for Biblicaljustification back to square one. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no Biblical precedent for what we are doing. Nevertheless,we know that our methods are right, and we will boldly let our rising numbers speak for themselves. Hence, pragmatism remains our chief principle: if it appears to work, it must be right.

It is evident to us that in today’s culture your archaic methodscould never produce the results that we have achieved. We cannotbear the thought of proclaiming to this generation words such as

the following spoken by Isaiah:"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient,ye shall eat of the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword." (Is 1:18–20)The above verses violate another one of our key principles: we never imply that someone is guilty of sin. After all, it is the Holy Ghost’s job to bring about conviction of sin. Since the Holy Ghost convicts of sin so rarely in our churches, it would be highly presumptuous for us to take upon ourselves this role.

We have uncovered many of our guiding principles through the use of modern marketing techniques that have confirmed that unchurched people and backsliders are offended at direct and plain speech such as Isaiah’s above.

God’s ministers must not make anyone feel uncomfortable. We want people to have fun in church. We do not want the atmosphere to be unfriendly or offensive. Neither doctrines nor Biblical standards have ever saved anyone, but church involvement has led many people to the Lord for salvation. We have, therefore, made the wise decision to sacrifice the better for the best in doing away with all doctrines or Biblical standards that would seem to inhibit church growth.

For example, take the Biblical view of the self. The Bible teaches that we should esteem others as better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3).You men of old, whether from Bible times or from later centuries,uniformly thought of yourselves as mere dust before an infinite andholy God. The modern theory of self-esteem, which has become highly popular in the church over the past 40 years, has no place in Scripture. Neither is there any evidence in church history of such a notion. Yet the idea that one must have a positive self-image in order to be happy and healthy has so permeated the church that one would be considered mad if he were to question it.Even though this idea has no basis in Scripture, no basis in churchhistory, and you men of old believed the exact opposite of this modern doctrine, we gladly embrace it since the notion of positive self-esteem has such power to attract people to our churches.How repulsive to the unchurched would Ezekiel’s words be today “Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings thatwere not good, and shall clothe yourselves in your own sight foryour iniquities and for your abominations” (Ezek. 32:31)?

As you can see, we are committed to removing anything from thechurch that has the potential to injure a sinner’s self-esteem. Ourbeloved brother, Robert Schuller, who served as a keynote speakerat the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) last year andwho was a pioneer in helping develop our philosophy of ministry,has represented our position well when he said, “I don’t thinkanything has been done in the name of Christ and under thebanner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to humanpersonality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelismenterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategyof attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinfulcondition” (Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1984).

In addition to removing anything offensive, we have added numerous things to the life of the church that are very attractive to the carnal mind of the lost. A notable newspaper summarized our approach with the following:

"Gone are traditional religious dogmas, rituals, and symbols,replaced by uplifting songs and sermons. Congregants are taught that — through God — they are victors, not victims. The messages are encouraging and easy to swallow, and no one is called a sinner. It’s ‘Jesus meets the power of positive thinking’ …There’s none of that old-time religion; none of that hell-and-damnation, fire-and-brimstone preaching … The idea is to be inclusive and inoffensive … Pastor Joel Osteen’s sermon [was]given like a motivational speech … There’s no talk of controversial subjects, such as abortion or homosexuality … [The mega churches] have more of a rock concert feel … Organs have been replaced by electric guitars, hymns with rock-and-roll tunes.No where is there a cross or a candle, and the language is contemporary, with not a ‘thee’ or a ‘thou’ … Worked into a frenzy by the 10 piece [rock] band and 300-member choir, dozens ofslick music videos and, yes, the wave, congregants were enraptured." (The Christian ScienceMonitor, Dec. 30, 2003)

Compare the above description to accounts of Jonathan Edwards’infamous and shameful sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an AngryGod.” We cannot countenance such preaching as this,
"The devils watch them [the unchurched]; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls.The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost … The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow atyour heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.

"Under Edwards’ despicable, old-style preaching scores of people were smitten by a glimpse of their lost and sinful condition to thepoint of utter brokenness manifested by much weeping and wailing.How this must have wrecked the congregants’ self-esteem, which,undoubtedly, was already made fragile by his frequent use of negative language. We are certain that Edwards often spoke of human depravity, hell, the dangers of sin, the necessity of repentance, and other such topics that have no place in our messages. We are also certain that he never would have allowed his congregants to perform “the wave” in church. Perhaps this is one of the reasons his parishioners fired him. He was forced to move his family to the wilderness village of Stockbridge,Massachusetts, to pastor a congregation made up mainly of poor Indians. As you can see, Edwards’ approach was certainly wrong.We find that the converse of our chief principle is also true; if it appears not to work, it must be wrong. Oh, what a triumph God is working through us over the archaic methods of yesterday!A striking difference between us and the Apostle Paul is his seeming indifference to numerical success. He seemed content to focus his ministry on building a pure bride, even if numerically small. This evidently required that Paul have the battlefield mindsetof a soldier, which is much different than our own mindset. We dislike the fact that he was always fighting and contending. A variety of verbs are used to describe the ministries of Paul and his associates in the book of Acts. They were ubiquitously found disputing against, reasoning with, speaking boldly to, preaching to,persuading, exhorting, declaring, and warning their hearers. We believe that this kept them from entering into peace and rest such as we have. We believe that by not fighting with the world, we have discovered the green pastures and still waters about which theLord spoke in the Psalms. It is not surprising to us that Paul’s polemical ministry caused him to spend a great deal of time in prison. Perhaps God was trying to speak to him there about changing his methods.


We could write for many more pages about the deficiencies ofthose who ministered before AD 1950. Certainly the reformers such as Tyndale and Luther were wrong in their approach in the1500s. John Bunyan was obviously off track since his dogmatism caused him to be locked up in the Bedford jail for over a decade inthe 1600s. We condemn the offensive manner in which the likes of George Whitefield, John Wesley, and scores of other fanatics preached repentance in the open air to the unchurched in the1700s. Perhaps the worst example of such old-style fanaticism was exhibited by William and Catherine Booth, the founders of the Salvation Army, in the 1800s. It gives us pangs of nausea when we contemplate the shameful and embarrassing tactics that those here listed used in the name of our mild-mannered and gentle Jesus.

By looking at a description of Whitefield’s preaching. it is plain to see the unchristian tone of his sermons. Bishop J.C. Ryle said that Whitefield was “perpetually telling you about your sins, yourheart, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the absolute need of repentance, faith, holiness …” (Christian Leaders of the 18thCentury, by J.C. Ryle, p. 51). Let us look at another example.Note the profusion of negative language in this excerpt from a JohnWesley sermon:

"Thou ungodly one who hearest these words, thou vile, helpless,miserable sinner, I charge thee before God, the judge of all, go straight unto Jesus with all thy ungodliness … Go as altogether ungodly, guilty, lost, destroyed deserving and dropping into hell …Plead thou singly the blood of the covenant, the ransom paid forthy proud, stubborn, sinful soul." (Christian Leaders of the 18thCentury, by J.C. Ryle, p. 93)

And what were the effects of these unchristian methods on the hearers? We could demonstrate our point using numerousexamples from the lives of the men listed above, but let us look a tone account from the journal of George Whitefield:

"Most were drowned in tears. The Word was sharper than a two-edged sword. The bitter cries and groans were enough to piercethe hardest heart. Some of the people were as pale as death;others were wringing their hands; others lying on the ground;others sinking into the arms of friends; and most lifting up theireyes to Heaven and crying to God for mercy." (George Whitefield,Vol. 1 by Arnold Dallimore, p. 487)
The damage done to the hearers, particularly to any unchurched people that might have been present, can be clearly seen inWhitefield’s own account... robbed of their self-esteem.

With such deleterious effects as these, it is no wonder that Luther,Tyndale, Bunyan, Booth, the early Methodists, and many others were so bitterly opposed by the more mature and pragmatic church leaders of their day.-----------------------------

One of the best Rick Warren articles ever written

Hey Ive read them all, but this is one of the best yet written on the guru of the Great Falling Away -Slick Rick Warren
Read on true believers-
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/James/Rick-global-peace-plan.html

The Great Falling Away

Read this article its very interesting. Now Im not against contemporary music or even dancing. But theres a time and a place.
Do we really even fear or have any reverance toward God anymore.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2635/1529/new.style.of.worship.brings.new.spirit.to.mainline.church/1.htm3

2 Thess 2:3
Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin[a] is revealed, the son of perdition,

2Thess 2:11-12
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Great new article by Jason Carlson

For those of you who think there is little difference between Christians and Catholics please read the following article.
I was raised Catholic and have nothing against Catholics. But the Catholic church teaches a different Jesus.
Here is the article-

By Jason Carlson Posted: 05/15/2006
Vatican and World Council of Churches to create a code of conduct for evangelism
By Jason Carlson


On Wednesday May 10th The Associated Press released the following story, Vatican, churches work on conversion plan.[i] The story, by AP religion writer Brian Murphy, states that the Vatican and the World Council of Churches are partnering to create a code of conduct which would apply to Christian evangelistic efforts aimed at converting people from other faiths. Murphy reports, Envoys from the Vaticans office on inter-religious dialogue and the Geneva-based WCC- which includes more than 350 mainline Protestant, Orthodox and related churches- are scheduled to open a four-day conference Friday near Rome to sketch out the broad outlines toward an eventual code of conduct on Christian conversions. The document could take at least three years to research and draft.

Rev. Hans Ucko, who is the head of the inter-religious relations office for the World Council of Churches told Murphy that the goal of the conference is to explore the dos and donts of trying to spread Christianity among other faiths. This is complex moral and ethical territory. We want to open up a space to talk about this with other faiths, Ucko said. What are the limits on seeking new Christians? To assist them in formulating this code of conduct on evangelism, the Vatican and the World Council of Churches have invited members of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim religions to participate in the conference.

According to Murphy, the biggest challenge the conference organizers will face in their effort to implement this code of conduct is the fact that no Pentecostal or Evangelical groups will be taking part; and these two groups are the most fervent evangelistically and make up the fastest growing segment of Christianity. However, Murphy reports that Rev. Ucko hopes that contacts can be made with these most zealous groups to try to find a common voice

As I read this story this past week numerous thoughts and questions ran through my mind: How sad it is that the Catholic church has strayed so far from Scripture that they are now willing to set limits on Christs Great Commission. How has Liberalism, Pluralism and Postmodern tolerance so blinded the World Council of Churches and the 500 million Christians it represents worldwide? I wonder what Stephen, Peter, Paul, or the countless other martyred evangelists of whom the world was not worthy (Hebrews 11: 38) would have to say about exploring the dos and donts of trying to spread the gospel?

This story is so tragic on so many levels, but sadly, its not surprising. What were seeing with the Vatican and the World Council of Churches here is nothing more than the logical fruit of abandoning the absolute authority of Scripture. We are literally seeing the fulfillment of Pauls warnings to Timothy unfolding before our very eyes as the Vatican and WCC no longer put up with sound doctrine, but instead turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4). In this case the myth is Post-modern religious pluralism.

This is the only explanation I can see for this move by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. Their goal of creating a code of conduct, a list of dos and dont for evangelism, demonstrates that they have totally strayed from accepting the clear testimony of Scripture, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) and that there truly is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Instead of accepting these truths they have rejected them in favor of the false notion of religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is the anti-Christian position that says Jesus is not unique, he is not the only truth, and he is not the only way to salvation. And those who disagree with this position, those who take the Bibles directives for evangelism seriously for example, are intolerant, narrow minded, fundamentalist bigots. Can there be any other explanation for why the Vatican or WCC would pursue this venture of creating an evangelistic code of conduct inoffensive to other faiths?

Whether they admit it or not, the Vatican and the World Council of Churches are now full-fledged Postmodern religious pluralists who apparently do not believe that Jesus is the only hope for humanity. If this were not the case, there would be no justification for pursuing this anti-biblical code of conduct for evangelism. For if you take the Bible seriously and accept its revelation that humanity is lost in sin and desperately needs a savior, that savior being Jesus Christ alone, you would do nothing to hinder the biblical pattern of spreading this message. What the Vatican and Rev. Ucko fail to understand, or at least accept, is that the Bible knows nothing of setting limits on seeking new Christians. To the contrary, Gods word forthrightly admonishes the faithful to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) and to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3) and to preach the word (2 Timothy 4:2) and to not be ashamed to testify about our Lord (2 Timothy 1:8).

Rev. Ucko and the Vatican say that the idea of Christians evangelizing people of other faiths is complex moral and ethical territory. No its not! Theres nothing complex about it. Its a simple matter of recognizing that the Bible tells us that when it comes to the human race there are only two kinds of people: there are lost sinners and there are saved sinners (1 John 5:12). Thats not too complex. We dont need a code of conduct for inoffensive evangelism, we dont need a list of dos and donts, we need to take Gods word seriously and we need to develop a Christ-like heart for the lost that compels us to take the gospel into a world running headlong into an eternity in Hell. We need to share the passion of Paul who declared, I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (Romans 1:16). That doesnt sound to me like a guy who wondered if there were limits on seeking new Christians!

In times like these when the lines are being so clearly drawn, I think it would be fitting to close this article with the words of Joshua, that great leader of ancient Israel, But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15).


[i]http://www.beliefnet.com/story/191/story_19103_1.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001308.html



Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

New article by Brian Flynn-Mystics Misuse of Scripture

Brian wrote a very good book that you can purchase here-http://www.lighthousetrails.com/runningagainstthewind.htm
It is very good and I recomend you purchase it.

By Brian Flynn Posted: 05/13/2006
Mystics Misuse of Scripture
Why contemplative prayer has no biblical support

One of the criticisms I often receive is that my opinion on contemplative spirituality is invalid because I am a former New Ager. The critique goes something like this: Flynn's experience with New Age practices has so colored his view that he cannot objectively weigh Christian contemplative prayer. Because of his background, anything that looks similar to his former practices he assumes must originate with non-Christian sources (eg. Hinduism). Therefore, my perspective is suspect and unworthy of consideration. That would be a legitimate critique if my opinion was solely based on my past experience with eastern forms of meditation, but it is not.

It was that very experience as a former New Ager which helped me recognize that contemplative prayer was simply transcendental meditation disguised as a Christian practice. The description and practice of contemplative prayer raised red flags immediately. However, in order to confirm my suspicions I did something too many supporters of contemplative spirituality are unwilling to do, I sought the Scriptures for guidance.

In my effort to really know the mind and will of God regarding the New Age and now contemplative, I have spent countless hours reading New Age authors who have manipulated Scripture for their own means. They often quote from the Bible out of context because the actual meaning of the verses they use wouldn't serve their purposes. I have scoured commentaries and sought the meaning of different verses by going back to the original Greek or Hebrew translations. When I applied the same criteria to Christian mystics, I found they were guilty of the same deceptions.

Listen to how Richard Foster has taken the word silence and twisted Scripture to fit his spirituality: "Progress in intimacy with God means progress toward silence. "For God alone my soul waits in silence," declares the Psalmist (Psalm. 62:1).

Does the word silence in this context mean silencing your thoughts? Let me share the context of the version he quotes: "For God alone my soul waits in silence; from Him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation, my defense and my fortress; I shall not be greatly moved." (Amplified Bible)

It is believed that David wrote this either when Saul's son Ish-Bosheth challenged him for the throne or during the time of Absalom's rebellion. In either case, it is clear that during this time of duress he writes about seeking solace in the Lord. He is asking for the Lord to rescue him. He leaned upon the Lord during this time for he knows that God is the Rock, the solid ground of our salvation. This biblical reference has no relation to David silencing his mind.


Psalm 46:10 is another passage often used to defend contemplative prayer, "Be still, and know that I am God." Below is the entire line in context:

He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire. Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth! The LORD of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah. (Psalm 46: 9-11)

Pastor Larry De Bruyn describes the phrase this way:

"Be still" (Hebrew, rapah) is used 46 times in the Old Testament with meanings everywhere from describing laziness to ordering relaxation. Though the majority of versions translate the injunction "Be still", other meanings are "Cease striving " (NASB), "Be quiet" (NCV), "Desist" (Young's), or "Calm down" (CEV). In no biblical usage or context does the Hebrew verb enjoin God's people to meditate or contemplate. Rather, believers are to rest and trust in God.


It is obvious that the phrase "be still" does not mean to still or quiet your mind. It simply means what it says—be patient and know that God is in charge. In other words, don't worry.

In her book, Invitation to Solitude and Silence, Experiencing God's Transforming Presence, Ruth Haley Barton makes a biblical error immediately. She introduces the reader to her underlying theme, which she bases on the story of Elijah's flight from Jezebel where he meets the Lord at Mount Sinai. She references the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by. Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. Then there came a voice to him that said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" (1 Kings 19: 11-13)

When Elijah heard what? A sound of sheer silence? That got him out to the entrance of the cave? This is a poor translation and no other Bible translates the phrase that way.

In the New American Standard Bible it states, "and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing."

In the New King James Version, it states, "And after the fire came a gentle whisper."

In Hebrew the term says, "The tone of a gentle blowing." That is what Elijah heard.
Ms. Barton uses this story to share with her readers that Elijah went to the mountains to seek silence and solitude and to talk to God. However, her misuse of Scripture would suggest either her ignorance or her desperation to prove that the Bible references contemplative prayer, when in fact, it does not.

How could one derive from this story any reference to silencing the mind in order to hear God speak? Who initiated the conversation with Elijah? It was the Lord. The Bible never describes Elijah performing a ritual to get God to speak to him. Rather it was the priests of Baal opposing Elijah who used a ritual of repetition (I Kings 18:26).

Interestingly enough, when I went to hear Father Thomas Keating (a contemporary of Thomas Merton), speak at a local church, he used the same Bible verse as Ms. Barton and the same translation. Do the contemplatives all read from the same Bible translations when it fits their needs?

Keating also proved his ignorance of Scripture by using Matthew 6:6 to support contemplative prayer: "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

He claims that "inner room" means the inner sanctum of your mind. The phrase, inner room in Greek tameion, means "an inner chamber" or simply "inner room." It is certainly not a reference to the internal workings of the mind.

In the prior verse, Matthew 6:5 explains the context of the phrase: "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."

Jesus was describing the practice of prayer, which the Pharisees loved to perform publicly. Rather than making prayer a matter between an individual and God, the Pharisees had turned it into an act to be seen by men again, to demonstrate their supposed righteousness. Their prayers were directed not to God but to other men. Jesus condemned such practices. Prayer should be addressed to your Father, who is unseen and who knows what you need (Matt. 6:8); it is not "to be seen by men."

Sorry Fr. Keating, no secret meaning here.

I could give other examples, but the point is Scripture clearly offers no support or description for contemplative prayer, and the contemplatives know it. By taking Scripture out of context, it is an admission on their part that the support for contemplative prayer does not exist. If contemplative prayer was scriptural, it would be described in such a fashion as to make no mistake about it. It isn't.
While it is absolutely certain no reference can be found anywhere in Scripture that supports the practice of mantra-style meditation (i.e., contemplative prayer), there is a reference that actually condemns it, and it is Jesus Christ who says it:

And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. (Matthew 6:7-8)

In order to really understand what Jesus meant when He said, "vain repetitions," let's take a look at the Greek language. The Greek meaning for "vain" is futile, folly, and fruitless. Many translations render the word as "meaningless. In Greek, the word "repetition" means to stammer, stutter, babble, or prattle (like a baby); it suggests the idea of repeating the same words or sounds over and over in a meaningless fashion. It is interesting, and I believe significant, to note how these two words reinforce each other with the idea of meaningless stammering or unmindful repetition of words.

When both of these words are combined, as Jesus intended them to be, they do not condemn our bringing petitions repeatedly to God, but rather they condemn a mindless, meaningless repetition of words or sounds. And yet how many times do we hear the contemplative advocates telling us to do the very thing that Jesus here has told us not to:

I meditated for hours on words, images, and sounds. I reached the point of being able to achieve alpha brain patterns.
Mike Perschon, freelance writer for Youth Specialties

T]he first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer.
Brennan Manning

The third phase of contemplative prayer ... a supernatural trance state.

Charisma magazine

The quiet repetition of a single word can help us to descend with the mind into the heart. Henri Nouwen

Do not reflect on the meaning of the word; thinking and reflecting must cease, as all mystical writers insist. Willigis Jager, German Benedictine and Zen Master

Jesus told us not to use vain repetitions as Richard Foster does; as Henri Nouwen does; as Dallas Willard does; as Thomas Keating does. As all of the contemplatives and the heathen do. I may have been a New Ager once, but I am Bible believing Berean forever!

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Brian McLaren and The Da Vinci Code

Now Ive come to the conclusion because of his various testimony, quotes and books that the leader of the Emergent church Brian McLaren is not a Christian.
Go figure a man voted one of the top 20 evangelical Christian leaders (well ok DR Phil was in there to).
A man who many Christians follow is not in fact a Christian.
someone prove me wrong.
Here is a interview with Brian about The Da Vinci Code.
http://63.134.216.19/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060509

Great article on Christian Music

This is a exceptional article written by Nathanael Blake at Townhall .com

The article is titled-Christ as Commodity
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/NathanaelBlake/2006/05/12/197221.html

New article on The Da Vinci Code

This was sent to me by Bud Press a dear friend of mine.
Funny looks like Rick Warren let my old pal Richie Abanes out of his cage. Richie is a pseudo apologist and unofficial spokesperson for Rick Warren.
The blog world was really getting boring with someone pulling the chock chain on ole Richie.
Im never quite amazed at how many hirelings like Richie and Josh Mcdowell are making the buck on pointing people to go to the movie and then buy their books and materials to make a buck.
Hey why not stay at home and read your Bibles dont waste your money on garbage like The Da Vinci Code movie.


Here is the article with Buds comments as well.
[Source: Christianity Today, May 12, 2006,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2006/003/2.50.html. The Da Vinci Code book and movie denigrates the Lord Jesus Christ, and we're encouraged to "Enjoy the book and the movie as entertainment..."? Do the words compromise behind the deception ring a bell? No doubt that The Da Vinci Code, and similar works in the future, will serve to damage the spiritual welfare of weak-minded Christians. Red print added]

Get Ready for The Da Vinci CodeThe bestselling novel hits the big screen this summer and lots of water-cooler discussions are sure to follow. Here are some pointers for talking to your friends about the confusing religious questions raised by the popular book.By Lisa Ann Cockrel

What do Tom Hanks, Mary Magdalene, and the Mona Lisa all have in common? All three are coming to a theater near you on May 19th.

Tom, Mary, and Mona have prominent roles in what's projected to be the summer's biggest movie The Da Vinci Code. Based on Dan Brown's bestselling book, the story follows Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of religious symbology, and Sophie Nevue, a cryptologist with the French equivalent of the FBI, as they piece together clues to solve a mysterious murder in the Louvre. But it's not long before they land in the middle of an unexpected quest the search for the Holy Grail.

Over 40 million people have read the fast-paced thriller since its 2003 release. But the popularity of the book has concerned many Christians because the characters in words and deeds take aim at central doctrines of the faith and suggest that the church is rife with corruption. And despite the fact that the book is fiction, many readers think The Da Vinci Code is on to something. A poll by the National Geographic Channel in 2005 found that 32 percent of Canadians who've read the book believe that the theories outlined are true particularly that Jesus had a child and his bloodline exists to this day.

Now Oscar-winning director Ron Howard is bringing the story to the big screen with a $125 million budget and an all-star cast that includes Hanks as Robert Langdon. It's expected to draw large crowds. "We live in a very visual society and if it was bad with people believing the book, I think it will be ten times as bad with people believing the movie," says Richard Abanes, religion journalist and author of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code.

But rather than calling for boycotts, many Christians are recognizing that this is a golden opportunity to use a popular movie as a catalyst to talk to their friends and neighbors about Christ. "People are already asking questions about Jesus and Christianity from the book," continues Abanes, "and I think that's going to increase ten-fold as well after the movie. People are going to want to talk after seeing it." And this provides the Christian who has done a bit of homework with a marvelous opportunity to share the true story of Jesus with friends and neighbors.

Remember, there's no need to be defensive and combative in the face of The Da Vinci Code. Enjoy the book and the movie as entertainment and be prepared to discuss it with your acquaintances in a friendly manner. "We have to understand that, out of the gate, we're the ones who look wrong," says Abanes. "And it's our responsibility, as Christians, to learn and then provide the correct information. And to do it in a loving way, with the confidence that comes from knowing the facts are on our side."

With that in mind, scroll down for some "class notes" to help you prep for the movie's release.

Lisa Ann Cockrel is associate editor of Today's Christian Woman, and a regular contributor to ChristianityTodayMovies.com
[END]

Is it time to Home Church?

Several years ago many people for many different reasons started to pull their children out of school and school them at home.
There is good and bad that goes with this.
The intention is often that folks dont want the world and its system to influence their child a large portion of the day.
I think thats a great idea, and if you can convince your child to read their Bibles they will be filled with so much truth through the Holy Spirit that most of the junk will be set at bay.
On the downside Ive seen many abuses of the system including parents who dont teach their children but just try to cram a bunch of info on the child the day before State testing.
The parent often is not home with the child and leaves them unsupervised which is really asking for a whole different kind of trouble.

Anyway this article is not about home schooling but home churching.
I dont know about you folks but I believe that this portion of scripture is being fulfilled even as we speak-

2 Thess 2:3 "Let no one deceive you for the Day will no come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition."

The great falling away is happening and I dont mean people falling away from church but the church falling away from the Truth of God's Word.

Recently I have been attending a church here in Modesto called "Shelter Cove."
The pastor and his wife are sweet and very nice people.
But folks, these days it takes pastors with discernment to help guide a flock.
The past month much to my dismay a man dressed has a Ghostbuster has been entertaining the children. Now again no personal attack on the man dressed as a Ghostbuster he seems like a very nice man but he is deceived.
The Ghostbuster pack on his back is The Holy Bible.

Whatever works is ok.

Is It?

(James 4:4-5 NKJV) Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. {5} Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?

(2 Corinthians 6:14-18 NKJV) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? {15} And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? {16} And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." {17} Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." {18} "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."

These verse are amongst the hardest in the Bible and they are there for a purpose. It is very easy to end up in relationships or alliances that are really counterproductive to our Christian faith. We are heading one way and they are heading another.

Here is part of a email exchange I had with the associate pastor when I expressed my concern with him using a Emergent church tool titled Digital Glass. To set this up- my concern over Digital Glass emerged when First Baptist of Modesto junior high pastor Scott Ramsey introduced the DVD in one of his "Sanctum" meetings that I personally as something "to get our minds ready."
Here is the associates pastors email comments.

"In terms of showing or doing anything "to get our minds ready" I would have to say that this is something that we attempt do at Shelter Cove on a regular basis. Whether it be through song selection, a special solo, a drama, a choral arrangement or some other form of media, this can be a highly effective means for better appreciating God's Word, but as far as meditative practices, visual imagery contemplation, chanting, or other forms of mind altering experiences, I believe they should each be avoided at all costs. I greatly appreciate your concern and watchcare over our congregation and gladly welcome any additional information that could help to preserve what God is desiring to do in our midst. I also appreciate your recent involvement on our platform as a worshipper/drummer. " end of quote

Let me point out that his comments contradict themselves.
Digital Glass is a tool using visual imagery contemplation and attempts to alter the mind.

And with all this use of the worlds methods ,promoted by such apostate men such as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren.

Where is the Holy Spirit in all this?
I have nothing against a large portion of music styles, choral arangements used within a church service but we need to leave it up to the Holy Spirit to move as He will in the congregation to get hearts and minds ready.
We dont need to dim the lights at certain points of the service or use props.
That shows a tremendous lack of trust in what The Holy Spirit can and will do.
He does not need our help to save souls and turn people toward Jesus which is a sovereign move of God anyway.
Our part is to preach the Word and then let the Living Word of God do what it has done for centuries.

Using wordly methods sold to pastors by Willow Creek and Saddleback will produce fleshy fruit.

Weak Christians. Women who dress immodestly. And Im talking about ladies who have been in church for a long time not new Christian. Most unsaved people still think they need to dress nice and modestly when in church. Its the saved Christians who set the bad example.

All this is fruit from using materials sold by Willow Creek and Saddleback.

Are you getting tired out there of having people agree whole heartedly with you and shake their heads up and down and then go do the opposite of how you cautioned them?
I recently had a discussion with the praise team and cautioned about putting on a show.
Recently the singers have began making a entrance on to the stage.
Thats the reason I voiced concern.
(And if you dont know why this is wrong you should not be playing worship music)
Everyone agreed.
The entrance and the show continues to go on.

2Thess 2:11 And for this reason God will send then strong delusion,that they should believe the lie.
The lie is being promoted full bore through guys like Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and their huge networks.
(Bono preaching at Willow Creek its time some of you out there get a clue-quick)

Well is the solution to start Home churching?
Maybe.
Im really not sure because there are some good churches out there that do not endorse apostate methods.
Where they are Im not sure but Ive heard rumors of them being out there.

And as a point of caution read this article.
http://procinwarn.com/housech.htm

Instead of Ghostbusters why not dress up as one of the many Bible heroes we have?
Why mix the world with God which pure and simply is sin and evil.

Unsaved seekers should always feel uncomfortable in the presence of a Holy God.

Biblical methods will not pack your church build bigger buildings or drive pastors and staff salaries upward.

But seeking the Holy Spirit through Gods Word will establish a church grounded on Jesus Christ and fruit that will last.

It may not be as fun as Ghostbusters and throbbing lights.

But its the right thing to do.

Something to think about.

Churchianity vs. The Church

A very good series of articles here -
http://procinwarn.com/question.htm

A fair and balanced article on Calvary Chapel by Scott MacIntyre

A great article by my brother in the Lord -Scott MacIntyre
http://www.woodandsteel.net/calvarydistinctives.htm

Article by Bud Press

My dear brother in the Lord Bud Press sent this to me. Articles by Benny Hinn anymore to shock me but its good to be reminded of what Benny represents and what his track record is.
False prophets do have a ministry.
They separate true believers from the false and unsaved who merely wear a Christian T shirt.

Here is Buds article

An Open Letter to the People of Trinidad
and Tobago concerning Benny Hinn

Christian Research Service is just one discernment ministry among many ministries worldwide that has spent years conducting extensive research on Benny Hinn, and informing the body of Christ about Hinn's false teachings, false prophecies, false healings, and lavish lifestyle.

Since the early 1990's, Benny Hinn's ministry has been under constant criticism--specifically from cult evangelists, apologists, theologians, pastors, and even former members of his churches--for what he has done, said, and taught during his TV telecasts and crusades.

Every year the suffering and dying flock to Benny Hinn's healing crusades, with a hope and a prayer that This will be their day for a healing. But sadly, they leave the same way they came in--suffering and dying. Precious, innocent children, whose bodies have been contorted, wilted, misshapened, and tortured by Multiple Sclerosis and Spina Bifida, leave Hinn's crusades the same way they came in--in wheelchairs.

Furthermore, those confined to wheelchairs are always placed in the rear of the crusade building, away from the main audience, and away from Benny Hinn and the stage where he conducts his so called "miracles."

It stands to reason, if Benny Hinn had the true Biblical gift of healing, as outlined in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, he would immediately go to the hospitals and emergency rooms here in America and in every country he visits. But he doesn't, because Benny Hinn does not have the Biblical gift of healing.

God does not work miracles through Benny Hinn.

If the mere thought of this doesn't bring you to tears, then your heart has been hardened, possibly to the point of no return.

As Christians, God commands us to put Benny Hinn's teachings, prophecies, and crusades to the Biblical test (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). If we fail to do so, we open our hearts to deception.

In the past, Benny Hinn has claimed to be a "god" and a "messiah," and has also claimed to have regular visitations from angels, dead people, and Jesus Christ. He has even placed curses on adults (and their children), for those who disagree with him and expose his false teachings publicly.

On December 31, 1989, Benny Hinn delivered a series of prophecies for the 1990's, and claimed they came from God, the Lord, and the Holy Spirit. While delivering these prophecies, he said that:

-- God would destroy the homosexual community with fire by 1994 or no later than 1995.
-- a destructive earthquake will hit the east coast of the United States in the 1990's.
-- Cuban Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, will die in the 1990's.
-- a world dictator, who is a perfect incarnation of Satan, will rule the world.
-- Jesus will be seen in the 1990's.

Obviously, not one of these prophecies came true. Therefore, according to the Bible, Benny Hinn is a false prophet and should be avoided (Deuteronomy chapters 13 and 18; Matthew chapter 24).

Benny Hinn does not submit himself to the authority of Scripture, nor does he follow the real Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit. Benny Hinn preaches a counterfeit "gospel," and follows a counterfeit "Jesus" and counterfeit "spirit," which the apostle Paul warned about in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 and Galatians 1:6-9.

'Put Benny Hinn to the Biblical test. If
he fails, put him back on the plane!'

Once Hinn's plane lands in Trinidad & Tobago, Christian Research Service suggests that the Trinidadian officials immediately drive him and his entourage to the nearest hospital to visit the sick and dying. If Hinn has the true, New Testament gift of healing (as outlined in 1 Corinthians chapter 12), then the bedridden and lame will walk; the diseased will be healed; the weak will be made strong; amputees will instantly grow new arms and legs; children confined to wheelchairs with twisted bodies will be made whole; the suffering will find peace; the incurable will be miraculously cured; broken bodies will be mended; the blind will see; the deaf will hear; the dead will be raised to life.

But if he fails the Biblical test, put him back on the plane!

Benny Hinn's teachings and healing crusades are dangerous to the spiritual and physical welfare of believers worldwide. If you truly love Jesus Christ, then stand stong in His word, deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

Jesus said: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15).

We truly love the people of Trinidad and Tobago, and pray that you will strongly consider this letter when Benny Hinn visits your country.

Sincerely in Christ,
Bud Press, Director
Christian Research Service
www.christianresearchservice.com
Jude 3

Websites for further research on Benny Hinn and the Word-Faith Movement:

http://www.erwm.com
http://www.trinityfi.org
http://www.apprising.org
http://www.letusreason.org
http://www.justinpeters.org
http://www.powertostand.org
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com
http://www.christianresearchservice.com
http://www.spiritual-research-network.com

As a service to the body of Christ, Christian Research Service provides information, documentation and referral on a wide variety of issues to individuals, companies, pastors, outreach ministries and
the Christian news media worldwide.

Focus on the Family Answers Lighthouse Trails - Defends Contemplative Author

There are a great many in Christianity today that will state "Well I dont agree with Willow Creek, Rick Warren, or Focus on the Family on one point or another but I do like some of their materials.

I guess we could say well I dont believe all Joseph Smith and the Mormon church teaches but I like their family values and the Osmonds are really cool.

OR

I liked some of Jim Jones preaching and wow what a charismatic personality he had-but I didnt like his cool aid.
Folks how much poison does it take to kill?
Read this latest Lighthouse Trails article
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletter051006.htm#article1
I highly recommend signing up for lighthouse Trails weekly newsletter if you care about whats going on in Christianity and how it affects your family.

A time of departing

When you church starts to use terms like "Let our Host and Hostess's serve you" or let our directors pray for you beware.
I would encourage you to start asking some questions about these seemingly harmless terms.
Host and Hostess's is of course the process of making the church more like a business (rather than a biblical based meeting)
The goal being to make unbelievers feel more comfortable in the pews. (I'll save that one for another rant) .
If your band is playing Christian songs and unbelievers are not squirming in their seats you can be sure your worship music is not honoring a Holy God.
But watch out for the term directors.
Willow Creek is really big on spiritual directors.
I was raised Catholic so I recognize the term because thats where the practice originated from.
There are many different terms that most Christians are unfamiliar with.
Emergent church, spiritual directors etc..
Spiritual formation is another term for contemplative spirituality which simply is New Age.
And this movement is sweeping the church.
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/spiritualformation.htm

I would highly recommend to every Christian that in addition to reading their Bibles to also purchase a book I have endorsed before titled "A Time of Departing".
The second edition is out with a ton of added information.
I just purchased the book myself and it has a lot of new and current information thats in affecting your church today.
Go to this link to purchase the book.
http://www.lighthousetrails.com/atimeofdeparting.htm
This information will help you and your friends and family.
Ray is a great writer and will explain this new movement better than I could ever do.

The Willow Creek Leadership Summit

Many churches (including the one I attend) use materials from Willow Creek and Bill Hybels. They pay a certain amount a year to have access to Willow Creeks materials.
Now its one thing for me to state that I believe that Bill Hybels and his organization are part of the apostate church and the great falling away.
Its another thing for me to convince you that Hybels is a pseudo Christian apostate dog.
Can Hybels teach you to put butts in your seats in your buildings.
You bet he can.
And if you use Bills methods you will probably run a very big business and make lots of money.
What ever happened to doing whats right in Gods eyes though?
How much Willow Creek poison to infect your congregation?
I think its about time that our pastors pull their heads out of their collective rears and start protecting their flocks from guys like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren and their business techniques of making more money posing as preachers.
Willow Creek is having Bono speak at their Leadership Summit.
Now for the record I think U2 has made some great music.
But Bono is no more a Christian than Brian Mclaren is.
Read this article on Bono from a rather modern Christian magazine.
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7089
Now here is the link that shows the speakers at Willow Creeks Leadership Summit.
http://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/speakers.asp

Why is it that all this is getting by our pastors?
Its because they are so busy keeping the business going they are not relying on the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.
They have built such grand dynasty's it takes lots of hours to run things and keep their salary levels up.
I would encourage you to not give to new building funds.
We need better Christians who can discern wrong from right-good from evil.
Not bigger buildings.
The information is out there folks.
Anyone with a computer has access to loads of information within seconds.
Do you really care about your families and your fellow Christians?
Ive even had many in the church I attend agree with me on many discernment issues and then turn around and support the many apostate organizations that spread the garbage.

I would suggest to any and all of you to really hold everything you read or hear to the light of scripture.
These are dark times folks.

2 Thess 2:10-12
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Read that verse again-
Get your heads out of the sand before its to late.

Who defines The Kingdom of God

A must read article by Berit Kjos
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/kingdom-world.htm

Confused about who Jesus is?

It seems many folks are confused about who Jesus really is these days.
Jesus is not the jesus of the Mormon religion.
The Catholics also preach another gospel(their works based plan of salvation is not biblically based) therefore preaching another jesus.
And now with movies like The Da Vinci Code coming out there is more confusion than ever.
Read this article.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/176749/3/

Now read this article which will shed light on the confusion and how it starts.
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ecumenism2.htm

Now read this
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/tract1.html

Any Questions?

I pray that those who are saved will be lead into all truth by The Holy Spirit