Thursday, August 31, 2006
I just finished reading an article by the Christian Post. What caught my eye is that the Presbyterian Church written about is near the city I live in. Indeed I used to drive past it to and from work many years ago. So I read with pride that the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church was withdrawing from the largest Presbyterian Denomination in America because of its pro-homosexual stance.
This article seemed more concerned about the numbers involved than the actual reason, i.e. the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church was withdrawing from the Presbyterian Church USA because of its validation of the sin of homosexuality. Yep, I said sin.
The homosexual lifestyle is an ungodly lifestyle no matter how much homosexual supporters attempt to adulterate the Word of God with deficient claims that the Word does not have the word "homosexual" or "gay" in the Bible. Dear God! Just because the automobile is not in the Bible is not disqualification for driving a car. Indeed, the Old and New Testaments are clear that sex between a man and a man and between a woman and a woman is ungodly and immoral.
To mollify homosexuality as moral is like a shyster getting criminals off on technicalities or disposing of the evidence - it is crooked and unseemly.
The Conservative Voice author J. Matt Barber writes how the police in Minnesota and Illinois have become "thought police." In effect the action of suspending Dr. Campion because of complaints of homosexual rights activists and Left Wing media is telling the community what is acceptable as morality. In this case if you are Pro-life or anti-homosexual rights you are morally reprehensible to the community. If you are Pro- choice or pro-homosexual rights, then your morality is upright in the community.
The problem is that murder of babies and same sex interaction are both among highest abominations to practice in the sight of a Holy God. That Holy God is the paradigm of righteousness and morality for God's creation, not secular humanism and alternative homosexual lifestyles.
Does anyone find it odd that the International Red Cross denies there was a hoax involving Hezbollah propaganda when the evidence is so damning? I mean the RED CROSS is supposed to be a neutral organization caring for casualties of both combatants. AND YET, the RED CROSS is still finger pointing at Israel for war crimes. THAT seems
The West has to wake up that the direct intention of Mohammedans in Mohammedan dominated lands is to over come the West transforming the globe to Mohammedanism.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Dennis Prager demonstrates that the people that predominantly influence Mohammedan thought and life are morally deficient and evil. Prager points out that not all Mohammedans buy into to this evil; however not one Mohammedan nation or group actively resists the evil being propagated by extreme Mohammedans.
It is time for different strains of thought; politics and religion in the Western World unite with one common goal: the elimination of extreme Mohammedanism.
I am an e-mail subscriber to the neocon think tank “American Enterprise Institute.” The statistics below is from a Harris Interactive Poll published on AEI.
Notice that the very top of the top ten are doctors. Americans inherently trust doctors with their lives. I have come to understand with overcoming long illnesses that this should not necessarily be the case. A doctor is only as good as he keeps up to date and as good as their diagnoses. The meaning being the best doctors is the most studious and the best guessers.
The AEI data gatherers noted the least trusted are journalists, members of Congress, pollsters and lawyers (they failed to print a percentage for lawyers).
Harris Interactive poll July 2006:
Q: Would you generally trust each of the following types of people to tell the truth, or not?
Doctors – 85%
Teachers – 83%
Scientists – 77%
Police Officers – 76%
Professors – 75%
Clergymen or Priests – 74%
Military Officers – 72%
Judges – 70%
Accountants – 68%
Ordinary man or woman – 66%
The above are the top 10.
The below is a few that rates toward the bottom bottom (it is interesting that Lawyers are mentioned as one of the lowest, but AEI did not cite the Lawyer percentage):
Journalists – 39%
Members of Congress – 35%
Pollsters – 34%
Source: AEI Political Report; Vol. 2 Issue 8; September 2006.
Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
Bush Should Defeat, Not Debate Ahmadinejad
August 29, 2006
IRVINE, CA-- Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s offer to President Bush for a debate “on how to end world predicaments” is a farce, said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “The Iranian regime is the world’s leading sponsor of the Islamic totalitarian movement that terrorizes us, and it is eagerly pursuing long-range missiles and nuclear warheads with which to terrorize us further. The only way to “end world predicaments” is for this regime to cease to exist. We must defeat Ahmadinejad and his regime--not debate them.
Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. (via e-mail subscription)
Strong words from one of the leading Libertarian think tanks in America. Most Libertarian tend to take the route of "Appeasement." The CATO Institute is an example of a Libertarian think tank that routinely criticizes the Bush Administration for not engaging in diplomatic dialogue that will give everything Iran wishes believing the onus for breaking any agreements would be on Iran's head.
The CATO Institute is amazing if it thinks finger pointing will sway Iran's murderous and globally disruptive ways.
The Minneapolis Police Department has suspended Dr. Michael Campion for being a practicing Christian. The interim Chief Tim Dolan became influenced by a Left Wing publication that implied Dr. Campion’s psych evaluations would discriminate against homosexuals since the good doctor belonged to a non-profit Christian organization that stood for Christian morality and against homosexual rights.
The slanted Left has so infiltrated public organizations with secular humanism that Christian Morality is persecuted as hate thought or hate belief or hate speech or hatred of alternate gender utilization and so and so. It is disgusting! Christians need to become bold and stand by Jesus Christ and Judeo/Christian morality, particularly if it offends the immoral.
Immorality is becoming a value system that is acceptable in America to the point that Christians are beginning to experience persecution. That is nearly unbelievable that Americans have become so blinded by secular humanism that homosexuals are a viable value system to uphold morality and safety American citizens. Secular Humanism still abides by thou shall not murder or steal; however adultery, sexual purity, lying have been corrupted to "if it is alright for some it is alright to do."
As my west coast daughter might say, "ehewwww, I'm so sure!"
It is beginning to look more and more that Olmert and the Kadima crowd are universally looked upon as incompetent leaders. Apparently even the elected Head of State - President Moshe Katsav - is now under investigation for corruption. So there is an indication the Head of State and the Head of Government (Prime Minister Olmert) may be removed.
Friends this is a time of huge political weakness in a nation that has to literally fight to remain in existence. Prayer indeed needs to go out for Israel that competent and moral leadership rise to the occasion much as in the days of the Old Testament Judges. God protect Israel and over shadow Your peace in the great and holy city of Jerusalem (The City of David, not Mohammed).
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Spirit of God should move on American and other Western politicians to expose the duplicity of a corrupt MSM.
Alexander Downer aptly slaps the MSM for reporting a Left slant rather than truth and unbiased news. It is as if Communist controlled media outlets are pushing a Left agenda. If the government does not control this Left spiel of the MSM; then who is responsible for MSM Left slanted garbage that actively is specious.
Downer goes on to blast Western media for publishing cartoons lampooning Mohammedanism. When he walks into that area, I have to disagree with him. Western media has published harsher things that disrespect Christianity, and the world saw no Christian mobs rushing publishing houses or Jews rushing Arab and Iranian embassy for doing the same kind of lampooning only in this case denying the existence of the Holocaust.
Mohammedanism is an evil cult that is a threat to Western Civilization. Amazingly the MSM attempts to paint an appeasing picture of Mohammedanism and Islamofascists.
The Land of Israel has declared that Jerusalem is their capital. The tragedy is a significant amount of nations - even in the Western World - refuse to place their Embassy in Jerusalem. Instead they these nations have opted to place their Embassy in Tel Aviv.
Why is this disrespect executed on the Jewish Nation of Israel. The reason is Mohammedan nations that wish the destruction of Israel say this is a crime against Mohammedanism. Due to oil and volitality too many Western nations have choosen to "Appease" the destructive inclinations of Mohammedan nations. Even the USA maintains their Embassy in Tel Aviv.
This is cowardly kow towing to Mohammedans.
Below is a statement from International Christian Embassy Jerusalem concerning various nations submitting to dhimmitude of Mohammedanism:
29 AUGUST 2006
ICEJ STATEMENT ON EMBASSIES MOVING FROM JERUSALEM
The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem opened its doors in 1980 to express solidarity with Israel concerning the Knesset declaration that a united Jerusalem is and should remain the eternal capital of the State of Israel. At the time we watched with dismay as thirteen foreign embassies withdrew from Jerusalem in protest and relocated to Tel Aviv.
The nations of El Salvador and Costa Rica displayed courage and principle in subsequently returning to Jerusalem. But we are appalled by their recent decisions to once again withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem, supposedly because of the recent war in Lebanon. In actual fact this war was good reason for them to stay, because Israel was undoubtedly the victim of Hizb’Allah’s aggression in violation of Israel’s agreement with the United Nations in the year 2000, when it withdrew from Lebanon to internationally verified and recognized borders.
The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem calls upon the governments of El Salvador and Costa Rica to reconsider their decisions. The ICEJ affirms that it is proud to be located in Jerusalem, to speak for the interests of multitudes of Christians in this regard from all over the world and to stand with Israel. Though not officially accredited with diplomatic status, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem does represent the views of millions of Christians worldwide who believe their nations should place their embassies here. Jerusalem has been the capital of only one people – the Jewish people – and its first 'mayor' was King David! It will one day be the source of world peace.
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” Isaiah 2:4
International Christian Embassy Jerusalem
Sunday, August 27, 2006
I agree that Musharraf has gone beyond the point of no return as for as "rapprochement" with radical Mohammedan elements of the death-cult; however to openly and to extensively proclaim an allegiance for pro-Western elements would be political and probably human suicide.
There is no way for America to prop up Musharraf during a popular rebellion. The best America could do is offer asylum and that is only if Musharraf could escape the results of a popular Mohammedan rebellion.
So the behind the scene “balancing act” is the way to go for both Musharraf and the West.
However I did find it a bit interesting that Time Magazine has buried in its pages that the first woman President of the United States will be a Republican. What is more fascinating is the person quoted as saying so: former President William Jefferson Clinton.
Let's see. Who would Slick have in mind? Elizabeth Dole has been a favorite and is a current Senator from North Carolina. But I don't think so; her age star has diminished long ago.
Oh yes, the most visible Republican woman is Condoleezza Rice.
I have to bet old Hillary has to be asking, "Can you think of me before another woman?"
Here is another astonishing tidbit: Condi in an unofficial pew poll ranks third among Republicans.
1. John McCain - 26%.
2. Rudy Giuliani - 24%.
3. Condi - 18%.
Also rans with significantly infinitesimal numbers: Newt Gingrich, Virginia Senator George Allen, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Tennessee senator Bill Frist.
So there is some popularity among Republicans for Condi. I think Condi would better serve the Republicans and the nation as a Vice President (i.e. President in training). Who ever won the nomination (assuming it was not Condi), she would bring huge strength to the Republican ticket.
I have finally run into some information about the “Emerging Church” phenomenon. I have read many mainline Church denunciations about the “Emerging Church” phenomenon. That actually got my attention because the mainline Church also denounces the thread that I trace my Christian background. That thread is Pentecostal, Charismatic, Word of Faith and Renewal. The people I listen to have too often branded my faith heritage as heretical. That really used to bother me until I realized that Truth aligns first with the Word before it aligns with human authority.
So below is a rather long essay on the “Emerging Church” in which I myself will have to read a few times to get a handle on that theology.
An Emerging Church Primer
By Justin Taylor
Some of you may be called to be experts on the emerging church. We need experts. But I'm not that expert. And perhaps it's good for you that I'm not. In conservative evangelical circles, we can be tempted to listen to experts so that we can hear the person's conclusions: "Just tell me what to think—don't bother me with how you got there." We want the Cliff Notes on the emerging church. We want to read the cast of characters—"this guy's a wolf, that guy's a sheep," and so on.
I'm not going to do that. One of my goals is to help you understand the "emerging church." But my deeper goal would be for us to become the sort of people who know how to think about things like the emerging church. After all, the "emerging church" is not here to stay. It's a movement, and this is its season. It might be replaced in a year or so; it might stretch out for decades. Yet one thing's for sure: Emerging Church Version 2006 is going to look different next year. And the next.
As Christians, we want to train ourselves to have the mind of Christ, so that we can respond like well-trained tennis players to whatever ball flies in our direction—no matter the angle, the spin, or the speed.
DEFINING THE EMERGING CHURCH
What Is the Emerging Church?
What exactly is the "emerging church"? Here is one common way that many people think about the movement:
Popularly, the term "Emerging Church" has been applied to high-profile, youth-oriented congregations that have gained attention on account of their rapid numerical growth, their ability to attract (or retain) the twenty-somethings, and their contemporary worship that draws upon popular music styles with the accompanying pyrotechnics, and that promotes itself to the Christian sub-culture through its web-sites and by word of mouth.
The emphasis here falls entirely on matters of style and demographics.
My wife recently told someone that I would be giving a talk on the emerging church. The person responded, "Is that where they light candles, sit on couches, and try to do church?" If you are a critic of the emerging church, you will probably think this definition is accurate. If you are a cheerleader, you will undoubtedly think it's unfair.
How do we find an answer? I suggest that we listen not only to the critics of the emergents, but to the emergents themselves. If possible, we should also listen to (ostensibly) disinterested third-party observers who offer a sociological perspective. In what follows, I hope to draw from all three.
Distinction Between "Emergent" and "Emerging"
First, we should distinguish between "Emergent" and "Emerging." Emergent is an organization (emergentvillage.us) or an official network of likeminded leaders and churches involved in one particular stream of the emerging "conversation." Tony Jones now serves as the first national coordinator in the United States. Emerging, on the other hand, is the term most often used to describe the much broader movement (or "conversation") of those seeking to incarnate and contextualize the gospel for postmoderns.
All that is emergent is emerging, but not all that is emerging is necessarily emergent. In other words, some pastors, churches, and writers want to retain the emerging label—or who bear emerging characteristics—without identifying themselves with or even supporting the Emergent organization.
The emerging church movement is larger than North American. There are thousands of emerging Christians in Western Europe and the South Pacific and, to a lesser extent, in Asia, Africa, and South America. My remarks pertain mainly to the American version. But keep in mind that this is part of a larger worldwide conversation with its own dynamic and nuances.
The Wikipedia Definition
Wikipedia—the free, online, open-source encyclopedia—is a helpful place to begin for defining the emerging movement as a whole:
The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement within Christianity that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture. While practices and even core doctrine vary, most emergents can be recognized by the following values:
People in the postmodern culture seek real and authentic experiences in preference over scripted or superficial experiences. Emerging churches strive to be relevant to today's culture and daily life, whether it be through worship or service opportunities. The core Christian message is unchanged but emerging churches attempt, as the church has throughout the centuries, to find ways to reach God's people where they are to hear God's message of unconditional love.
Christians go out into the world to serve God rather than isolate themselves within communities of like-minded individuals.
Teaching focuses on narrative presentations of faith and the Bible rather than systematic theology or biblical reductionism.
Christ-likeness While not neglecting the study of Scripture or the love of the church, Christians focus their lives on the worship and emulation of the person of Jesus Christ."
Note that a definition like this contains an element of protest. There is a flip-side to all of these attributes. If the emerging movement values these four attributes, it's because they regard the traditional church as
- full of fakery, not authenticity;
individualistic and isolated, not missional;
fixated on abstract doctrine, not narrative theology;
obsessed with the church, the Bible, or tradition, not Christocentric living.
The "Order and Rule" of the Emergent Village
The Emergent Village website is another source that sets forth the self-understanding of the movement. The four following values and practices are listed as their "order and rule":
1. "Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus," which means
seeking to "live by the Great Commandment: loving God and loving our neighbors"
- understanding "the gospel to be centered in Jesus and his message of the kingdom of God, a message of reconciliation with God and among humanity"
- and committing to "a 'generous orthodoxy' in faith and practice – affirming the historic Christian faith and the Biblical injunction to love one another even when we disagree."
2. "Commitment to the Church in all its Forms," which means
affirming "the church in all its forms – Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal."
- seeking "to be irenic and inclusive of all our Christian sisters and brothers, rather than elitist and critical, seeing 'us' we were used to see 'us versus them.'"
- and being "actively and positively involved in a local congregation."
3. "Commitment to God's World," which means
practicing "faith missionally, that is, we do not isolate ourselves from this world, but rather, we follow Christ into the world."
seeing "the earth and all it contains as God's beloved creation, and so we join God in seeking its good, its healing, and its blessing."
4. "Commitment to One Another," which means
"valuing time and interaction with other friends who share this rule and its practices."
- identifying "ourselves as members of this growing, global, generative, and non-exclusive friendship."
making "an annual pilgrimage to an emergent gathering."
- representing emergent well whenever we can; to exemplify the best of what emergent strives to be and do.
- staying "reconciled to one another."
Again, notice the implicit protest in each of these values. If the emergents are committed to the way of Jesus, the church in all its forms, the world, and one another, it's because traditional Christians are committed to
The Gibbs-Bolger Definition
Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger of Fuller Seminary, after spending five years interviewing participants in the "emergent conversation," wrote the book Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker). Though the book is not a defense of the movement but aims to present an objective analysis, it has been well received and commended by prominent members of the emergent community. Gibbs and Bolger begin with the premise that emerging churches are those faith communities "engaged in particular processes." These faith communities "take culture, specifically postmodern culture, very seriously," and they tend to share up to nine common practices—three core practices and six derivative practices. At the core, emerging churches are those (1) who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live (2) and who transform the secular realm (3) as they live highly communal lives. Derivatively, emerging churches (4) welcome those who are outside, (5) share generously, (6) participate, (7) create, (8) lead without control, (9) and function together in spiritual activities.
All this can be boiled down to one sentence: "Emerging Churches are communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures." Or, to say the same thing another way, "Emerging Churches are missional communities arising from within postmodern culture, consisting of followers of Jesus seeking to be faithful in their place and time."
Three Kinds of Emerging Folks
By now it should also be evident that all emerging church folks are not the same. Ed Stetzer, a missiologist with the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board, divides them into three categories: (1) the relevants, (2) the reconstructionists, and (3) the revisionists. My purpose in citing his taxonomy is not to suggest that these are the best terms or that this is exhaustive, but rather to illustrate that the "conversation" and "movement" are by no means monolithic.
The relevants, say Stetzer, take "the same Gospel in the historic form of church but seeking to make it understandable to emerging culture." They seek to retain "the old, old story," but they might retell it in new language and with a different approach to worship, preaching, or church structure. In other words, this group wants to distinguish between what's essential to the Christian faith and what's not.
The reconstructionists take "the same Gospel but questioning and reconstructing much of the form of church." For example, they promote house churches.
The revisionists question and revise not just the church, but what most evangelicals would understand the Gospel to mean. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones would fall into this last category.
As we turn to evaluating the emerging church movement, it is important to remember the diversity within this movement. There is clearly a difference between what the "relevants" are doing and what the "revisionists" are doing. Speaking in generalities without acknowledging some of these nuances and distinctions will paint an inaccurate picture and will hamper our ability to speak clearly and convincingly on these issues.
EVALUATING THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT
Like I mentioned earlier, when most people think of the emerging church, they think of couches, candles, clothing, and music. These things grab our attention. But the Bible does not have a lot to say about drums versus organs, slacks versus jeans, or candles verses chandeliers. Yet the Bible does have a lot to say about ours heart and our doctrine. So that's what we should consider.
Four Areas of Concern
My major concerns about what I see in Emergent can be boiled down to four issues: (1) the authority of God's Word; (2) the cross of Christ, (3) the concepts of truth and knowledge, and (4) sexual ethics. In what follows I am only able to scratch the surface and to provide a brief sketch of these issues.
1. The Bible
One of the things I appreciate about the Emerging Church Movement generally is that they stress the narrative aspects of Scripture. As they rightly insist, Scripture is not just a big fact-book. It's not just a series of propositions and commandments. It's not even a systematic theology textbook. Scripture is a story of God's plan to save us. Postmoderns are much more attracted to instruction driven by story-telling than the traditional "three points and a poem."
But as you have probably heard said, "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth." While Scripture is more than a set of propositions, it is not less. It's both/and, not either/or.
Also, we must ask questions about the way some within the EM view the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. By focusing on the narrative aspects of Scripture, they are able to discuss "the big picture"—broad trajectories, themes, and metaphors—without digging into the details. But God has given us the details of Scripture for a reason. Not a word is wasted our Bibles. As Francis Schaeffer once said, "God has spoken, and he is not silent."
Remember how the serpent led Eve into disobedience: "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" (Gen. 3:1). Satan does not begin by lying, per se, but with a question. He plants a seed of doubt: "Hey, I'm just asking questions. Raising the issues. Exploring the terrain. I'm not saying God didn't say this. I'm just wondering if we all really understood what he said."
We do not need a generous orthodoxy, as some have claimed. (As Al Mohler has perceptively observed, "generous orthodoxy" is neither generous nor orthodox!) We want a humble orthodoxy. And undermining the authority of God's Word—which I think you will observe in my next three areas of concern—is not the way of humble orthodoxy. It is neither humble nor orthodox to undermine the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. There is nothing hip or cool or relevant about asking a new generation, "Did God actually say…?" The doctrine of God's authoritative Word should be absolutely humbling. We are weak. We are biased. We are sinful. We idolize ourselves. And God has a powerful Word that stands over and above us. We must submit. Mark Dever has said it well:
What we need is humble theology—theology which submits itself to the truth of God's Word. 'Liberal' theology—theology which does not view Scripture as finally trustworthy and authoritative—is not humble before the Word. Churches which are tentative and decry dogmatism may sound humble, but it is not truly humble to do anything other than to submit to God's Word.
Christian humility is to simply accept whatever God has revealed in His Word. Humility is following God's Word wherever it goes, as far as it goes, neither going beyond it nor stopping short of it. The humility we want in our churches is to read the Bible and believe it—everything God has said, dogmatically, and humbly! It is not humble to be hesitant where God has been clear and plain.
2. The Cross
If you read the EM writers, you will often hear them contend that the atonement is bigger than substitutionary atonement—the biblical idea that Christ acted as our substitute and graciously absorbed the wrath of God that we deserved.
And the EM folks are right; there is more to the atonement than substitution. The Bible also refers to the cross in terms of his example for us (e.g. 1 Peter 2:21ff), or in terms of his defeat of his enemies (e.g. Col. 2:13-15). Yes, more happened on the cross than Christ bearing our sins and the wrath of his Father.
But less was not happening either! Once again, "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth." It is a half-truth to say that "many aspects of the atonement need to be taken into account." It is the whole truth to say that many aspects need to be taken in to account, and substitutionary atonement is at the heart of Christ's work and the gospel itself.
Tom Schreiner, in a recent address on Penal Substitution as the Heart of the Gospel, expresses the biblical view on this:
The theory of penal substitution is the heart and soul of an evangelical view of the atonement. I am not claiming that it is the only truth about the atonement taught in the scriptures. Nor am I claiming that penal substitution is emphasized in every piece of literature, or that every author articulates clearly penal substitution. I am claiming that penal substitution functions as the anchor and foundation for all other dimensions of the atonement when the scriptures are considered as a canonical whole. I define penal substitution as follows: The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy his justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God's holiness and love are manifested.
The riches of what God has accomplished in Christ for his people are not exhausted by penal substitution. The multifaceted character of the atonement must be recognized to do justice the canonical witness. God's people are impoverished if Christ's triumph over evil powers at the cross is slighted, or Christ's exemplary love is shoved to the side, or the healing bestowed on believers by Christ's cross and resurrection is downplayed. While not denying the wide-ranging character of Christ's atonement, I am arguing that penal substitution is foundational and the heart of the atonement.
If we lose Christ's work of substitution and propitiation, we lose the gospel and are left with a theory of the atonement that is a complete untruth.
In the United States, the EM is often associated with the name Brian McLaren. In the United Kingdom, Steve Chalke (pronounced "chalk") is an increasingly popular figure. A few years ago Chalke said the following about substitutionary atonement in his popular book The Lost Message of Jesus:
The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed [as the doctrine of penal substitution makes it out to be]. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement "God is love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.
Notice what Chalke is saying: The doctrine of propitiation—that Christ removed the wrath of God by absorbing it himself—is labeled "child abuse." Not only does Chalke think that propitiation is untrue, he thinks it is immoral and reprehensible.
Brian McLaren suggests that Chalke's book "could help save Jesus from Christianity," which is not surprising since McLaren places the "cosmic child abuse" argument on the lips of one of his characters in one of his books. And never does McLaren refute this idea. It seems as if this is McLaren's passive way of saying something without saying something.
Chalke and McLaren's approach to the atonement has led Don Carson to write the following sobering words:
I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel. Perhaps their rhetoric and enthusiasm have led them astray and they will prove willing to reconsider their published judgments on these matters and embrace biblical truth more holistically than they have been doing in their most recent works. But if not, I cannot see how their own words constitute anything less than a drift toward abandoning the gospel itself. . . .
As far as I can tell, Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke are the most influential leaders of the emerging movement in their respective countries. I would feel much less worried about the directions being taken by other emerging church leaders if these leaders would rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says.
Carson's concern, if accurate, takes us way beyond any debates we might have over music, candles, communal living, and culture. Such matters cut to the very heart of our faith. Is the wrath of God real? Does sinful humanity deserve God's just condemnation? Did Christ go to the cross to absorb and remove the wrath of the Father? Was he our substitute—our sacrificial lamb?
Nothing should be more central to our lives than the gospel.
3. Truth and Knowledge
Sometimes the EM is charged with not believing in "absolute truth." I'm not sure that's a fair charge. Many within emerging churches say that they believe truth exists, and that it is absolute.
But many of them also say that such truth belongs to God, not us. While truth itself might be unchanging, our knowledge of the truth can never be certain. We may have confidence that something is true, but we can never have certainty. So the question of truth is really a question about our knowledge of truth, our knowledge of right and wrong, and so forth.
I do appreciate the fact that emerging writers stress human fallenness on this particular point. During the Enlightenment, many people believed the process of obtaining knowledge was fairly mechanical process, as if humans were computers. Plug in the correct information, and the correct analysis will pop out. EM advocates rightly point out that the process of gaining knowledge is much more complex, and that sinful human biases and perspectives color how we view the world.
But remember: "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth." Here, exhaustive knowledge is being confused with certain knowledge. I can have the latter without having the former. For example, I can know with certainty that God exists, and yet not have exhaustive knowledge about him. This distinction can be made in most areas of our lives, whether we are talking about my knowledge of my spouse, a country to which I have never traveled, football, or even my own personality. We can have confidence in our knowledge about something even if we don't know everything there is to know about that thing. But the EM perspective, like the worldview of postmodernism generally, uses the lack of comprehensive knowledge to undermine the ability to have confidence or certainty.
Scripture clearly teaches that humans are fallible, mixed in their motives, and partial in their knowledge. At the same time, Scripture unashamedly describes humans as capable of knowing the truth. It even portrays doubt as a negative characteristic at times. Humility is a virtue, but doubt is not.
4. Sexual Ethics
I wonder if you have noticed this pattern: in the places where Western culture is critical of traditional evangelical Christianity, so—often—are the emergents.
Take, for example, the issue of homosexuality. Here's what Brian McLaren recently said on this topic:
Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say 'it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.' That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives whom seem to know exactly what we should think. Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection.
There is a time for charity and a time for deference. But there is also a time for straight-speak. What McLaren says here is foolish. I am not simply calling him names. I am drawing on the language of folly in Proverbs and elsewhere to offer you my measured biblical assessment. The Bible says many things, and some topics are clearer than other topics. Its teaching on homosexuality, however, is clear. It may not be popular, but it is not ambiguous.
The Bible also commends the idea of seeking truth and understanding (e.g. Prov. 2:1-6). But I believe that the emerging church often makes seeking an end in itself, and Scripture condemns that line of thinking. So Paul condemns those who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7).
G.K. Chesteron offers us a biblical alternative to McLaren's methodology: "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
I have touched on just four issues: the authority of God's Word, the cross of Christ, the truth and knowledge, and sexual ethics. But sadly, we could go right on down the line and talk about other issues like whether women be elders/pastors, whether sinners must believe in Jesus to be saved, or whether eternal torment awaits those who do not know God in Christ. In fact, I cannot think of a single major doctrine that is not be "reinvisioned" or "reimagined" for today. Even someone like Professor Scot McKnight, who has been tireless in his efforts to explain and encourage the EM, recently had to conclude his review of a book by Spencer Burke (of the Emergent The Ooze website) by sadly concluding that he is heretic, a universalist, a panentheist, denies the Trinity, and gives no evidence in his recent book of believing in the gospel as the New Testament defines "gospel."
Do these concerns apply to every church that is considered an emerging church? Absolutely not. But they do apply to a number of the most prominent leaders and popular churches. I believe that much of the criticism against emerging churches would be quelled if those from within the movement arose and spoke clearly about these crucial issues, and criticized the abandoning of such central Scriptural matters.
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?
A Call for Humble Orthodoxy
Humility has to do with rightly viewing the greatness of God such that you see yourself in the proper light.
In other words, humility does not mean hating yourself and believing that everything you do is wrong. And it doesn't mean remaining continually uncertain. Rather, humility means being confident in—and looking to—God and his grandeur and greatness. It means submitting yourself to his word and his ways.
Orthodoxy refers to having right beliefs, which involves affirming the historic truths of the Christian faith—believing what the church has always believed and confessed. It's not about trying to come up with a new kind of Christianity for your present community. It's about standing in the historic stream with the communion of saints and confessing what the church has always confessed.
As indicated earlier in this article, we must commit to a stance of humble orthodoxy, understanding that true humility should lead us deeper into orthodoxy, that orthodoxy should have a humbling effect on our souls, and that we must speak the truth (orthodoxy) in love (humbly).
A Call for Contextualized Confessionalism
Appropriate contextualization means "adapting my communication of the gospel without changing its essential character." In short, we must retain the essentials and adapt the non-essentials.
In the New Testament, it is a non-negotiable that Christians love one another and express their affection. One way that it commands this is for Christians to greet each other with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). Now when most guys in the United States get together, there may be handshakes or hugs or high-fives—but no smooches. Are they disobeying Scripture? I don't think so, because they are obeying the core of the command but changing its cultural expression.
Let me give some other examples. Let's imagine that you go over to a pastor's house for lunch after church. The lunch is ready, and everyone pulls up their chair to the table. Everyone grows quiet and you look over to the pastor to ask the Lord's blessing on the meal. But Pastor Joe (we'll call him) looks at you and everyone else and just says, "Well—what are you all waiting for? Let's dig in." No prayer.
What would you think? You might wonder if your pastor is doing okay spiritually? You might wonder why he was so dishonoring to God.
Now I think praying before meals is a great idea. It's something I always try to do (I'm not on a crusade to change the practice!). But we should recognize that the Bible does not command us to pray before each meal.
We're commanded to thank God for providing us our daily bread. We're commanded to pray at all times, giving thanks. But we're never told, "Pray before breakfast, pray before lunch, and prayer before dinner." Yet we Christians tend to confuse our practices within Christian sub-culture as commands from our Creator.
There are lots of things like this: praying with your eyes closed, having a quiet time first thing in the morning, singing only hymns, having pews in your church, a pastor wearing a coat and tie, and so on.
Paul discussed the relationship between unchanging truth and changing culture in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
Tom Ascol recently offered a good summary of Paul's intentions here: "I would make a sharp distinction between compromising what God has revealed in His Word and accommodating others where we can for the sake of gaining a hearing for the Gospel."
We must never compromise—but we must accommodate. What are those things in our lives, in our ministries, in our churches that have more to do with cultural Christianity than they do with eternal, unchanging truth? Our great danger in the Western church comes when we refuse to accommodate the non-essentials in the name of not compromising.
Contextualization has become a buzz word. The flip side of the coin is that we must not only be contextual, but also confessional. By confessional I mean that we should affirm and confess the historic teachings recovered during the Reformation.
Walter Henegar recently wrote: "Emergent writers may correctly diagnose postmodern sensibilities, but their prescriptions tend to conform rather than transform." For transforming prescriptions, we often have to turn outside of our own narrow window of time. Part of being a confessional Christian is reading church history—and reading writers from church history. We all know the statement: "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." We would be naïve to think that all of the issues being raised are "new" and that variants on them have not been dealt with in the past.
One of the things I appreciate about Tim Keller's approach to these issues is his insistence that Reformational Christianity already has within it the resources needed to minister to post-everythings.
- Post-everything folks love narrative and story—and Christ-centered biblical theologians like Geerhardus Vos can teach us how to avoid moralisms and to show that every story points to Christ.
- Post-everythings are experientially oriented—and Jonathan Edwards' affectional theology can serve as our guide.
- Post-everythings rebel against moralisms and self-righteousness—and who better than Martin Luther to teach us about the meaning of true freedom found in Christ alone?
- Post-everythings are concerned about social justice—something powerfully addressed by Herman Ridderbos' exposition of the coming and presence of the Kingdom of God.
- Post-everythings love art because they love the material world—a perspective shared by Abraham Kuyper, who declared: "there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'"
- Post-everythings tend not to be moved by evidences and proofs—and this is where Cornelius Van Til and company may offer help in explaining the issues of faith, authority, and uninterpreted facts.
A Call to Speak the Truth in Love
We need to remember that we are bound by the Word of God to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Some of us are so wired to "speak the truth" that we fail to do it in love. (And of course, the converse is true as well. There are those who are so concerned about speaking in love that they never get around to speaking truth.) I know that, for myself, I am often far too impressed with my own cleverness and far too desirous of "scoring points." Yet the biblical imperatives call us to a higher ground: truth and love. It's not an either/or, but a both/and.
Perhaps the most helpful phrase is one coined by John Piper: "brokenhearted boldness." We must seek to soak our critiques with meekness and humility.
Listen to the wise counsel of John Newton—the vile slave trader turned redeemed author of the hymn "Amazing Grace":
As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. . . . [If he is a believer,] in a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts. . . . [If he is an unconverted person,] he is a more proper object of your compassion than your anger. Alas! 'He knows not what he does.' But you know who has made you to differ [1 Cor. 4:7]."
I want to close with a couple of quotes from pastors wiser than myself. First, Walter Henegar says,
There's an old story attributed to Dwight L. Moody, who was once criticized for his methods of evangelism. He responded, 'I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it.' Reformed Christians may be right about how to reach new generations, but are we doing it? Are we seeking to rescue other professing Christians from the jaws of error? Are we willing to submit our own thinking to the scrutiny, correction, and ridicule that inevitably come from publicly joining the conversation?
Most important, are we building friendships with postmodern non-Christians, the type who bristle at the sight of steeple and pew? Do we even know such people? Are we bringing the gospel to them in dialogue, listening for their responses so we at least know they understand? And if they place their faith in Christ, are our churches prepared to embrace them without requiring a second conversion into a church culture that may have less to do with the gospel than we're willing to admit?
I close with another quote from Tim Keller, who calls both the emerging church and the evangelical church to a better way:
I see people who are desperately trying to reach the post-everythings who in their desperation are trying to throw out essential elements such as the substitutionary atonement, forensic justification, imputed righteousness, the Sovereignty of God, or the inerrancy of Scripture. Many of them are probably over-adapting to the post-everything situation. But while they do not have our theological resources, often we do not have their level of engagement with the people of the emerging society. To correct this, let us confess that we really have failure across all our parties to reach the coming society, and let us resolve to use the premier resources of Reformed theology. If we can make these changes, then we may really start to see renewal and outreach, and we might actually be a resource for the broader body of Christ in this culture.
Justin Taylor is the managing editor of Crossway's forthcoming ESV Study Bible. He is also the editor of Overcoming Sin and Temptation, an unabridged but more accessible version of John Owen's classics on sin and temptation, due out this October from Crossway.
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: (c)9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: email@example.com. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
 Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005). Gibbs and Bolger go on to explain why this definition is inaccurate.
 Bolger and Gibbs, Emerging Churches, 28.
 Ed Stetzer, "Understanding the Emerging Church."
 Hereafter I'll just abbreviate it for convenience as EM (emerging movement). Unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the more liberal wing of the conversation.
 J. I. Packer, Introduction to Owen's Death of Death
 R. Albert Mohler, Jr. "A Generous Orthodoxy—Is It Orthodox?"
 Mark Dever, "Three Marks of a Faithful Pastor," delivered at Together for the Gospel, Louisville, KY (April 26, 2006).
 Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182-183.
 Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 102. As Carson points out, "the objections are never answered and are elsewhere voiced by McLaren himself, who makes no attempt to show how those who support substitutionary atonement would answer such objections or to examine the extent to which substitutionary atonement is taught in Scripture."
 Carson, Becoming Conversant with Emerging Churches,186-187.
 Cf. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, a book very influential in my own thinking about biblical epistemology. On the biblical case for "Knowing Some Truths, Even with 'Certainty'" see a sampling of the Scriptural witness pulled together by Carson: Becoming Conversant with Emerging Churches, 193-99.
 Brian McLaren, "Leader's Insight: No Cowardly Flip-Flop"
 G. K. Chesterton, The Autobiography, vol. 16 of The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 212.
 Scot McKnight, Heretic's Guide to Eternity 4.
 Keller, Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century, Part 3. His thoughts here on contextualization are well worth reading and heeding.
 Tim Keller, Post-Everythings.
 Abraham Kuyper, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 488.
 John Newton, "On Controversy" [Letter XIX], vol. 1 of The Works of the Rev. John Newton (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 269.
 Tim Keller, Post-Everythings.
The Religion of Peace demonstrates once again the way in which it propagates their death-cult political/religion. Point a gun at a potential convert and say, "Convert or die."
The formerly abducted Fox News duo weighed in on that option, choosing to live another day. If they choose to publicly recant their forced conversion, they should watch their back, apostatizing from the Mohammedan club is reason to execute a death sentence. It is a death-cult after all.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
I cannot believe I missed this essay last week, it is awesome!
Michael Medved has written this incredible essay entitled, “Why the World Hates America.” You really need to read the whole thing!
Think about the question that Medved asks: Why do the people (nations and wealthy industries) hate the nation that has protected and enabled their existence? The people Medved is speaking about are Western Europe (France in particular), Mohammedan nations that have become wealthy from American consumerism, a Movie Industry that has benefited from a free market/free speech capitalism and on and on. It is something that is truly amazing if you think about it.
"...[R]esearcher Jon Snow came to the conclusion that UK Muslims are no longer interested in integrating into the United Kingdom’s societies. Snow advises that the trend is now toward Muslim separatism." (TCV News)
The governing elites of the West are looking for a Global Economy, however joe citizen of the West often looks for status quo culture. Nations of the West have thrived when their culture remains dominant and unthreatened.
Mohammedans have migrated to the West probably for better living standards than existed in the repressive Middle Eastern nation they came from. Many of these Mohammedans want the good life of the West while maintaining the cultural mores of Mohammedanism.
It is an impossible mix much like oil and water. One culture will arise above the other. Currently Western Culture nationals dominate in the West with the Mohammedans clamouring for their way of life to be validated. Mohammedans have no intention of integrating into their new homelands. Even the second and third generation Mohammedans are proving to virulently violent and anti-Western.
This is a scenario that should not and cannot be tolerated any longer in the West. The West is currently on a road of "Politically Correctness" and "Appeasement." To maintain these avenues will be suicide for Western Culture.
It is time to offer a choice to local and home grown Mohammedans: Swear public and written allegiance to the nations they reside or are citizens of or depart.
UPDATE (8-26-06) - United American Committee Oficial Blog:
81 PERCENT OF BRITISH MUSLIMS NOT LOYAL TO BRITAIN
Originally Posted August 22, 2006
By Ayesha Ahmed
Here is an excerpt from the following article on islam-watch.org.
According to a recent Pew poll that asked: What do you consider yourself first - A citizen of your country or a Muslim? In the United Kingdom, 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first and only 7 percent of Muslims consider themselves British first. This explains why the global jihad had no difficulty in recruiting the home grown terrorists. People who do not feel any loyalty toward their country can never be a loyal citizen of any nation state. The work instead as a fifth column in the interest of their Islamist agenda. Recent acts of terrorism perpetuated by British, Dutch, Spanish, French, and American Islamists did not surprise anyone who understands the phenomenon of a universal Muslim brotherhood. A puritanical Muslim, whether he lives in the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, France, Pakistan or the U.S.A., does not feel any loyalty toward the country he resides in, but is committed instead to the advancement of the causes of global jihad. End [Excerpt]
My observation is that the litmus test is mosque attendance. Those who attend mosque regularly often get infected with the dangerous and infectious desease of islamism. The symptoms are beards, hijabs and burkas and hatred towards jews and the west and disloyalty to one's own country.
Chris Mitchell from a CBN.com news blog reports that Hezbollah has won the war with Israel merely because they did not lose. That is the perception of Mohammedans across the Middle East and not the Mohammedans of dar al-harb (where Mohammedans are the minority). The vaneer of invincibility has been damaged by Hezbollah holding off Israel. Obviously Israel did not lose, however they did not eliminate Hezbollah or damage its infrastructure either.
Chris Mitchell also reports that there is some psycho Mohammedans in the Gaza that apparently make Hamas look like pussy cats. This group is preparing to announce an establishment of a Caliphate. I have not heard of it publically as yet, however the big day was supposed to have been Aug. 25.
Obviously at this point the groups intentions are irrelavent on a global basis. Nonetheless the perceived Hezbollah victory has emboldened the memory of Mohammed's past of murderous conquest. The purpose of this Caliphate is not confined to Gaza. Nor is it confined to a so-called Palestine. Rather the agenda is global. It is a stated goal of eliminating the kafir (unbelievers) and dominate the world.
The 21st Century Crusades are imminent.
Hezbollah was able to hold off Israel. As CBN.com News Blogger Chris Mitchell says, "Hezbollah won the “victory” because it did not lose."
Hezbollah's no loose defined victory has put a major dent in the once image of invincibility of the Israeli militarty. So much so that a radical group of Mohammedans in the Gaza (that are supposed to make Hamas look tame) have said they will re-set the lost Caliphate abolished in the early 1900's by Turkey's Attaturk.
Their Caliphate will have an agenda. The goal is not to rule Mohammedanism from just Gaza or Palestine. The goal will be to establish a Caliphate that will rule the entire world.
Hmmm ... Sounds like a call for an imperial Mohammedanism to jihad the globe and convert or kill kafir as in the days of Mohammed. And STILL the Western Left wishes to be "Politically Correct" and not confront the evil or threat to Western Culture that Mohammedanism.
News By Us has published an opinion commentary by William H. Calhoun. Calhoun premise is that war with Mexico may be inevitable. Read the whole thing.
This website claims to not have news bias, obviously it does. However this editorial piece by William Calhoun demonstrates some journalism you will rarely if ever read on MSM outlets. Mr. Calhoun does not reveal the source for his opinion; however I have read some of these same issues on minor media outlets. It is so minor that I cannot recall them sorry. As to the veracity to the intense cooperation alluded to here I cannot confirm. It is a logical presumption though.
The conclusion of a war with Mexico is a bit of a stretch, at least not an open war. I can see a clandestine war of tit for tat that neither country might feel obliged to publicize.
Iran has a nuclear plant that has become fully operational today capable of producing plutonium for weapons.
How can anyone believe that Iran's nuclear program be peaceful? Iran's leadership has been calling for the destruction of Israel and Iran has been building an arsenal of long range missiles. All this coupled with intense saber rattling and stall tactics concerning their nuclear program.
It would be fool hard fantasy to believe Iran is in into peaceful uses of nuclear energy. If I was a Sunni neighbor as Saudi Arabia I would be extremely concerned of nuclear black mail. Iran's Mahdi version of the spread of Mohammedanism though similar in scope to Wahhabism is a competing vision. Iran is Shi'ite and looks to a hereditary line of Mohammed to rule the planet. Wahhabis are Sunni and look to the general leadership of an international Mohammedanism. Sunnis represent 90% of Mohammedans (roughly).
The Middle East is ripe for war, via internal competing visions and mutual hatred of the West and Israel. Does anyone want a nuclear Iran willing to sacrifice the globe for its vision of Mohammedanism?
Friday, August 25, 2006
James Dobson calls on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to derail California State legislation that validates homosexuality and squashes Christian free speech.
Pastors in Europe and Canada have already been prosecuted as a crime for preaching the Word of God pertaining to homosexuals.
This is legislation that violates free speech in America. It would be great for the Governator in California to veto the pro-homosexual/anti-Christian legislation pending in the California Legislature. However if the Governator fails to uphold morality and free speech, then certainly Christians need to unify to carry this to the United States Supreme Court to squash the devil's influence via the homosexual agenda.
If this legal anti-Christian blitz succeeds then the comfort zone of Christianity will be abolished for the first time since Emperor Constantine elevated Christianity. It will be the beginning of a new persecution of Christians in America.
Giora Eiland is a former national security advisor in Israel. Eiland stipulates that Ahmadinejad is the 21st Century version of Adolf Hitler. Both leaders believed/believe that planet earth will be a better place without any live Jews walking on the planet.
Things are pretty bad on the political scale when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is considered as "more reasonable" than Ahmadinejad. That would make Ahmadinejad a super psycho and Khamenei a reasonable psycho.
The Mullah/Ayatollah theocracy of Iran is a psychotic government with delusions of continuing Mohammed's global jihad. That makes the entire leadership elite unreasonable.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Ynet reports that a Mohammedan website – al Khasba – has published a document entitled “How to Kill a Crusader on the Arabian Peninsula.”
Well there you go friends; just like the Mohammedan "Assassins" of old terrorism is being taught. In the 21st Century technology of the information age has enabled online training to murder people of the Western Culture. Do not think this is a reference just to Americans stationed in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a huge producer and provider in the petroleum business. Who do you think buys that petroleum? It is Westerners!
Westerners are now a target on the Arabian Peninsula no doubt because a Westerner presence is perceived to pollute the holiness of the land of Mohammed. Sounds like intolerant racism to me!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
I have read much from dissatisfied Israelis and American supporters of Israel. The unified conclusion of many is that Olmert screwed up. A majority suggest that Olmert's government will topple and be replaced by a more right wing Israeli Prime Minister. If that were to happen, the logical choice (though not necessarily popular choice) is Netanyahu.
It has been several days I have not read of any action taken by power brokers within the Knesset to topple Olmert. I find this a little surprising. When Olmert's predecessor Ariel Sharon began engaging his "Disengagement" plan, there was all kind of talk of toppling his government. That is what led to the Kadima Party. Sharon simply created a Party that would not give him trouble and would tow his line.
Then the disabling life threatening stroke happened to Sharon and Olmert (a lesser man) took over the reigns of the Kadima Party and the Israeli government.
I am a little surprised a coalition of political enemies has not been formed to give Olmert the boot.
The Blogger at BibleTruthOnline.com has evidently read something from Iran that I missed. I can imagine what Iran has to say about Jerusalem and Israel for it is a delusional rogue nation.
I enjoyed so much how BibleTruthOnline.com is setting the record straight, that I am cross posting it here:
FACTS ABOUT ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM
1. ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1312 B.C., TWO MILLENNIA BEFORE ISLAM
2. ARAB REFUGEES FROM ISRAEL BEGAN CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" IN 1967, TWO DECADES AFTER (MODERN) ISRAELI STATEHOOD
3. AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS
4. THE ONLY ARAB RULE FOLLOWING CONQUEST IN 633 B.C.LASTED JUST 22 YEARS
5. FOR OVER 3,300 YEARS, JERUSALEM WAS THE JEWISH CAPITAL.IT WAS NEVER THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY.EVEN UNDER JORDANIAN RULE, (EAST) JERUSALEM WAS NOT MADE THE CAPITAL, AND NO ARAB LEADER CAME TO VISIT IT
6. JERUSALEM IS MENTIONED OVER 700 TIMES IN THE BIBLE,BUT NOT ONCE IS IT MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN
7. KING DAVID FOUNDED JERUSALEM; MOHAMMED NEVER SET FOOT IN IT
8. JEWS PRAY FACING JERUSALEM; MUSLIMS FACE MECCA.IF THEY ARE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, MUSLIMS PRAY FACING MECCA, WITH THEIR BACKS TO JERUSALEM
9. IN 1948, ARAB LEADERS URGED THEIR PEOPLE TO LEAVE, PROMISING TO CLEANSE THE LAND OF JEWISH PRESENCE.
68% OF THEM FLED WITHOUT EVER SETTING EYES ON AN ISRAELI SOLDIER
10. VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE JEWISH POPULATION OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAD TO FLEE AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE
11. SOME 630,000 ARABS LEFT ISRAEL IN 1948, WHILE CLOSE TO A MILLION JEWS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES
12. IN SPITE OF THE VAST TERRITORIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL, ARAB REFUGESS WERE DELIBERATELY PREVENTED FROM ASSIMILATING INTO THEIR HOST COUNTRIES.
OF 100 MILLION REFUGEES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR 2, THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP TO HAVE NEVER INTEGRATED WITH THEIR CO-RELIGIONISTS. MOST OF THE JEWISH REFUGEES FROM EUROPE AND ARAB LANDS WERE SETTLED IN ISRAEL, A COUNTRY NO LARGER THAN NEW JERSEY
13. THERE ARE 22 MUSLIM COUNTRIES, NOT COUNTING PALESTINE. THERE IS ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE. ARABS STARTED ALL FIVE WARS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND LOST EVERY ONE OF THEM
14. FATAH AND HAMAS CONSTITUTIONS STILL CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OFISRAEL. ISRAEL CEDED MOST OF THE WEST BANK AND ALL OF GAZA TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND EVEN PROVIDED IT WITH ARMS
15. DURING THE JORDANIAN OCCUPATION, JEWISH HOLY SITES WERE VANDALIZED AND WERE OFF LIMITS TO JEWS. UNDER ISRAELI RULE, ALL MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL FAITHS
16. OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990...97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL
17. OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL
18. THE U.N. WAS SILENT WHEN THE JORDANIANS DESTROYED 58 SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM. IT REMAINED SILENT WHILE JORDAN SYSTEMATICALLY DESECRATED THE ANCIENT JEWISH CEMETERY ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, AND IT REMAINED SILENT WHEN JORDAN ENFORCED APARTHEID LAWS PREVENTING JEWS FROM ACCESSING THE TEMPLE MOUNT AND WESTERN WALL.
BibleTruthOnline provides this link if wish to read more facts on Israel: Facts about Israel.