They are a multi-millionaire older couple widely known for their gifts to Christian causes. They regard themselves as good, Bible-believing Christians. They have two children, a boy and a girl, both in their late thirties. They have never given their very fine and godly son a nickel in help; their son was in a serious accident and unable to work for some time, while awaiting an insurance settlement. His wife went to work to support them until he was able to work again.
The daughter is a mess. She has drifted into a few bad marriages, and some other beds as well. She is ready to "try anything" -- except Jesus Christ. Her parents feel sorry for her, and they have subsidized her generously over the years. "Life," they say sadly, has been very rough on their "little girl." The girl has been rather very rough with her own life!
Now these two people are prominent "Christians." When they themselves, and many like them, are soft on sin, should we be surprised if judges and juries treat criminals better than their victims are treated? Need we be surprised at all the bleeding heart antics of millions on behalf of the guilty, homosexuals, pornographers, and others? After all, if "Christians" are soft on unrepentant sinners, why should the world be any different?
I once heard a minister claim that there had to be another reading originally to Matthew 18:23-34, where our Lord plainly states that sin must be paid for! The man wanted a cheap forgiveness, and a meaningless grace.
If the world lacks sound judgment in coping with its problems, it is because the church has failed to teach it properly, or to set a godly example. If the world is easy on sinners but hard on the godly, can we complain, if like this older couple, we are the same?
If wisdom and righteousness do not begin at the house of God, then judgment will (1 Pet. 4:17). We dare not sanctify our folly.
Is there anything more offensive than a Nativity scene?
Apparently not. (I used to know Christmas was around the corner when stores put up their holiday decorations. Now I know it's Christmas when everyone starts fighting about it). According to Chicago city officials "a public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story."
For several years now the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest has organized a Christmas festival called the "German Christkindlmarket." This year, the organizers intend on using New Line Cinema as a sponsor by featuring a loop of their upcoming film "The Nativity Story" on televisions placed at the event.
Chicago city officials are concerned that non-Christians attending the event will be offended, and do want to appear as endorsing one religion over another.
Christina Kounelis, executive vice president with New Line, stated, "one would assume that if (people) were to go to Christkindlmarket, they'd know it is about Christmas." She said that to her knowledge no other movie advertising efforts had been turned down. In this political climate, that's a surprise!
Personally, instances like these don't bother me much. What else can I expect from a nation of the unfaithful? And I don't expect much out of a good many of my Christian brethren. They lovingly coddle a sodomite lying pastor yet protest the anti-Christmas attitude. A little consistency would be a welcomed change.
However, I'm completely embarassed to call myself an American when I reside amongst a nation of 2 year-old whiners. If playing a looped movie trailer on some televisions at a Christmas event is enough to greatly offend the populace, then God forbid anything serious ever confronts us. We'd collapse in tears like a bunch of schoolgirls.
Our national polarization is driving the populace to the brink of culture war. Immigration, gays, abortion, race, war, and religion are ripping people apart because of the growing inability for people to remain objective. It's as if our nation is experiencing one great road rage where the slightest "cutting off" in traffic can lead to violence.
Little children live in that sort of environmental tension. Simply touching another child's blocks can send the average toddler into fits of screams and tears. That sums up the sensitivity of a great many Americans.
When instructing my older children I'll often reiterate to them what I consider to be the eleventh commadment: "Thou Shalt Not Whine." Whining is different than a genuine critique. Whining is related to oversensitivity, and oversensitivity is the result of a spoiled and undisciplined people.
Not every American is like this. In fact, I'd wager the majority are more tough-skinned. But the reality is that all too many - both Christian and non - are buying into the propaganda of national media, public education, political pundits, and religious heirarchy. In other words, anybody who's selling you something. Part of staying in business, whether it be politics or modern Christianity, is to create a sense of corporate crisis; and propaganda is designed to sustain the hysteria. By feeding on the teat of national media the American psyche is being steered by an irrational element of emotionalism. This is epitomized annually each Christmas season.
I'm not concerned about national debates over Christmas. Preserving the public display of Nativity scenes is by no means a victory if the public retains its basic heart of unbelief - "a man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still."
I understand that the project of the Kingdom of God is long-term, tedious, unglamorous, and uneventful. To be too concerned about the Christmas tradition is a misplaced emphasis in my mind. What we need is obedience, not an ostensible victory involving Christmas. It is the long-term objective which must reshape the way we view the importance of daily obedience and the futility of political bantering. R. J. Rushdoony established the Chalcedon Foundation on the protracted idea of a tough faithfulness in his very first newsletter to his small band of supporters:
"This movement (the city of man) has been a long time in developing: it cannot be defeated overnight. It cannot be defeated by short-sighted people who want victory today or tomorrow, and are unwilling to support long-term battle... History has never been dominated by majorities, but only be dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith."
May I offer you, the Christian, the unglamorous challenge of sustained, silent obedience? The kind of faithfulness which will destroy the gates of hell? What good is it to restore the American holiday tradition if our lives are pale reflections of Biblical order? And will God reward His people for their complaint any more than you will reward your children for whining? Don't you rather prefer the quiet obedience of your children? Then how about returning the favor to God? Let's grow up, shall we?
For a number of years now I've been persuaded that without restraint the modern evangelical/charismatic church is in danger of eventual apostasy within its multiple factions. After reading Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, I saw disturbing parallels:
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; It does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word; It rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; It bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
The continual moral and political decline in modern evangelicalism is coincidental with a rise in elitism in church leaders. This is often the case historically. The deterioration of morality and government is defended by leaders who are fortified by the Cult of Personality.
As the confession states, the shift in authority goes to the institution, and the ordinances of the institution. i.e. what's being defended is not the Word of God, but rather the denomination, network, administration, or leader. In fact, the Word of God is downplayed because the Scriptures would condemn the leader, the organization, and the undiscerning followers.
There is clearly a lack of submission "to the yoke of Christ." Our Lord demands love by obedience to His commandments, yet love is being redefined into the toleration of sin.
We suffer most, as the confession states, because the majority of evangelical and charismatic churches do not administer the sacraments Biblically. Such verses as 1 John 1:9 are read as encouraging the "private" relationship with God where the confession of sin is done in the closet rather than at the table of the Lord. Need I remind these lovers of God that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness? That's why you should be weekly drinking the blood of Christ. As it runs down your throat God is "cleansing you from unrighteousness."
Think of the compounding of sin amongst millions of protestants by not partaking of the sacrament of communion? What are the ramifications? "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep" (1 Cor. 11:30).
The confession continues that the false church bases itself upon men. Well, I don't even need to comment on that. Just take a visit to your local Christian bookstore and you'll witness firsthand the Christian celebrity culture where leaders are excused the grossest morality because they are leaders.
Lastly, the false church "persecutes those who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry." I've tasted a bit of that one personally. I still receive emails of outrage from Christians who have more compassion for sodomite pastors then they do love for the law of God.
What then is the true church? For this the Belgic fathers are also helpful; and accurate:
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; It makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; It practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head.
This is the litmus test for where you attend church. If they fail in any of the above mentioned items you should be considering other options. It is not beyond the scope of God's judgment to implicate an entire group for the coddling of sin and false doctrine. This is why you should vote with your feet.
Remember, Israel suffered more than the bondage of Egypt. She also suffered the bondage of Babylon -- the city of religious confusion ("babel"). Judgment begins in the house of God and the present crises are clear indicators that a "loving" Father is demolishing some Christian playpens.
For nearly two years now I've had one central mission: undo the damage partially sponsored by my over anxious theonomic forebears. In an effort to reshape America by politics conservative Christians lifted from the pages of Christian Reconstructionists a permission slip to create a Christian America. Now 26 years later conservative Christians are drinking the dregs of their unbiblical venture.
How ironic it is that a mega-church charismatic pastor would be elected as president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) and granted insider access to the Bush-Rove White House. I remember a time when Charismatics were simply dismissed as foolish, babbling, holy-rollers. With the advent of the mega-church, and its power as a voting bloc, any and all Christians were now potential rulers. If anything, the dumber they are, the better.
Ted Haggard is symbolic because he epitomizes all that's wrong with the post-1980 Christian. They are hypocritical, self-indulgent, middle-class, suburban, materialistic, reactionary, and easy to manipulate. The indestructible age of the mega-church doesn't appear long-lasting as political fallout, sexual scandal, and the emergent and house church movements undermine its foundation. I expect the exodus to continue.
Not too far behind is the head of Focus on the Family, James Dobson. Whenever someone brings up his name or ministry I like to say, "Focus on the Family? Man, I wish he would!"
Dobson is in trouble. His friends in the White House were actually calling him a "nut" behind his back, his constituency were "no shows" in the last election, and his good buddy Ted turned out to be one of the most active homosexual/adulterers we've seen in a while (I mean, honestly, who could compare to Ol' Ted?). I don't expect Dobson to bow out, but without a sufficient "bogeyman" Dobson will find it difficult to rally the troops. He could use a Hillary Clinton presidency about now.
Political Christianity has done more damage than what the public sees. The real fallout is within the Christian community. The hero worship of the modern church is leaving a great many evangelical disillusioned by the Haggard scandal and the defeat of the GOP. And that's the problem. The political emphasis was problematic from the start, and many reconstructionists share the blame.
R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North were divided over the foundational spheres of authority. North gave priority to the institutional church while Rushdoony "focused on the family." North advocated dominion in the political sphere while Rushdoony placed emphasis upon Christian self-government, although he would never discourage Christian participation in the political process.
The rise of the Religious Right in the early 80s was due, in my opinion, to the intoxicating lure of politics and it's two-fold temptation of money and power -- even if the money and the power is to be used "for God". The political organizing of these early Christian groups was unparalleled. Now, they are all dressed up and have no place to go. They still possess the money and the power. They also have the established infrastructure, but lack any direction other than a few judge placements and some legislation. Is that all this was about?
I once told Chip Berlet of the Political Research Associates, a dominionist researcher, that if the Christian Right gleaned their motivation to invade politics from the writings of Rushdoony, then he should use those same writings to curb their enthusiasm. With Rushdoony dominion meant Christian self-government in the areas of social concern.
This means we feed, clothe, and educate our own outside of the jurisdiction of the state. The purpose, despite the misconstruing of our critics, is never militant or violent. When we say "government" we mean Christian self-government. When others say "government" they mean civil government. Therefore, when we say "dominion" we do not mean a political takeover. We mean a taking dominion back from the rule of the state. This is a Christian theocracy. Rushdoony said it best, although none of his critics ever quote him:
According to a common error, theocracy means the rule of men in the name of God. The Bible clearly contradicts this view. The state in Scripture is a minimal institution, and so too is the church an institution. The rule of God's law is essentially through the lives of men as they apply their faith, and as they create tithe agencies to govern various areas and needs. Where faith wanes, the theocracy wanes. The Book of Judges gives us no change in polity from beginning to end, but it gives us an alternation from peace and prosperity to oppression and tyranny, and the key is faith. The essential government comes from the self-government of the Christian man. The U.S. was best governed when it was least governed, not because less control from the state was the essential ingredient but because Christian self-government was central in the eras of good government. Without strong, self-governing Christians taking back self-government under Christ in health, welfare, education, and more, we cannot return by politics to less statism.[1]
That last portion bears repeating in all caps: WE CANNOT RETURN BY POLITICS TO LESS STATISM. This is what the Christian Right must understand, or else relinquish the title "conservative." The goal of old conservatism is less government. The Biblical ideal is less rule by the state. How then, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Haggard, and Mr. Perkins, can you gain the conservative ideal of less statism through political means? Just by organizing politically for such a goal would add yet another committee to the behemoth bureaucracy!
Less statism is only achieved by a return to Christian self-government. So, how about you shut down the lobbying groups and give that "tithe" money back to the people so they can get out of debt, give their children a Christian education, care for the poor in their communities, and improve the health and well-being of those near to them?
America is not a Christian nation because of a document or century-old ruling by a Federal judge. In fact, America is not the point. Maps change over time. Our country is barely 230 years old and we think we're the sum total of all that is right. We're not. America is not our identity. Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and our task is to do His will on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). If these statements conjure up visions of lobbying in Washington D.C., then you're missing the point.
Civil service is a good thing; but there is greater need within the Christian family and Christian churches. The effects of modern living are taking their toll on the contemporary family. Christian men are addicted to pornography, women are tied down in the workplace, and Christian children are still filling the halls of public schools. What have you achieved with an ostensibly Christian president if your divorce rates remain steady and your most prominent pastors turn out gay?
Modern republicans have done a great deal of damage to this country, and we are on a path to totalitarianism from which we will not escape. I hold no hope that the Democrats will overturn the Patriot Act or the torture bill. The present saber-rattling in the media regarding a nuclear Iran is clear indication that the dogs of war are far from finished. There are tumultuous days a head and only an alert Christian citizenry can be prepared to minister to their countrymen in times of national crisis.
We are first a nation of priests called to shew forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). Therefore, I challenge all of us to fulfill our role as kingly-priests to our families and churches so that we may be better prepared to serve our world. If you want to lead, then the Scripture says you must become the servant of all (Matt. 25:27). Remember, it is "the princes of the Gentiles that exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you" (v.25-26).
It is non-Christians, Jesus is saying, that seek political power. His people must seek first to become ministers.
1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Ross House Books: Vallecito, CA 1994), p. 1141f.
No amount of excommunication can restore strength to a church where sound faith is lacking. Indeed, a heavy use of excommunication indicates commonly the lack of a sound teaching ministry. Coercion replaces teaching and covers up the failure of the ministry. Coercion not only replaces teaching but also the Holy Spirit. Neither permissiveness nor excommunication can be productive of faith in the life of the church. Both in the Old and New Testaments, excommunication is for serious moral infractions of God's law, and for heresy (Titus 3:10). [1]
We are guilty of two faults: 1) little use of excommunication, and 2) the lack of a sound teaching ministry -- especially as it relates to sanctification and the law of God. With no threat of judgment, and rampant Biblical illiteracy, the church is rushing for collision with even greater immorality and false teaching.
Sanctification by the law of God is not likely to be heard within the padded sanctuaries of the mega-church. If it is mentioned, it usually dies the death of a thousand qualifiers like, "hey, nobody's perfect." This casualness with sin goes right along with the shorts, sandals, plasma screens, and coffee shops that adorn the modern super-churches.
The purpose of church discipline, as Rushdoony noted above, is not coercion. However, it provides a necessary admonition to fear -- this is especially true when it is church leaders that are engaged in sin:
Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 1 Tim. 5:19-20
The monumental exposures of elite Charismatic leaders in the late 1980s should have been a lesson to all of us. After Jim and Tammy Bakker were exposed for massive financial fraud and racketeering (along with Jim Bakker's raping of his former secretary Jessica Hahn), leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart publicly denounced the Bakkers in the harshest terms. They were correct to do so.
In Swaggart's case his hypocrisy was soon revealed when in 1987 Marvin Gorman tailed Swaggart to a swank Texas hotel where Swaggart was held up with a prostitute. Gorman's vendetta was due to his dismissal from the Assemblies of God after Swaggart exposed him for committing adultery. Gorman deflated Swaggart's tires and photographed Swaggart and the prostitute outside the hotel.
In February of 1988 Swaggart televised his greatest preaching performance to date in the unforgettable weeping of pretended repentance. Like Ted Haggard, Swaggart did not publicly testify of his specific sins.
In 1991 Swaggart was stopped by the police in Indio, California for reckless driving. Once again he was found with a prostitute, Rosemary Garcia, who later testified that Swaggart asked her the following twisted request:
"He asked me if I ever let anyone screw my daughter when she was that young," and I said, "No, She's only nine years old."
Swaggart himself should have been excommunicated, but he continues today in ministry and television. In this sense excommunication is not enough, although it was never applied. It is the Biblical illiteracy of God's people that allows such wolves to continue their ministries -- with the full financial support of God's money. Therefore, the people of God must be taught. But, they must no longer be taught the man-centered gospel of self-significance, i.e. "who I AM, and what I HAVE in Christ." They must be taught the law of God -- the message they despise.
Too many of God's people want promises and not commandments. Too many desire keys to successful living and not laws directed towards holiness. Too many are self-indulgent and refuse to embrace their Christian responsibility. We as teachers are surely to blame. Until conversion happens first in the pulpit the pews will continue the march down the wide path to destruction.
1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Ross House Books: Vallecito, CA, 1994), p.1142.
The sad fact is that, along with the toning down or virtual elimination of the need for repentance in the proclamation of the gospel which characterizes so much of modern day evangelism, a neglect of the Christian's duty to pursue sanctification and a failure to discern the Lordship of the Savior is symptomatic of the theological deception currently at large in Christendom.[1]
In simpler terms, the "easy believism" of modern evangelicals has translated into a complete disregard of the absolute Lordship of Christ in sanctification -- a sanctification defined by God's law. If eternal salvation required only the simple repeating of the sinner's prayer, is it any wonder that evangelicals sport such a loosely defined doctrine of sanctification?
The average evangelical Christian is less able to define sin the further they are removed from God's law. Whereas the Scripture declares that the fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13), we are currently watching the grossest display of mockery in the case of the Irreverend Ted Haggard. Will any of these great Christian leaders cite the following warnings by the Apostle Paul?
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor. 6:9-11
The apostle is clear that the grossly immoral shall not inherit the kingdom of God, but that those to whom he was writing WERE some of these in their lives before Christ. Therefore, how dire is the situation when a supposedly converted Christian -- especially a Christian leader -- partakes of those sins which condemn men to hell?
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb. 10:26-31
Those Christian leaders who spew the "greasy grace" of the modern gospel have practically gutted Hebrews 10 from their Bibles. The reason is simply their doctrine of sin. If we react in abhorrence to the Biblical penalties for sins such as homosexuality, it is only because we do not understand its nature, nor the level of its offense towards God. How twisted we are if we can gulp what God vomits?
This is why more outrage is directed towards "Pharisees" like me then is directed at Haggard. Christians hate the punishments of God more so than sin. They despise His righteous judgments for homosexuality, but lovingly protect a man deeply engaged in sodomy with a male prostitute, and that lied repeatedly to their face. I guess they are leaning on the "loving" Father God who is supposed to wink at such things. They obviously misunderstand God's concept of fatherhood:
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Hebrews 12:4-10
Back in Hebrews 10, the writer asked, "How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (v.29). Why is no one afraid? Why do we so casually provoke our Lord to wrath? Why do we seek the friendship of man at the cost of violating the covenant of God?
Does anyone not understand the symbolic nature of the Ted "Faggard" sins? Can you see the cracks in the wall of the Charismatic movement and it's correspondent cousin, the megachurch? Biblical Charismatics must distance themselves from such as these and call for the excommunication of Haggard. If they claim to be "Word People" then let them speak up for something more than "who they are in Christ" and "God shall supply all my needs."
We are without chastisement, and therefore, we are an assembly of bastards. We act as if we have no father because we live like those without discipline. We are unruly, disobedient children that do not share in His holiness. We sleep soundly in a bed of transgression and welcome sodomites as our bedmates.
America is a nation under judgment, and rightfully so. The insanity of the Religious Right, the corporatism and homosexuality of the GOP, and the added perversions of Christian leaders are all clear indicators that mainstream evangelicals are identified with the wrong groups. Granted, a whole host of them have not bowed their knees to Baal, but their silence is deafening.
1. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1977), p. 163.
Of all the subjects to draw angry feedback it's been the discussion of the Irreverent Ted Haggard that has brought the most animosity. The hits just keep coming! The latest diatribe is by a charismatic pastor who faulted my posts concerning Haggard as lumping all Charismatics as homosexuals:
My friend sent me your link to Haggard and the title of your article 'Restoration or Excommunication' triggered in my mind that you are of the same critical spirit. After having read Charismatic Fags' you established my thoughts of you. Just to let you in on something, charismatics don't have some special inroad into homosexuality -- nothing could be more ignorant! Men who claim Christ have fallen into the sins of fornication, adultery, homosexuality etc for thousands of years!
For those of you unfamiliar with Charismatic jargon the accusation of my having a "critical spirit" is not a compliment. My 17 year-old son recently took his SAT in which he scored very high in his "critical reading." Now that is a good thing. But a critical spirit means that my tendency is to unjustly criticize otherwise innocent Christians. By "spirit" the term means "attitude" although he may also be referring to an actual demonic spirit of criticism. You never can tell with these types.
He's accusing me of being ignorant because he thinks I'm suggesting Charismatics have a special inroad to homosexuality. He also claims that Christians have fallen into immorality for thousands of years! I assume he means 2,000 years since nobody was claiming Christ before then. But again, I'm the one who's ignorant so we'll give the pastor the benefit of the doubt as to the thousands of years assertion.
I never claimed Charismatics were predominantly gay. I simply stated that Haggard's engaging in the grotesque sin of homosexuality was not unique, and I highlighted three other examples of prominent Charismatic leaders guilty of homosexuality -- hence the title "Charismatic Fags." Were they all Mormons, I would've used an alternate title. The pastor continues:
[I]t is men like you, who call themselves apologists, who feel compelled to dump everbody (sic) into one big hat and make them look like fools! You are no different then the ignorant soul who lumps all car dealers in the hat as crooks! I have found that most the call themselves apologists are no more than mere contemporary Pharisees--those who inspect others for faults. What kind of Christianity is that? I certainly can't answer that question and don't want to. In conclustion (sic), I'm sure you'll be sorry to hear this, but we have four pastors at our Charismatic church and none of us are indulging in secret sins!
Well, I never called myself an apologist, but I am defending the faith. He's now referred to me as ignorant a second time and added the old "Pharisee" label to compound his outrage. He defines a Pharisee as "those who inspect others faults." Hmm. I guess that's a bad thing. You have to wonder how we could possibly judge any matter were we not permitted to inspect another's faults. He then asks, "what kind of Christianity is that?"
Well, pastor, it's Biblical to judge Haggard in this instance. In fact, the greater crime against God is your silence. The Apostle Paul, in the passage most relevant to the Haggard situation, encourages judgment within the church community:
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 1 Cor. 5:12
It is incumbent upon God's people to judge those within the Body of Christ. That's why I have no judgment for Mike Jones, the gay prostitute who both exposed Haggard and was his primary partner for sodomy. God will judge him. To add insult to injury, most of the outrage regarding the Haggard issue has been directed at Mike Jones by the church members. So, they'll judge Jones, but they won't touch Haggard. Haggard is our responsibility and the Biblical recommendation is that his wickedness be removed by putting him away:
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person. 1 Cor. 5:13
If we do not judge Haggard, we risk leavening the Body of Christ with his wicked perversions:
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. 1 Cor. 5:7
This pastor claims that he and his associates have never participated in the sin of homosexuality. I have no reason to disbelieve him. However, the approach that a good many Charismatic leaders are taking to the Haggard issue is atrocious. At present, Jack Hayford and Tommy Barnett are supposed to oversee Haggard's extensive "restoration" process. This is unbiblical and sinful. They are leavening the church with Haggard's sin. His homosexuality is a leaven that must be removed from the lump. If these Charismatic leaders cannot decipher the plain meaning of 1 Corinthians 5 then, not only do they have no business overseeing Haggard, they are undermining their own qualifications for leadership. They are opening the church to the most heinous of sinful viruses.
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was a rebuke to the leaders as well as the corporate body. Therefore, Hayford, Barnett, the New Life Church pastors, and the congregation should follow Biblical instruction and cast him out. If they deem my words too harsh it only means they do NOT understand the nature of sin and its offense to God. The immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5 was having an affair with his father's wife (stepmother?). Haggard was indulging in rampant gay sex with a male prostitute and lied about it to the last minute. And when he did finally confess -- in a letter -- his admission was vague and ill defined. He's right. Even until now he is a "deceiver and a liar."
"Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:5).
You see, this is restoration. The only type of restoration for such extreme criminality.
If I'm a Pharisee, then so is Paul. If Paul is in the wrong, then pastors like this are greater than he. I am incessantly amazed at the audacity of these pious, Biblically-illiterate church leaders. They are fag enablers. And since they are Charismatic, they are Charismatic fag enablers.
Featured article from the November/December 2006 issue of Faith for All of Life
By Christopher J. Ortiz November/December 2006
In 1986 I borrowed a strange book from a friend who assured me that my life was about to be radically changed. I'd heard that before. Every book promised such glorious transformation, but usually left little to no major revisions in my faith. However, this book was different, and my friend was correct: I was about to be floored. ... Read more>>
We're delighted to announce the arrival of a new homeschooling blog here at Chalcedon. We are blessed to have Mrs. Andrea Schwartz, author of Lessons Learned From Years of Homeschooling, as our resident expert. She'll be hosting and posting and she welcomes your comments.
Here's a snippet from Andrea... This blog forum is designed to provide mentoring and counseling assistance to those eager to train and educate their children from a thoroughly biblical perspective. So, if you are considering homeschooling or have been home teaching your children from some time, I am eager to assist you in maneuvering your way through the issues and situations that arise. How I wish during my early years of home teaching, that there had been such a resource!
An additional note: since my emphasis is Christian education, those who have their children enrolled in Christian schools are also welcome to participate, as are those who are teachers in such institutions.
Spread the word! This will be a great forum for all those passionate about the doctrine and practice of Christian education.
This just goes to show that book learnin' don't mean much! Intellectual honesty goes straight out the window when you're making an OBVIOUS effort to distance yourself from Christian Reconstruction. Read how the head of WORLD-ly Magazine begins an interview with a Christian leader on how the Bible applies to immigration:
Most Christians recognize that the civil law of ancient Israel is no longer binding on us, but it is still vital to understand and apply the principles that law embodies. New Jersey pastor David Dykstra makes such an application in his book, Yearning to Breathe Free? Thoughts on Immigration, Islam, & Freedom (Solid Ground, 2006).
WORLD: You lay out some biblical principles that can help us think through the immigration debate. First, you note that in ancient Israel foreigners were able to move onto Israel's land and become Jews.
DYKSTRA:Yes, citizenship in Israel was never based on any concept of so-called "purity of blood." O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God is helpful in understanding this point. "No legislation in Israel forbade the marriage of an Egyptian proselyte to an Assyrian proselyte. The offspring of such a union would be fully Israelite, yet completely non-Abrahamic in ethnic origin. For these reasons Israel could never be defined along purely ethnic lines." Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development, and God's law made it clear that foreigners not deemed to be enemies were to be welcomed and loved, no matter what their race or ethnicity.
What does Olasky mean by "Biblical principles"? Does God speak in principles? Aren't principles somewhat arbitrary and non-binding? Would God give us a book full of non-binding principles? Is God no greater than Buddha?
Olasky wants the force of the law without endorsing the written law. In other words, it's less offensive to discuss "principles" than "commandments." Why, Mr. Olasky, is it vital to understand and apply the principles these laws embody? If we understand, embrace, and then apply the "principles" behind Old Testament civil law, would we then end up with a society based upon Old Testament civil law?
And what is Dykstra's point about race and the immigration debate? He says, "Racism and xenophobia have never assisted any country's development." It was my impression that the present debate over immigration is NOT a debate over immigration -- it's a debate over ILLEGAL immigration. Why is it that White Christian leaders are so quick to trash their own race when addressing these sensitive issues?
Certainly, Israel allowed the foreigner within their borders with great stipulation regarding love to them as neighbor (Lev. 9:33-34) as well as the forbidding of oppression (Ex. 23:9). The reason being is that Israel was also once a stranger (Ex. 22:21) in the land of Egypt. However, the issue of concern to Israel was the danger of an introduction to a foreign religion. Since faith was the foundation of Israeli society, it could not allow the introduction of paganism or any foreign faith. But God never bothered to simply warn of paganism -- He would rather make racial generalizations like, "beware of the Amalekites." Why? Because God viewed man as a whole with race, religion, nationality, and culture as simply parts. Dykstra wants to compartmentalize ("put asunder") what God sees as together.
Most Americans are concerned about the dramatic economic and social implications of millions of Mexican, Central and South Americas entering this country illegally. Dykstra has shifted the issue to White persecution of hispanics. Therefore, the problem with immigration is not illegals -- it's White people. Aren't they always to blame?
Dykstra and Olasky are governed more by the principles embodying political correctness and racial self-deprecation than anything resembling Mosaic civil law. By emphasizing warnings of racism in the debate over criminal immigration is equivalent to slapping duct tape over the mouths of millions of White Americans -- who once again must grovel in sackcloth and ashes for BEING BORN THE WRONG COLOR!
Ted Haggard (I won't use his title "Reverend"), is apparently beginning his long restoration process under the oversight of men such as Jack Hayford, pastor of the megachurch Church on the Way in Van Nuys, CA, and Tommy Barnett, pastor of the megachurch First Assembly of God in Phoenix. It will involve a long process of counseling, advice, correction and rebuke.
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, was also supposed to participate as an overseer but dropped out citing a lack of time. I can't imagine how Hayford or Barnett has any more time than Dobson.
I've condemned not only Haggard's actions, but the response of those around him, his church, and now this alleged restoration process. My "harshness" has drawn significant consternation from "compassionate" Christians armed with a single text: Galatians 6:1.
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
This verse is hardly appropriate in this instance. We are clearly in the territory of 1 Corinthians 5 where there is "fornication among you... such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles" (v.1).
One "compassionate" friend of Haggard's church recently wrote me the following:
As a friend of New Life Church and a charismatic believer, I was deeply saddened by your mean-spirited article entitled "Charismatic Fags," which gleefully cited charismatic leaders who had fallen into the sin of homosexuality. There was no word of compassion, grace, or love for Ted Haggard, his wife and children, or the heartbroken members of his church. The condemnation your article expressed against Christians who have struggled with sexual immorality is the antithesis of the mercy and forgiveness found in my precious Redeemer who said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Your cynicism about Christian leaders who are healed of homosexual sin and restored to the Body of Christ denies the power of the Holy Spirit to bring deliverance and redemption to those who have fallen.
She's correct, I have no compassion for Haggard. I have no compassion for the delusional church members either who cannot discern between good and evil. I do not have a compassion for his wife who should have clearly known her husband was "up to something." Believe me, wives know.
The only party deserving compassion are Haggard's children. Even then, I am more concerned with the fact that "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you" (Rom. 2:24). I am outraged, not compassionate. Compassion is not even relevant.
Haggard did not "fall" into immorality. He jumped with both feet. Using such descriptives as "fall" and "struggle" are heinous attempts at whitewashing this grotesque offense against God. The woman who wrote me is part of the problem as she is prepared to coddle a man who must be turned over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5).
Haggard does not require restoration by these elite megachurch leaders because Haggard was not "overtaken in a fault" and does not qualify for Galatians 6:1 as John Calvin makes clear:
When we perceive a brother to have transgressed, let us consider that he has fallen into the snares of Satan; let us be moved with compassion, and prepare our minds to exercise forgiveness. But offences (sic) and falls of this description must undoubtedly be distinguished from deep-seated crimes, accompanied by deliberate and obstinate disregard of the authority of God. Such a display of wicked and perverse disobedience to God must be visited with greater severity, for what advantage would be gained by gentle treatment? [1]
This is because the meaning of the Greek will not sustain an understanding of sin at the level of Haggard's as Rushdoony's exegesis of Galatians 6:1 makes plain:
The word fault is the Greek paraptomati, a falling aside, a slip or lapse. It does not refer to a willful malicious sin, but to weakness, an as yet insufficient strength in Christ. Thus, this particular text cannot be used with reference to malicious acts, nor to actions which show a contempt for godliness. [2]
The more severe treatment is excommunication as presented in 1 Corinthians 5. It also has the goal of "restoration":
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (v.5)
It's only in this way that we can "put away from among ourselves that wicked person" (v.13). This is so that God is not angered by the larger community and judges all of us for coddling such sin.
Haggard did not admit to the specifics of his immorality. It would be too embarrassing. Mike Jones, the gay prostitute, claims he was paid by Haggard every month for 3 years to have anal sex with Haggard. Folks, that's 36 times.
So, is Haggard repentant? No. He's sorry he got caught. If he was repentant and seeking restoration, he would have sought help a long time ago. If Mike Jones would have said nothing, Haggard would be bent over a hotel bed in Denver right now.
So, to the soft-spoken, feminized pastors of New Life Church I say, "pronounce judgment, and put him out of the church lest a worst thing fall upon both him and you." Your coddling of his wickedness is causing the heathen to blaspheme the name of our Lord even more.
1. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996), p.171f 2. R. J. Rushdoony, Romans and Galatians (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1997), p.398. See also Delling's discussion in TDNT IV:14f.
Forgive my facetious title, but I wanted to draw you in. On Sunday, October 29, 2006, just over a week before the revelations concerning Ted Haggard, I preached in a charismatic church in Minneapolis, MN. Here's a 2 minute portion from my opening comments that are eerie in light of what surfaced a week later.
Chris Ortiz and Pastor Paul Raymond discuss practical ways that Christians can apply their faith in their respective communities. Paul Raymond's passion and intensity is addictive and you're sure to be enlightened and inspired by this in-depth interview.
He's the head of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals. He's the senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church. He meets weekly with White House as one of the top leaders of the Religious Right. He's the author of numerous best-selling charismatic books. He's married with five children. It appears he may also like drugs and monthly gay sex.
Jones claims to have recorded voice messages from Haggard who was allegedly using the alias "Art" to contact Jones. Some of the voice mail excerpts have been aired on KUSA-TV but all of them focus on Haggard seeking to purchase methamphetamine (i.e., "speed"). Haggard emphatically denies any homosexual activity.
Haggard has resigned his post as head of the NEA and stepped down as senior pastor of the New Life Church. Ross Parsley is now the acting head of New Life. Parsley admitted to KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that at least some of Jones' allegations were true. Where there's smoke there's usually fire.
New Life members refuse to believe Haggard would ever participate in gay sex. One church member stated, "He (Haggard) loves the Lord, homosexuality is a sin and that's not Ted." But, homosexuality is actually very common among prominent charismatics.
Since the wider breaking of this story Paul Crouch has been mysteriously absent from TBN. His son, Paul Crouch, Jr., is now the more visible head of TBN and the once dominating network is now showing Christian films and running re-runs of previous fundraising programming.
Another fallen angel is the young, fiery Roberts Liardon. A self-proclaimed apostle and prophet, Liardon got an early start when as a boy he would spend ceaseless hours in prayer at the dictates of his domineering grandmother. One afternoon he was knocked to the floor of his bedroom and taken by Jesus to heaven for extended tour. He documents this experience in his book I Saw Heaven.
As a teenager Liardon was already preaching in churches. Pentecostal-charismatics lapped up his incessant tales of visions, dreams, and angelic visitations. I saw Liardon in those days. I also spent some time with him in a friend's office during a meeting we both attended.
Liardon always appeared effeminate. His mannerisms and tone were quite reminiscent of the average gay. Well, such he was. In 2001, Liardon stepped down from the headship of Embassy Christian Center in Irvine, CA, for having a "short-term homosexual relationship." This was not the whole story. I have close friends who've worked with Liardon for years and he had multiple gay affairs with his young travel assistants. He remains in ministry. One of the more significant charismatics to fall into homosexuality is the master prophet Paul Cain. Mr. Cain is noted for an uncanny and prolific prophetic ministry in which he disclosed the secrets of men's hearts as well as predicted historic events with great accuracy. Cain ministered alongside William Branham, the pentecostal icon of similar gifting who actually proclaimed himself to be the "Elijah to come" of Revelation 11.
Paul Cain was also the long time personal mentor of Dr. Jack Deere, the southern Baptist seminary professor who cast off his cessationism to become a primary spokesman for the charismatic theology. Cain was also a mentor to such men as John Wimber and Rick Joyner. Cain has spoken also to numerous heads of state including Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein. He also co-authored a book, The Word and the Spirit, with R. T. Kendall, the noted successor of Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones at Westminster Chapel in London, England.
In 2005, Cain confessed to homosexuality and alcoholism. For a time he even refused to change his ways. He is presently under a restoration process and is sure to recover. They all do. Being gay and drunk will get you stoned in the Old Testament, but in "Charismania" it gets you an audience.
There are very great differences among races and nations, but the attitude toward this fact varies. Some deny all differences calling it racism, and others affirm them as inherent in races. Both views are false. Micah 4:5 tells us, as it surveys the peoples, "For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."
Over a century ago, E. W. Hengstenberg summed up the meaning of Micah's words in a sentence: "The lot of every people corresponds to the nature of their God." Our faith limits us, or it strengthens us, depending on what and in whom we believe.
Nations rise and fall in terms of their faith and character. Their histories are not written in terms of their religious faith, but the fact remains that they are determined by it.
The Word of the Lord still stands: "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain" (Ps. 127:1).
We are laying waste our inheritance of faith and freedom, and the national disintegration and decay is visible on all sides. Political changes are at best superficial in their impact when a people have gone astray. We cannot export freedom to other nations when we are losing it, nor can we propagate a faith we do not hold. Our just reward will be judgment unless we again become a people of faith and character.
