Wait, before you burn me at the stake and call me a heretic, hear me out. This was a tough pill for me to swallow too, as some of the greatest theologians throughout history would argue against this, and still do. As someone who is definitely reformed in soteriology, this was recently brought to my attention by a dispensationalist, and it would have been easy to just write it off. But as someone who is committed to rightly dividing the Scriptures, I felt I had to look deeper into this. After all, the NIV says in 1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world,” and the King James Version says in Romans 5:11, “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Even Reformed theology is built around this concept of “atonement,” … or is it?

Wayne Grudem has defined Christ’s “atonement” as follows:

Atonement is the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.

And many other modern solid Bible teachers speak of Christ’s “atoning” sacrifice on the cross without giving it a second thought. But let’s look at what atonement really is. The primary definition of atone, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is “To make amends, as for a sin or fault.” In the Old Testament, atonement was something man did to make amends for his sins. It was a temporary act, and while God would forgive our sins for making atonement, it was never an act that completely removed our sins. Leviticus 4:20 says:

And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Notice, it does not say sins will be removed. The Hebrew word translated as atonement here is kaphar, and primarily means to cover over. The shedding of innocent animal blood was merely an illustration of the deadliness of sin, and simply acted as a temporary bandage for sin, which pointed to the future sacrifice of Christ, which would actually and permanently remove, and wash away our sin.

The word translated as atoning in 1 John 2:2 in the NIV is the Greek Word hilasmos, which means “appeasing,” or “propitiating,” and in Romans 5:11, the word is katallage. Katallage is an interesting word, and was often used in the context of business transaction, meaning an exchange of equal values. Romans 12:19 says:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

The idea here is that Christ’s life, death and resurrection was an exchange, a purchase of our debt. Through this purchase of equal values, (Christ’s infinite holiness, vs our infinite sinfulness) he was able to purchase us with his blood. This is definitely not an “atonement” which was a temporary covering of our sins. Hebrews 10:10-12 says:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.

So it is clear that what we need is not an atonement, but a permanent solution. Some translations have more accurately noticed this incorrect usage of the word atonement, and have translated it as propitiation. Propitiate means to appease, or conciliate. Appease means to ease, calm, soothe, and does not carry the idea of making reparations. So, basically what we have is an improper usage of the word “atonement,” which carries with it the idea that it can be used interchangeably with “propitiation.” But this is not correct. Atonement simply carries the idea of making reparations, or repaying for something we did wrong, which we could never fully do. Propitiation carries the idea of exchanging something of equal value for our wrongdoings, also something we could never do. But the difference here is that atonement was a work of man, and propitiation was a work of God. We had nothing to do with God’s work of propitiation, it was an act of Grace that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins.

Please understand, I’m not saying the teachers or pastors who speak of Christ’s “atoning” death or sacrifice are false teachers. The word has been used interchangeably for so long that it has taken on the incorrect definition, and has come to mean something that it doesn’t. Similar to how Kleenex has come to mean tissue, or in the South, Coke means soda. It has become so commonplace that it’s not even contested, and is used in the pulpit, in seminaries, and even in systematic theology books. Christ’s sacrifice is never spoken of in Scripture as an atonement, nor is a sin offering ever spoken of as a propitiation. So if you really take the time to look into it, you may not have any choice but to come to the same conclusion. Thoughts?

As we all know, Russell Moore and the ERLC have had an agenda for the last year of pushing ‘racial justice,’ and using the Church, especially the Southern Baptist church as a pedestal for promotion if this cause. What better timing is there for a tragic incident such as the murder of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man fleeing from a white police officer in North Charleston, SC, to occur than now?

Let me be clear, this is an awful incident, and the video proves it to be a ruthless murder without cause. This is perhaps even a real case of actual racism, I don’t know. I cannot judge the police officer’s heart, but his actions were clearly wrong, and he deserves to pay the penalty for his crimes. However, this is an isolated case, and does not represent a systemic problem within our nation’s police forces. There are always going to be those who abuse their power, both black and white, and any officer who abuses their power should be dealt with appropriately. Any act of misconduct by an officer should be thoroughly investigated by an outside authority, and corrective actions should not be taken lightly. I also want to go on the record to say that I’m not convicting anyone until the court has made it’s final decision. I am just stating the facts as they appear to be.

This being said, you can count on Russell Moore and Co. to exploit this tragedy to further his personal socialist cause of racial justice. In a statement to Christianity today, he says:

The killing of Walter Scott is horrific. In this case, the country has viewed this awful act with our own eyes. Given the past year, we needed no reminders that racial justice and reconciliation are needed desperately in our communities. Even so, we have received another such reminder, at the awful cost of another human life.

First of all, we don’t know for sure that this incident was racially motivated. I will admit, it does appear that way, and very well may be. But to exploit this incident to stir up more support for ‘racial justice’ is simply mind boggling. This case is nothing like the previous cases that Moore is referring to, in which there is actual evidence to support the police officer’s story, as well as no evidence for racial motivation. But Russell Moore is basically coming out and using this isolated case to say “hey, see, I told you so, there’s too many racist cops.” But this is simply dishonest to do so, and disrespectful to the victim, Walter Scott, and his family.

I find it funny that Russell Moore recently published an article complaining that Rolling Stone printed serious criminal accusations against a campus group that turned out to false, yet the people involved still have their job at the magazine company. I don’t see him standing up against the false criminal accusations that Thabiti Anyabwile and his other ERLC pals made against the officer that shot Michael Brown in self defense as decided by a grand jury. Russell Moore constantly advocated that the shooting of Brown was unjust, unfair, and racially motivated, and has never retracted this, yet he still holds his job. This is okay though, since this fits within his narrative of white on black racial injustice, and his socialist solution of removing personal responsibility and placing the responsibility of criminal activity on the backs of law abiding citizens.

What we don’t see is Russell Moore addressing the real issue in this perceived environment of racism, and injustice towards blacks. He wants us to think the reason there is a disproportionate amount of arrests among blacks is because blacks are targeted by racist white cops. But the real issue is fatherlessness, drug and gang culture and a lack of self responsibility that runs rampant in the black community. The only solution to this sin problem is the Gospel, and while Moore runs around promoting the Gospel as the solution, by paying close attention, you can see where he really stands. To him, the problem sin isn’t the aforementioned things, it’s racism. And while it’s true that there is some racism in America, and, yes, the Gospel is the solution to racism, his unwillingness to address the sin issues within the black community amounts to nothing more than pandering to a democrat base in which he is trying to unite politically with conservative church-goers.

Russell Moore can’t come out and admit that he was wrong, he’s in too deep at this point. So this latest tragedy gives him the boost he needs to draw in more support from emotional, unlearned onlookers, and those who share in his ideology. The more support he gains from church leaders, no matter how radical they are, the more credible he looks, and the stronger he grows, and the easier it becomes to transform the Church into what he wants it to be. A platform to transform the United States into a Communitarian socio-economic system, one in which he himself would be exempt from.

Look for more commentary from Moore in the coming days. I predict he will be playing his cards very well, and very carefully in this matter.

People who are familiar with author Ann Voskamp know that she is a charismatic, melodramatic writer, who writes in a tedious, semi-poetic style of writing that you either love or hate. Her grammatical style of placing adjectives after the noun (postpositive adjectives), or using uncommon words for rhythm that the average person would have to look up to understand what she’s talking about, can be very exhausting, or very captivating, depending on one’s preference. However, there is no doubt that many women have fallen victim to her impressionistic linguistic style, and have been captivated by her insights into her “Holy Experience,” or what she proclaims to be a life transforming experience from God. But are the experiences she writes about Biblical?

Recently, Ann Voskamp posted a blog, which is an excerpt from her devotional, One Thousand Gifts, titled When You’ve Been Looking for a Sign. In the excerpt, she speaks of a time when she seems to be depressed about certain situations in her life that aren’t going the way she expects. She and a high-school friend decide to take a walk, and she notices a chalk writing on the sidewalk that says “Hey Beautiful, you are loved!” She then says in the excerpt:

And she laughs loud and we’re carried and hey, who needs Ryan Gosling and his “Hey Girl” meme when you’ve got God with His “Hey Beautiful” promise?

She ultimately interprets this to be a sign from God, that in his grace, he is communicating to her that he thinks of her as beautiful, and he loves her. Not only is she eroticisizing God’s love by comparing God to a male actor, and immoral sex figure; she’s also teaching bad theology from her experience. She claims that through her new revelation from God, she now sees God in a new light. She claims that through this “epiphany,” she now understands God’s grace, and his timing.

But how does she know that this is a sign from God?

She is seeing a defacement on the sidewalk, and because, in her mind, she is seeing something that she wants to see, and hearing what she wants to hear, she is attributing it to God. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that God speaks to us this way. She is claiming that this writing is a revelation from God. My question to Ann would be, since that is God speaking to her, should we now add that picture she took of the writing to our canon of Scripture? Is God graceful to us in our daily lives? Yes. But does God speak to us, or reveal things to us through any means other than Scripture? No. So, outside of Scripture, we really have no way of hearing directly from God, and the Bible is very clear that by attributing things to God that he did not say, you run the risk of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32). And this is exactly what Ann Voskamp is doing. She is claiming that God has revealed himself to her through this writing on the sidewalk, through a personal experience, one that involves no Scripture whatsoever.

This is part of the larger problem with charismatics in general, and particularly with these new women Bible study teachers that are running rampant within evangelicalism. These women, such as Voskamp, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, etc., tend to write and speak in ways that are emotionally captivating to women, and draw them into the experience. While so much of it seems to be benign on the surface, at a deeper level, it’s very dangerous, and borderline blasphemous. Essentially what Voskamp is saying is that Jesus sacrificial death on the cross wasn’t enough for God to express his love and grace to us, and that Scripture alone isn’t enough for him to communicate it. She needed to hear it from a source outside of Scripture, and then she was able to praise God, and “experience” his grace.

What is the difference between this writing on the sidewalk telling her something that God supposedly said, and the alleged “Virgin Mary” visiting people at Fatima to bring a supposed message from God? While evangelicals like John Piper and Matt Chandler would be quick to discount any of these Catholic visits from Mary as false, yet they praise charismatic evangelicals like Voskamp, Moore, Shirer and Christine Caine as though they are God’s greatest blessing to the Church since the reformation.

I think @annvoskamp is becoming one of my favorite writers. Tremendous piece http://t.co/Vf2Zyxn6Mm

— Matt Chandler (@MattChandler74) August 13, 2014

I’ll end with a quote from John MacArthur at his Strange Fire conference:

Why don’t evangelical leaders speak against this movement?  Why is there such silence? Look When somebody attacks the person of Christ the Evangelical world rises up and says “no, no, no!”  . . . the Holy Spirit has been under massive assault for decades and decades, and Ive been asking the question ‘where are the people rising up in protest against the abuse and the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?‘ The only thing I can suggest is that they have been literally backed up into a corner by intimidation that they need to be loving and accepting and tolerant and not divisive in the body of Christ, thats been the mantra. . .

In the wake of Alex Malarkey’s courageous confession that he lied about his trip to Heaven as a young boy in his book, The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, it appeared that the whole Heaven Tourism issue was beginning to lose ground. The massive outcry by #The15 against Lifeway bookstores, in conjunction with Alex’s recantation of his story, prompted Lifeway to remove all Heaven Tourism books from the store’s shelves, though they won’t admit that’s why they did it. The recantation of Alex’s story also caused many to doubt Colton Burpo’s story as well, regarding his alleged visit to Heaven in his book and upcoming movie Heaven is for Real. Burpo then felt he needed to come out and make a statement–one where he unabashedly claimed that he stands by his story. Just when it seems like all of this doubt being cast upon the subject was causing people to rethink their belief in these fictional stories, the publicity of a new miracle tale is refueling the old fire.

Enter Annabel.

Annabel Beam, a nine year old Burleson TX girl, claims she visited Heaven while unconscious, after falling 30 feet down head-first inside of a hollow tree. Her mother, Christy, and father, Kevin, stand by her story, and believe that what she claims she witnessed is real. In fact, Christy tells the story in her new book which was just released, Miracles from Heaven. During her ordeal, she claims that as she fell inside of the tree, she was knocked unconscious. While unconscious, she was ‘transported’ to Heaven, and entered through the gates, which were made of gold. She then proceeded to come in contact with Jesus, who looks like Santa Claus, and sits on his lap. This Santa Jesus then tells her that he is going to cure her of her lifelong disease. She also sees her recently passed grandmother in her alleged experience, and claims that she knows she is in Heaven because of this. (Note, she doesn’t claim she knows she’s in heaven because of Jesus, but because of her grandmother.) Upon beginning to wake up from her unconscious state, God tells her it isn’t her time, and sends a small angel, the size of a fairy, to stay with her until she is rescued by the crew who is pulling her from the tree.

As if her story doesn’t sound outlandish enough to anyone who knows anything about the Bible, I find the timing absolutely astonishingly perfect for the release of this new book. It’s as if the Heaven Tourism industry planned it this way in order to keep the industry alive. The public response and comments to this story are mind-boggling. It’s amazing how many people will buy into this, and discount anyone who tries to approach it with any semblance of reason. Some of the comments posted on the Fox News video are:

Juanita Elgin I believe this! I died many years ago, and you can see, feel, and speak. It was not my time. Jesus is real, and He is the Son of God, and He is coming back very soon for His Children.

Like · Reply · 1,894 · Yesterday at 8:39am

and

Tanya Newland It always amazes me that people can’t seem to wrap their heads around a miracle. I see them everyday! God does exist, ya know.

Like · Reply · 2,819 · Yesterday at 8:39am

First off, we don’t necessarily discount miracles from God. We believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things, so if this girl’s life was spared, and her disease is cured, there is no doubt that God is behind it. What we do discount, however, is her fictional story of visiting heaven, and sitting on Jesus’ lap. For one thing, she didn’t die, she was unconscious, so if she really did have some experience, it was in her mind. Children are very imaginative, and the story she tells sounds more like a fairy tale cartoon she’d recently seen on TV, than a biblical description of Heaven. Sadly, people are going to believe what they want to believe anyways.

Secondly, and I’m no doctor or medical expert here, but it’s not uncommon for the body to spontaneously cure itself of a disease. It happens all the time. In fact, the Journal of Pediatric Surgery states that in her disease, Pseudo-obstruction, surgery is recommended to be avoided because the disease often resolves itself spontaneously. The Star Telegram says the following regarding the spontaneous curing of her disease:

Annabel’s Boston-based gastroenterologist, Dr. Samuel Nurko, didn’t call it a miracle, but he did release the girl from his care last November, noting that she “is completely asymptomatic, is leading a normal life and is not requiring any therapies.”

2 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Not too long ago, I reported on the SBC leaders who were chosen by president Ronnie Floyd to lead this year’s Committee on Committees. Here I want to give a run-down on what I perceive to be part of a bigger problem within the SBC. The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is designed in such a way that once a group is in power, they have the ability to stay in power, unscathed. In other words, it’s the current leadership that gets to decide who the next leaders will be. It’s quite a drawn out process, and on the surface it appears to be an efficient system, but with the corruption running rampant within evangelicalism, the system has broken down, and I’ll show you another reason why.

First, the man SBC President Ronnie Floyd didn’t choose. His name is Pastor Kenny Gooden, from Union Grove Baptist Church, in Yadkinville, NC. Have you heard of him? Most likely not. Pastor Gooden is not a world-famous ear-tickling preacher like well known televangelists and coliseum circus ring masters that everyone is so familiar with. No, he is a relatively unknown man, faithfully shepherding his flock in a relatively unknown small town in rural North Carolina. Sponsored by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina’s 5th district, Pastor Gooden was asked to serve as Guest Chaplain and deliver the opening prayer in front of US Congress on April 15th.

His deliverance of the prayer was unwavering. He opened the prayer by coming to the Father in confession of sin, and of everyone in the room’s sin. He wasn’t afraid to call it what it is–sin, and then humbly asks for mercy, grace and forgiveness. He also asks God to give to them a love for Him. He recognizes that God in all his sovereignty, and that man, being dead in his sins, that only God can grant us the ability to love Him, and he humbly asks this in prayer. He also has no qualms about saying that America’s righteousness has been lost, and humbly asks God to revive it. And most importantly, at the close of his prayer, he Boldly pronounces that he asks these things in the name above all names, to whom every knee shall bow, Jesus Christ.

Pastor Gooden must be commended for his unshakable presentation of his faith in front of one of the most ungodly systems of corruption in the world, the U.S. Congress. Sure, there may be a few in there who are Christians, but they would be the minority. The majority of the members of congress are exactly those Pastor Gooden was speaking about in his prayer. The unrighteous, the ungodly, the unforgiven–those who need to repent, and bow there knee to Christ. Pastor Gooden is not alone, he represents a large majority of the faithful pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention. There are thousands of pastors just like him, who are unwavering in their service to Jesus Christ, and his sheep. Those who don’t compromise the Word of God in order to please man, and those who stand up against all adversity to boldly name the name of Jesus Christ. The Kenny Goodens of the world are the ones you’ve never heard of, and the Kenny Goodens of the world don’t get picked for leadership positions.

Now, let’s talk about who did get chosen to serve as the leader of the 2015 SBC Committee on Committees. His name is Dr. Bryan Smith, senior pastor of First Baptist Church, Roanoke, VA. Last year, Dr. Smith delivered the opening prayer for the U.S. House of Representatives on 4/2/2014. Listen to the prayer in the video clip. The prayer is very ecumenical, unbiblical, and never once does he name the name of Jesus Christ. He could have been praying to Allah for all we know. I’m not suggesting that Dr. Smith isn’t a Christian, or doesn’t believe in Christ, but the point I’m trying to make here is that Smith was more than willing to compromise his role as pastor, and duty as a Christian, for the sake of ecumenism. In other words, he didn’t want to offend anyone by using Christ’s name. He made a complete mockery of prayer in front of our nation’s leaders simply to gain the notoriety of being there.

Dr. Smith is well known among the current wavering leadership within the SBC. In the past, he has served as Trustee for LifeWay Christian Resources, the heresy peddling branch of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has also served as President of the Pastor’s Conference for the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, and 1st Vice President of the Pastor’s Conference for the 2004 SBC.

If you are well known, and you walk the walk and talk the talk of the current leadership in the SBC, you can be guaranteed a continuing leadership role within the Convention. One of the requirements for this guarantee are the ability to compromise for the sake of unity, and the willingness to bend in order to unabashedly defend others in the same leadership role. Speaking out in anyway against the current leadership, no matter how biblical it is, is strictly forbidden.

We must stand up and defend our unwavering, biblical pastors, and promote the cause of Godly leadership within our convention, or we are ultimately going to lose it. It’s time to reform our denomination, and clean up the dirt. The Bible has much to say about these two pastors:

²³ And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. ²⁴ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. ²⁵ For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? ²⁶ For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. ²⁷ But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. – Luke 9:23-27

Episode 1 | 04/18/2015

In this first episode, I introduce myself, and tell you a little bit about who I am, and why I decided to start my blog and this podcast. I discuss a little bit about the current state of the Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular, and I play for you some disturbing audio, as well as some uplifting audio from various pastors, including Creflo Dollar, Bryan Smith, and Pastor Kenny Gooden.

Click Here for MP3 File

The Documentary Theory, also known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory, is a hypothesis that states that the Pentateuch, (the first five books of the Bible) were not inspired by God and written by Moses during his life, but were actually written by a conglomeration of at least four authors/editors centuries after Moses’ death. The hypothesis states that these authors, over a period of about 500 years, between 950 B.C. and 450 B.C., compiled and edited various writings, and did not originate from the time of Moses at all. Though there are different variants of this idea, and they can arguably be traced back much further, this modern theory can certainly be traced back at least as early as the 1600’s, when Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher and political historian first proposed this idea.

This theory is based solely on the idea that since there appears to be different writing styles throughout the books, and even different names for God, such Yahweh (Lord, Jehova) and Elohim, (God), given throughout the books, that there must have been different sources for the information that these authors used. These sources that are claimed to be used are mainly oral traditions that were passed down from generation to generation, including other religions, and over a period of time. There is henceforth no real historical evidence that support these claims.

Jewish and Christian teachings claim that the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were indeed written by Moses himself, with some possible additions to his writings by Joshua. (i.e. to record Moses’ death) Does this mean that Moses did not use any other sources or documents to write these books? Of course not. Moses could have had many sources passed down to him, including from the time of Adam himself. This is supported both historically and Biblically.

Clay tablet written in the time of Abraham.

Many supporters of the documentary theory claim that Moses’ couldn’t have written these books simply because there was no well-established form of writing in Moses’ day. This simply is not true. There is a form of writing, known as Cuneiform Script, which consists of wedge-shaped characters carved onto clay tablets. This was a well known form of writing, which dates back as far as 3000 B.C. This is obviously well before Moses’ time. It is very likely that Moses would have been taught this form of writing, as he was raised as an Egyptian prince by the Pharaoh’s daughter. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Moses wouldn’t have received the best education of the times.

Several verses of the Pentateuch also identify Moses as the author.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this down in a document as something to be remembered, and recite it in the ears of Joshua: I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens.” – Exodus 17:14 NASB

Moses then wrote down all the words of the LORD and, rising early the next day, he erected at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. Then, having sent certain young men of the Israelites to offer holocausts and sacrifice young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD, Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he splashed on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, “All that the LORD has said, we will heed and do.” – Exodus 24:4-7 NASB

By the LORD’S command Moses recorded the starting places of the various stages… – Numbers 33:2 NASB

When Moses had written down this law, he entrusted it to the levitical priests who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. – Deut. 31:9 NASB

Please see also Exodus 24:37, Deut 31:22 and Deut 31:24. If these books were not authored by Moses himself, then who did? What on earth would be the author’s reasons for remaining anonymous, especially when they all lived centuries apart from each other? This just does not make sense. In fact, it makes more sense that Moses would have written and compiled them, and the linguistic changes throughout the books are no more than representative of the changes of time and style of the sources he collected to compile these books.

But what about the different names for God used throughout the Pentateuch? Let’s first talk about what the different names represent. The first name for God found in Genesis is Elohim. Elohim is a Hebrew word which literally represents a divine power. A majestic being who is all-knowing and all-powerful; a creator who is above all things in the universe. On the other hand we find the tetragrammaton YHWH (Yahweh). This name is often translated to Jehovah. This name simply shows a different nature of God. This is a more personal representation of God, as a loving, promising God. A God who establishes covenants (promises) with his people, and walks along side of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. When Moses wrote of the creation of Adam and Eve, it makes perfect sense that he would have used the name Elohim to represent God, as this name describes a powerful creator. It makes sense to apply the different names to God when His name is used in a different context. The fact that different names are used for God in different contexts is absolutely no reason to believe that any author other than Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Not only did the Old Testament itself identify Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, but Jesus himself references Moses’ writings.

Then Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one, but go show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them.” – Matthew 8:4 NASB

For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ – Mark 7:10 NASB

As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’? – Mark 12:26 NASB

Could our Lord and Savior be misrepresenting these texts? Could he perhaps just be ignorant? If so, wouldn’t this undermine the entire validity of Christianity as a whole? There is no reason to believe that this is the case.

The Documentary Theory also claims that because there are different writing styles of the books, that there must be several different authors. This fact just simply does not prove anything. Think about this. You write a letter to your grandmother by hand and mail it to her. You would probably use a completely different tone of voice, set of vocabulary and grammatical style than you would if you were to type an email to your brother. Different subjects and audiences often require a different writing style. This is not a new phenomena. Moses lived a very long time, and God prepared Moses from his birth to write these accounts of the Old Testament. Moses was guided by the Holy Spirit through his education and through his life he collected the sources of information he needed for the Pentateuch. Notice the words of Peter.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. – 2 Peter 1:20-21 NASB

It is obvious that the Documentary Theory was concocted by secularists in order to deceive people, and to weaken the validity of God’s Word in an attempt to push their own agenda. Supporters of the Documentary Theory regard most of the Old Testament as story-telling, imagination, and folklore, and henceforth disregard any form of revelation by God to mankind. To them, the idea that supernatural intervention could not exist allows secularists to support their claims that their must be another explanation. Even though there is no other explanation, and nothing in the Bible has ever been dis-proven, supporters continue to hold on to this theory. This type of thinking has even made it’s way into mainstream evangelicalism, and well known and highly regarded authors, such as Tim Keller, can even use this to teach their false ideas of evolution within the Church. But, this in effect essentially breaks down the entire righteousness of the teachings of the Bible. If we as Christians cannot believe who wrote our scriptures, then what can we believe?

Not believing that Moses wrote the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is dangerous in the eyes of God. Jesus warns us of this

For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” – John 5:46-47 NASB

If you reject that Moses wrote the Word of God, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so, then in effect you are nullifying the validity of your faith altogether. Are you denying Jesus’ words? If so, why are you a Christian? Are you denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Are you denying your salvation in Christ? Denying the Word of God is denying Christ himself.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God… – John 1:1-2 NASB

The Baptist Press revealed yesterday that Pastor J.D. Greear of Summit Church, Raleigh-Durham, NC, has nominated current pope president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Ronnie Floyd, to a second term. This comes as no surprise, as Floyd is adored by the neo-evangelical leadership who have now mainstreamed the denomination. One of the problems with this neo-evangelicalism is that many of them are solid bible teachers, and are solid in their doctrinal beliefs, but outside of the pulpit is where they break down. They see no problem associating with, and promoting emergent leaders such as Rick Warren, and they tend to blindly support each other, as I reported before, without any accountability, in order to re-elect and maintain leadership positions within the SBC. This appears to be the same thing here.

J.D. Greear, who pastors a seven location megachurch in North Carolina, and avid supporter of emergent leaders like Warren, has stated his reasons for nominating Floyd, and they seem to fall right in line with the current line of thinking among our current SBC leaders. Greear says of Floyd:

Pastor Ronnie filled his first term with repeated calls to prayer. Every time I hear him speak, he lifts our eyes beyond what we can do to what only the Holy Spirit can do. He really believes a move of God is possible in our generation. And he makes me believe it — a true and essential message for every generation, but one especially pressing in our own,” Greear wrote.

I can only suppose that Greear “heard him speak,” when he was quoting and promoting false teacher Robert Morris, while making an unbiblical push to his congregation for money, known as “first fruits tithing.” Morris and Floyd teach the Word-Faith heresy that if you aren’t giving the first ten percent of your gross income to his 501(c)(3) organization, then you are under the curse of God, and that you have “the supernatural power of God working against you.” Floyd doesn’t use any scripture to support his teaching, only Robert Morris.

While it sounds great that Floyd has repeatedly called for prayer during his first term as president, as reported before, his method of prayer is quite concerning. He is an avid supporter and promoter of Mark Batterson, author of The Circle Maker, in which Floyd says of Batterson:

This is one of the most motivating books on prayer that I have read in years. As a committed prayer warrior and one who has written on prayer as well as prayer and fasting, I was ministered to greatly. This is a book that will be around for many years, one that any Christian can benefit from reading.

Batterson teaches a method of prayer that is based on twisted scripture and an old Jewish legend from the Talmud. Batterson says “But there are also situations where you need to grab hold of the horns of the altar and refuse to let go until God answers. Like Honi, you refuse to move from the circle until God moves.” This is nothing more than Word-Faith heresy that teaches you can manipulate and use God to gain material blessing.

Floyd also has long ties to a very strange ministry, known as Life Action Ministries. I really don’t get what the fascination with circles is, but they teach the same thing. Life Action is a peculiar new-age group disguised as Baptists, that goes from Church to Church performing “revivals,” and this group seems to believe along the same lines as Floyd in the ability of man to awaken their spirit, as well as discover (multiple?) pathways to God.

Is this what Greear is referring to when he says that Floyd lifts his eyes beyond what we can do, and to what only the Holy Spirit can do? Greear goes on to say:

Second, Pastor Ronnie possesses the convictional graciousness we believe honors the Lord in our convention. I am amazed by the diversity of Baptists who call him friend and look to him as leader. He unifies Southern Baptists. He is clear on the Gospel and gracious in those matters of secondary importance.

I tend not to be as excited about this as J.D. is, as I don’t view the type of unity he stands for necessarily all that God-honoring. Floyd’s unification efforts tend to be centered around pleasing man, rather than God. Floyd’s focus has always been on numbers, i.e. church growth, and income. And his vision of “Spiritual Awakening” appears to be an agenda he has, in which he has now unified the SBC around his idea that through these other unbiblical, man-centered methods of prayer, money and growth, he will somehow bring about a “great movement of God.” This unification around man-centered ideas is typical of the world, but Godly unification involves being unified around the unshakable truth of Scripture.

Greear’s third reason for nominating Floyd appears to be personal:

Third, Pastor Ronnie loves young leaders. My first memories of Pastor Ronnie are of him reaching out to me when I was a very young pastor, taking interest in me, speaking courage into me and vision over my life. Pastor Ronnie’s focus is not only on the achievements of our past, but the possibilities in our future.

First, I’m not exactly sure what Greear means by “speaking courage into me and vision over my life,” but it sounds troubling. It sounds a lot like Joel Osteen’s “name-it-and-claim-it” heresy. The Bible doesn’t teach anywhere that I’m aware of that we, as human’s can speak anything into existence, including “courage” or “vision.” Man does not declare the things of God, only God does, and Matthew 6:26-33 teaches that we are to seek first the kingdom of God, and God will provide for us.

A very good friend of Floyd’s, and one who Floyd names as a co-leader on the 2015 Committee on Committees, is Alex Himaya. Alex Himaya promotes this idea of being able to bind and loose Satan by speaking directly to Satan himself. This is a further twist on the power of speech heresy, in which Floyd seems to have problem with.

Gotquestions.org has a good take on this type of Word of Faith teaching:

The roots of the Word of Faith movement and the name it and claim it message have more in common with new age metaphysics than with biblical Christianity. However, instead of us creating our reality with our thoughts, as new age proponents advise, name it and claim it teachers tell us that we can use the “power of faith” to create our own reality or get what we want. In essence, faith is redefined from “a trust in a holy and sovereign God despite our circumstances” to “a way of controlling God to give us what we want.” Faith becomes a force whereby we can get what we want rather than an abiding trust in God even during times of trials and suffering.

While on the surface it appears to be a noble cause to invest in young leaders, it’s only helpful if our investment is biblical. It appears as though Floyd has been teaching his Word of Faith doctrines to young people for quite some time, and that Greear has been one of his disciples. So why wouldn’t Greear nominate Floyd again?

Greear’s final reason for nominating Floyd is:

Finally, Ronnie Floyd knows that the church’s ‘main thing’ is to exalt Christ by doing all we can to reach the lost. Jesus summarized His ministry by saying, ‘The Son of Man has come to seek and save the lost.’ I cannot be around Pastor Ronnie without developing a greater passion to see the lost reached and a greater conviction that God wants to use us to do it. Pastor Ronnie believes the greatest days of evangelism are ahead of, not behind us.

Great! So we have someone who’s main focus is to exalt Christ, and reach the lost. While I can admire the passion for reaching the lost, is our method biblical, or man-made? Greear says he can’t be around Floyd without developing a greater passion and conviction for the lost. That’s great, but what is Ronnie Floyd recommending that we do to make it happen? So far, I hear him lying about God to secure money from his followers, teaching people unbiblical methods of prayer, and declaring false visions over people without any real scriptural support. So is this the Gospel that he wants to take to the lost? Is the vision of “Great Awakening” that Floyd has actually a transformation of mainstream evangelicalism, and the SBC in particular into a Word of Faith, emergent, and mystical Gospel of contemplative prayer, name-it-and-claim-it doctrine and ecumenism? It appears to be that way, and it appears that J.D. Greear is on board with it.

The Southern Baptist Convention is quickly becoming a leadership cult. If you want to be in on it, you have to play the game their way. The SBC was once a great organization that worked fairly effeciently, from the bottom up. However, it’s becoming much like the Vatican in structure, wherein the current leaders pick the next leaders, and the system works from the top down. No longer does the average laymen, or even the lesser known pastor have any say-so in who gets elected to leadership positions. If you aren’t a well-known megachurch leader, seminary leader, etc., you have no voice. In other words, if you aren’t already a leader, you don’t get to play. Yes, you can work your way up, but you must play it their way. This Roman Catholic-like leadership cult is the big boys club of the SBC and they get to make all the decisions. It appears as though nothing will be changing any time soon.

**Note. This was originally posted by Carl Teichrib at Forcing Change website in 2011, and is being reposted here with permission. Though this article is a few years old, it is still just as relevant as it was then, perhaps even moreso. 

By Carl Teichrib

“More than 6 million Canadians join 500 million people in over 180 countries in staging events and projects to address local environmental issues. Nearly every school child in Canada takes part in an Earth Day activity.” – Earth Day Canada[1]

“Earth is more than just a spaceship. She is our Mother. She gave us life. There is nowhere else to go but to stay and love her.” – Reader’s comment regarding John Kerry’s Earth Day blog.[2]

In our contemporary era, Earth Day has become the modern celebration of Gaia. Partakers of this event, whether aware of it or not, play off the ancient pagan beliefs of a Universal Mother. Like the sacred oaths taken in her name, today’s Earth Day celebrants sign environmental petitions, make pledges, and announce resolutions in support of Mother Earth. And like the old sacrifices to the deity, today’s Earth Day practitioners offer sacrifices of “good works” to the planet. Not only is the Earth a deity to be venerated, but the Earth itself – as the representative and embodiment of the Goddess – has become a modern day idol.

Do all who engage in Earth Day festivities realize the connections between this event and the ancient pagan deity? Some do, especially those who take a neo-pagan position, but many are unaware, thinking it’s a family-oriented way to engage in environmental conservation (much good is done during Earth Day, such as cleaning up stream beds or planting trees – but that’s not the issue). Motivated by good intentions, scores of individuals (including professing Christians), participate without ever considering what Earth Day is actually about or the philosophies that underpin the movement.

James Coburn, the American actor (deceased in 2002), understood the overt pagan linkages. Consider his 1990 interview with journalist Caryl Matrisciana during the Malibu Beach, Earth Day festival.

Caryl Matrisciana:

“Mr. Coburn, why should we care about Earth Day or Mother Earth?”

James Coburn:

“Mother Earth is our Mother! She’s the Mother Goddess. She’s the one that we should be praising rather than raping.

I mean all of these people here today are here for one reason: Because they’re concerned about what’s happening to the Earth – what Mankind is doing to the Earth. I mean the negative emotions we carry around, a lot of us, is another contributor to it; it feeds the Moon. [Author’s Note: the Moon is significant in pagan circles.]

What we have to do is be true to ourselves, if we’re true to ourselves we’ll be true to Mother Earth. Mother Earth’s going to be bountiful; she’s going to give us everything we need. She has for a long time.

We’ve lost our way. The pagans used to know how to do it. And the Indians, some of them still remember how to do it.

The Earth is a living organism. We’re killing the one we love the most, and she loves us. We’ve got to praise our Mother Goddess!”[5]

When Earth Day was first inaugurated in 1970, Newsweek called the event “a bizarre nationwide rain dance.”[6] The New York Times, however, said it was an idea “whose time has come because life is running out.” Earth, and the race of mankind, needed to be saved “from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”[7]

Now, almost forty years later, corporate sponsorships pay for community Earth Day events. Federal and local governments spend tax dollars in promotion of April 22nd, and a myriad of grassroots organizations add energy to the cause. It’s an event that captures the attention of local and national media outlets, politicians of every stripe, and fuels the imagination of school children everywhere. From the automotive giant Toyota[8] to every urban center in North America, from the United Nations to the National Council of Churches[9] – Earth Day is far more than a bizarre rain dance; it’s a platform for global citizenship and Earth loyalties.

Earth Day is Born

The idea for Earth Day goes back to 1962 and Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. Convinced that environmental issues needed greater exposure, Nelson suggested to President Kennedy that he embark on a “national conservation tour.” The following year Kennedy went on a five-day excursion promoting environmental conservation, but it never generated the political interest Nelson was hoping for. However, according to the Senator, “it was the germ of the idea that ultimately flowered into Earth Day.”[10]

Only a few years later, during the height of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, Senator Nelson hit on the idea of a national educational event to create environmental awareness; the “first national environmental teach-in.” This event, planned for April 22, 1970, was to be styled after the war protest movement, and it was aimed at capturing the interest and energy of young people – a generation going through one of the largest cultural shifts in the history of the United States. Not surprisingly, Nelson’s first Earth Day speech reflected this cultural shift, boasting that April 22 was to be the “birth date of a new American ethic that rejects the frontier philosophy that the continent was put here for our plunder…”[11]

Decades after the initial event, Nelson’s assistant who coordinated the Earth Day national teach-in campaign, Denis Hayes, told an interviewer that: “We consciously set out to build a movement to bring America back together, and let everyone under the umbrella with a shared set of values.”[12]

New ethics and a common set of values were to guide this movement and act as the inspiration for college students in their environmental advocacy. Remember, this was 1970, and the students of that era represent a wide swath of today’s political, business, academic, and religious leadership. Senator Nelson understood the potential power of tapping the nation’s youth.

Helping to make this inaugural Earth Day a success, a special book of essays was compiled through Friends of the Earth and distributed nation-wide to teachers and professors. Titled, The Environmental Handbook: Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In, April 22, 1970, this volume introduced a new set of social ideals that would point America to a better world. Tens of thousands of copies were distributed, and 20 million young people across the US celebrated what was to become a global movement: Earth Day.

But what of those values laid out in The Environmental Handbook? Were they based on the core Judeo-Christian tenets of Western thought and law? Did they support common sense conservation: erosion control, maintaining a balanced wildlife population, curbing toxic pollutants, or stemming the tide of invasive species?

Pollution was addressed, with a population control twist. Land use was also discussed, while demeaning “conventional cattle ranching.”

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, contributed a doomsday scenario to ignite impressionable minds: By 1973 air pollution would be choking cities, causing single-event smog disasters with death tolls in the hundreds of thousands – all heralding the advent of a global air quality collapse that would make the “planet uninhabitable” sometime before 1990. By the mid-seventies, the US grain belt would be turning into the great Mid-western desert, wiping out food stocks. During this time period, Ehrlich speculated, America’s resource sector would be collapsing and a national “family planning” program would have to be set up alongside an international agenda to curb the human population. By the summer of 1979, the world’s oceans would be dead and all sea-based animal life extinct.[13]

For high school and college students participating in the first Earth Day, this future-tense story would have had a chilling effect. As Mr. Ehrlich explained; “A pretty grim scenario. Unfortunately, we’re a long way into it already.”[14]

Does any of this sound familiar? “Warming may trigger agricultural collapse,” so reported the Inter-Press Service in 2007.[15] “Fish stocks could collapse because of global warming,” announced an Associated Press article in 2008.[16] Professor John Brignell, an author and social researcher, posted his observations regarding climate change and fear.

“Got a problem? Blame global warming! From allergies to maple syrup shortages to yellow fever: apparently every contemporary ill is caused by climate change.”[17]

Brignell’s website lists no less than 300 alleged problems, or pseudo-problems, attributed to global warming. This documented list includes crabgrass, kidney stones, inflation in China, invasions of jellyfish and giant oysters, the Loch Ness monster dying, fish getting lost, an upcoming Ice Age, conflict with Russia, sour grapes and stronger wine, farms going under – and farm output boosted, the Atlantic becoming more salty – and less salty, smog, terrorism, fainting, and smaller brains. I tend to believe this last one.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Is this a scare tactic for global transformation? Consider the following quotes,

“During any ‘issue-attention-cycle’ in environmental campaigning, there is a phase in which the issue needs to be strategically exaggerated in order to establish it firmly on an agenda for action.”[18] – International Institute for Sustainable Development.

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have.”[19] – Professor Stephen Schneider.

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[20] – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of Environment.

“Collateral environmental benefits…?” This is questionable at best; so much so that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition that challenged the human-caused global warming line, and openly suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide may have benefits.[21] Moreover, “justice” and “equality” are legal and social issues – not atmospheric. Again, this points to the heart of the matter: social transformation.

But scare tactics are effective. They leave the masses wondering: How can the human race reverse our imminent environmental demise? What can be done to save Mother Earth?

According to the first Earth Day and The Environmental Handbook, we can start by placing the blame on Christianity and Western values, and then adopt pagan and radical socialist solutions. Consider the following quotes from The Environmental Handbook. Keep in mind that this text established the ethical ideals of a new Earth reality, and set the tone for the first Earth Day – and subsequent celebrations.

Note: the author’s name and page numbers are at the end of each quote, and all misspellings are in the original.

 On Religion:

“Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia’s religions…not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.

At the level of the common people this worked out in an interesting way. In antiquity every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill had its own genius loci, its guardian spirit. These spirits were accessible to men…Before one cut a tree, mined a mountain, or dammed a brook, it was important to placate the spirit in charge of that particular situation, and to keep it placated. By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.” [p.20-21, Lynn White Jr.].

“What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of our present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one…” [p.24, Lynn White Jr.].

“No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.” [p.25, Lynn White Jr.].

“Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.” [p.26, Lynn White Jr.].

“What was it that enabled Eskimo shamen, their minds a product of the taiga, tundra, and sea ice, to travel on spirit journeys under the ocean and to talk with the fishes and the potent beings who lived on the bottom? How did the shamen develop the hypnotic power they employed in their séances? What can we learn from the shamen who survive about thought transference and ESP? The answers are in the arctic wilderness still left to us.

Wilderness is a bench mark, a touchstone…New perspectives come out of the wilderness. Jesus, Zoroaster, Moses, and Mohammed went to the wilderness and came back with messages…This handbook, and the teach-in it serves, have their beginnings in wilderness.” [p. 148, Kenneth Brower].

On Population:

“Freedom to breed is intolerable.” [p.41, Garrett Hardin].

“No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all… The only way we can preserve and nature other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed.” [p.49, Garrett Hardin].

“…it is sinful for anybody to have more than two children. It has long since become glaringly evident that unless the earth’s cancerous growth of population can be halted, all other problems – poverty, war, racial strife, uninhabitable cities, and the rest – are beyond solution.” [p.139, John Fischer].

“Stabilizing the U.S. population should be declared a national policy. Immediate steps should be taken to: 1. Legalize voluntary abortion and sterilization and provide these services free. 2. Remove all restrictions on the provision of birth control information and devices; provide these services free to all, including minors. 3. Make sex education available to all appropriate levels, stressing birth control practices and the need to stabilize the population…” [pp.317-318, Keith Murray].

“Explore other social structures and marriage forms, such as group marriage and polyandrous marriage, which provide family life but may produce less children. Share the pleasure of raising children widely, so that all need not directly reproduce to enter into this basic human experience. We must hope that no one woman would give birth to more than one child.” [p.324, Four Changes section].

 On Nations and Economies:

“Nations… must be phased out as quickly as possible and replaced with tribal or regional autonomous economies…” [p.6, Keith Lampe].

“Interdependence of course can be sustained only in a context of cooperation, so competition (capitalism) must be phased out and replaced with cooperative economic models.” [pp.6-7, Keith Lampe].

“Looking beyond our borders, our students will be encouraged to ask even harder questions. Are nation-states actually feasible, now that they have the power to destroy each other in a single afternoon? Can we agree on something else to take their place, before the balance of terror becomes unstable? What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind of human organization – more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of some of our hard-won liberties?” [p. 145, John Fisher].

On Global Transformation:

“Nothing short of total transformation will do much good. What we envision is a planet on which the human population lives harmoniously and dynamically by employing a sophisticated and unobtrusive technology in a world environment which is ‘left natural’…Cultural and individual pluralism, unified by a type of world tribal council.” [p.330, Four Changes section].

“It seems evident that there are throughout the world certain social and religious forces which have worked through history toward an ecologically and culturally enlightened state of affairs. Let these be encouraged: Gnostics, hip Marxists, Teilhard de Chardin Catholics, Druids, Taoists, Biologists, Witches, Yogins, Bhikkus, Quakers, Sufis, Tibetans, Zens, Shamans, Bushmen, American Indians, Polynesians, Anarchists, Alchemists…the list is long. All primitive cultures, all communal and ashram movements. Since it doesn’t seem practical or even desirable to think that direct bloody force will achieve much, it would be best to consider this a continuing ‘revolution of consciousness’ which will be won not by guns but by seizing the key images, myths, archetypes, eschatologies, and ectasies so that life won’t seem worth living unless one’s on the transforming energy’s side.” [p.331, Four Changes].

The message is clear. In order to save the world, we need to drastically change our present religious, political, economic, and social structures. We need to significantly re-shape society towards a New Age world-view where nature supersedes all, where political and economic structures morph into a type of ecological communism, where the cancer of human growth undergoes radical surgery, and where education and religion are indelibly altered to serve Mother Earth.

This is the essence of Earth Day. It’s the embracing of massive religious and social changes – the sacrifice of our “orthodox Christian arrogance” so that Gaia can be healed and humanity saved. It’s the clarion call of One World. Gaia Rescue, a project of Earth Day 2008, brings this into focus.

“To correct this problem we’re going to have to act as a planet, not separately as groups or countries. It will take all of Gaia’s children to save her from the mistakes we’ve already made.”[22]

 Gaia is Mad

If we don’t correct our mistakes, if we don’t change our values, behaviours, ethics, and beliefs – Mother Earth is going to take matters into her own hands. This is the current eco-philosophy fad. Human beings are a blight, and Gaia is going to cleanse herself unless we become good global citizens and respect the Universal Mother.

This is the message of the Dalai Lama.

“Until now… Mother Earth has somehow tolerated sloppy house habits. But now human use, population, and technology have reached that certain stage where Mother Earth no longer accepts our presence with silence. In many ways she is now telling us, ‘My children are behaving badly.’ She is warning us that there are limits to our actions…”[23]

Meanwhile, movies such as The Happening depict Mother Earth striking back against Mankind – chemically inducing humans to commit suicide in order to clean up the people problem. Another Hollywood propaganda piece, The Day the Earth Stood Still, has watchful aliens descending on the planet to save failing Mother Earth from the cancer of humanity. During the last part of the movie, the main characters come to the realization that they must evolve at the global level in order to avert planetary disaster. Many other movies, documentaries, and television shows present a similar message. Man must change, or Gaia will deal harshly with us.

This is also the prognosis of British geophysicist James Lovelock, who wrote the 1979 book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (this volume spurned on the “modern,” pseudo-scientific Gaia theory of Earth as a living construct). Now, his 2006 book The Revenge of Gaia, paints a picture of a planet suffering from a crippling fever – Global Warming – and that Mother Earth is fighting for her existence against the destructive capacity of humankind.

Not surprisingly, this line of thinking is found laced throughout the online deep ecology and Gaia community. Blog and on-line articles proclaim that Mother Earth is growing madder by the minute.

“The reasons why there are so many natural disasters and severe weather changes, is because Mother Earth is angry with the people.”[24]

“The earth is parched. There is not enough water. Fires will rage. Some things are beyond the control of humans. Mother earth is angry, showing us the limits to our power. Let us learn from her.”[25]

Hmmm… Maybe a little party would make her happy.

A Secular Holiday?

 Ironically, Earth Day is considered “the largest secular holiday in the world.”[26] Yet there is little secular about it. Rather, a variety of spiritual activities takes place; from Mother Earth rituals to multi-faith Sunrise services, from interfaith Earth gatherings to Spring meditations and “Earth Prayers” – such as the one suggested below,

“Mother, Father, God, Universal Power

Remind us daily of the sanctity of all life.

Touch our hearts with the glorious oneness of all creation

As we strive to respect all the living beings on this planet.

Penetrate our souls with the beauty of this earth,

As we attune ourselves to the rhythm and flow of the seasons.

Awaken our minds with the knowledge to achieve a world in perfect harmony

And grant us the wisdom to realize that we can have heaven on earth.”[27]

Unfortunately many Christian congregations across North America have jumped on the bandwagon of Earth Day transformation; Some out of naivety, others with full consent and complicity. One example is San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral. During the 2001 Earth Day, Grace held an interfaith song-celebration for the planet.

“The music will be an eclectic blend of the world’s musical traditions. Tibetan temple bells will blend with the Cathedral Organ. Vocal performances will range from Native American and Muslim Chants to Spirituals and Choral canticles. Representatives from a diverse range of religious paths will participate in the festivities, including Native American, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, and Christian.”[28]

Over the years Grace Cathedral has been a beacon for comprehensive religious transformation, and has done much to promote a contemporary global-spiritual model, such as helping to birth the United Religions Initiative.

The United Church of Canada is another example. During the last twenty years, the United Church denomination has been considered a Canadian trend setter in “progressively left” Christian thought. This denomination has also been viewed as a social pillar by academics, political figures, and other leading personalities. Here’s part of a responsive reading for an Earth-centred worship service.

“Speaking to the Earth Community, we say: Brothers and Sisters in Creation, we covenant this day – with you, with all Creation yet to be, and with the Creator. With every living creature and all that contains and sustains you.

All: With all that is on Earth – and with the Earth itself.”[29]

Alarmingly, it doesn’t seem to matter if a church is “right” or “left” in its general outlook. Congregations and denominations that have been historically conservative are focussing on the Earth as a point of service too.

In February 2009, I had a chance to visit with some relatives who attend an evangelical church long recognized for its stalwart stand in proclaiming the Gospel. But things have changed. Instead of messages focussing on the truths of God’s Word, sermons have taken an overt ecological edge. Although not promoting Earth-centric beliefs like the United Church – “we covenant this day… with the Earth itself” – the teachings highlighted typical environmental themes: Global warming, the eco-problems supposedly caused by Man, and the need to change consumption patterns and social behaviours. Does this remind you of anything?

Like hundreds of other pastors and churches across North America, naivety to the true intent of deep ecology and it’s message of global transformation is undercutting Christian based values – right in the church itself.

Does this mean that Christians shouldn’t be concerned about the environment? Not at all. However, a healthy Biblical approach is needed – one that recognizes the rightful place of Man in tending, managing, and using the Earth; not one in which Man is servant to a planetary master made in the image of the United Nations or some other globally inspired environmental agency. Sadly, pastors and congregations around the world are parroting the message of Earth Day and the leaders of global environmental governance.

The quest to involve the Christian community in Earth Day celebrations is especially significant. Not only do individual churches promote Earth Day as a special event, the Earth Day Network (EDN) specifically targets the “faith community” in the hopes that influential religious leaders will move the global agenda forward. And EDN has some clout.

The Earth Day Network is a group that arose from the original Earth Day in 1970.  Today the organization’s International Council is comprised of the some of the world’s most influential globalists,

– Lester Brown, Worldwatch.

– Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director of the World Health Organization.

– Robert Kennedy Jr., Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defence Council.

– Gus Speth, former UN Development Programme official.

– Maurice Strong, President of the Earth Council and former UN Special Advisor.

– David Suzuki, Canada’s leading environmentalist.

– Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the UN Environmental Programme.[30]

Presently, EDN works hard to promote their Communities of Faith Climate Campaign, a global warming/Earth Day educational platform targeted at religious groups. In fact,  the EDN faith-based website has the motto “Earth Day: Something We Can All Believe In.”[31]

In 2007, EDN reached out a hand to the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities by creating “12,000 sermons and religious events” to empower religious leaders for Earth Day goals. EDN took this a step further during Earth Day 2008 by activating “500,000 parishioners” to support climate change legislation. Many churches also pledged to join EDN for “Earth Day Sunday” in 2008, focussing on climate change and saving the Earth during their Sunday services.[32]

In 2009, the Earth Day Network kicked off their Green Generation campaign, which engaged students, churches, and communities in pressuring the world to adopt a new global climate treaty. Moreover, this campaign continued until 2010 with the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

Paradoxically, what originally started as a movement to intentionally place Earth on a pedestal while “demonizing” Christianity, nationalism, and human populations – all focused on driving America’s youth to a pagan, socialist utopia – has now been embraced by churches far-and-wide. Furthermore, by hosting and supporting Earth-centered and interfaith services, churches actually contribute to the systemic attack on Biblical values.

Gaia must be smiling, after all, the party is in her honor. FC

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change, a monthly online journal on global government and world social change (www.forcingchange.org).

Endnotes:

[1] Earth Day Canada FAQ, www.earthday.ca/pub/resources/faqs.php. Economic support for the Earth Day Canada organization comes from a wide array of sponsors, such as Environment Canada (government), The Discovery Channel, Panasonic Canada, Sony, and a host of other groups, including Canada’s largest banking institutions.

[32] Ibid.

If you’ve been following Southern Baptist news, you know about the uproar that was cast by the SBC inviting Seventh Day Adventist, Dr. Ben Carson, to speak at the 2015 Pastor’s Conference. Aside from the serious theological differences that sets Southern Baptists apart from Seventh Day Adventists, it was also widely seen as an endorsement of a political candidate. In the wake of this massive outcry, a follow-up opinion was written at SBC Voices blog by Dave Matthews, basically stating that he disagreed with decision to invite Carson, but since it’s already done, for the sake of avoiding bad press, we should just shut up about it, accept it, and have lunch together.

In the heat of all of this back and forth between Southern Baptists, a surprise announcement was made by Willy Rice, president of the 2015 Pastor’s Conference, and responsible party for the decision to invite Dr. Carson to begin with, stating that he and Dr. Carson had come to “a mutual agreement” not to address the Conference this year. Rice states their reason for the mutual decision is because they didn’t want it to become a distraction.

. . . it has become clear to both Dr. Carson’s team and to me that Dr. Carson’s appearance could create an unnecessary distraction for us both. When I first invited Dr. Carson he was not a declared candidate for President. It now appears likely that he will announce his candidacy and, though he has never held political office nor to my knowledge engaged in a political campaign, many have voiced their objections at having a declared candidate speak at our conference.

Willy Rice here is trying to gracefully cover his obvious slip-up. He really botched this up by inviting Dr. Carson, and had no idea he was going to get the public backlash that he got. Mr. Rice knows full well that the majority of the outcry wasn’t simply because a political candidate was asked to speak, but because someone who doesn’t affirm the basic doctrines of the Christian faith would be addressing pastors, who are supposed to be held to a high standard of theological clarity. In other words, the very ones who should be standing up and preaching the Gospel to Dr. Carson, calling him to repentance and faith, were instead going to sit back and listen to a political speech on how to address spiritual issues, from a political standpoint, while disagreeing on the only solution to these problems–the Gospel.

Yet Mr. Rice minimizes the differences between Dr. Carson’s false belief system, and ours, by stating “Dr. Carson is a great American hero and a man who boldly and publicly professes his faith in Christ. Those closest to him, including several Southern Baptists, know him to be a man of unimpeachable character and deep faith.” Apparently Mr. Rice thinks that as long as someone has “deep faith,” they should be accepted, even if their faith is in a false Christ, and he makes it clear that he still disagrees with those of us who opposed his appearance. Does Mr. Rice not know that the SDA Christ is a different Christ? The SDA Church teaches that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. This is pure heresy, and cannot be accepted under any circumstances to be the same Jesus that Baptists proclaim–Jesus of the Bible. Rice continues:

Yet, over the last few days several Southern Baptist voices have expressed their opposition to his invitation. Their concerns are both theological and political. As a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Dr. Carson is publicly identified with theological positions that differ from those of Southern Baptists. While this is true, I believed, and still believe, that leaders gathered for our Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference are open to listening to persons from outside our denomination. I believe most are willing to hear from national leaders even if we disagree on some points of doctrine as we have done in the past, particularly when the point of the discussion is a biblical worldview of prevailing cultural issues.

So while admitting that their are “some” theological differences, he continues to make this about politics, rather than address the real concerns people had with his appearance. Why does Mr. Rice think that the Pastor’s Conference is the time, or the place, for our denomination’s pastors to be sitting around listening to political speeches from unbelievers? I really have seen very little, if any, real support for this, yet he makes it sound like there was a major divide between “us” and “them.” Disagreeing on “some points of doctrine” is one thing. Disagreeing on infant baptism, or church structure is not a dividing issue, but Mr. Rice, disagreeing on who Jesus Christ is, is absolutely critical. If we can’t agree with Mr. Carson on who Christ is, and the true Gospel, then we cannot agree with Mr. Carson on the solution to problems, which is the Gospel.

But Mr. Rice wants to make sure that we all know that unity is more important than our differences. Therefore, for the sake of “unity” and “clear agreement” he disagreeingly backs off from his position, and drops Mr. Carson from the conference.

I have watched over the last year as our Southern Baptist President, Dr. Ronnie Floyd has worked as tirelessly as any person I have ever seen to call our convention to clear agreement, visible unity and extraordinary prayer. Clear agreement. Visible unity. He has worked too hard and too much is at stake for us to be sidetracked from that worthy call. While I don’t agree with those who have voiced their opposition to this invitation, I have heard and respect their concerns and for the sake of unity we have reached a mutual decision with Dr. Carson’s team to forgo his appearance at our Pastors’ Conference.

I am sad that Dr. Carson will not speak at our conference, but I am willing to sacrifice what some may want for the greater unity of our Southern Baptist family. I must decrease and He must increase; it’s the theme of our conference and perhaps this is an opportunity to model it.

But, while still strongly disagreeing with us, and being “saddened” by this “mutual decision,” Mr. Rice has made it clear that he is the good guy in this whole “misunderstanding” by sacrificing what “some may want” for the greater unity. Mr. Rice, if you really believed that it was the right thing to have Dr. Carson speak at the event, then you shouldn’t have dropped him. But the truth is, Mr. Rice realized that he was wrong, yet wanted to make it look like he didn’t make a mistake, by making this to be about something that it isn’t–politics. He says “To my friends who believe that we should avoid all political involvements, I must respectfully disagree.” But again, the truth is he realized that he wasn’t going to be able to get away with having a border-line cult member speak to our denomination’s leaders, and he’s covering his tracks by distracting from the real issue.

Released April 23, 2015, was “The Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious Freedom: Reaffirming a Shared Witness,” an ecumenical document signed by Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist’s Ethics and Religious Liberties Committee. The document, which states a secular defense of marriage, was also signed by several other Protestant and Evangelical leaders, as well as Mormon, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders across the United States. While the premise of the document appears noble, here in lies the same problem with ecumenism, in which Russell Moore is well known for: compromising the Gospel for the sake of unity.

The document starts off by stating, “As religious leaders from various faith communities, we acknowledge that marriage is the foundation of the family where children are raised by a mother and a father together.” I don’t disagree with this statement, and I also make the same acknowledgement. But, as religious leaders from “various faith communities,” what authority are they standing on to make this claim? The secular world, and supporters of gay marriage in particular, are going to disagree with this statement, and see this as no more than one group’s opinion against another. The truth is, you cannot make this claim without having a source of authority, and this supposedly “unified” group is not standing on the same authority to make this claim. We have the Protestant and Evangelicals who claim the Bible as their authority, and we have the Roman Catholic Bishops who claim the pope as their authority, and we have the Greek Orthodox church who claim the Patriarch of Alexandria as their authority.

The document then goes on to say:

The state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as it has been understood across faiths and cultures for millennia because it has a compelling interest in the well being of children. Every child has a mother and a father, and every child deserves the opportunity, whenever possible, to be raised by his or her own married mother and father in a stable, loving home. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the only institution that encourages and safeguards the connection between children and their mother and father. Although this connection cannot always be realized and sustained and many single parents, for example, are heroic in their efforts to raise their children it is in the best interests of the state to encourage and uphold the family founded on marriage and to afford the union of husband and wife unique legal protection and reinforcement.

Again, while I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment here, this is only an opinion, and not based on any substantial authority. It’s a weak case to be made to a secular government, and to a secular society. Many in today’s society see the state as being responsible for raising our children, and attempting to make the case to them that a married, heterosexual mother and father is somehow going to be in the child’s best interest is moot. Again, these people already see nothing wrong with homosexual relationships, and see raising children as a community and government responsibility. Unless you bring the authority of God’s Word into the debate, you have no case to make.

Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” There are no atheists. God has implanted in everyone’s heart the knowledge of God, the creator, and everyone either has faith in Him, or rebels against Him. So why is God being left out of this letter to the government? Is Russell Moore not aware that God is the author of marriage? Russell Moore, (and the signers of this document) are attempting to unite in an effort to fight a spiritual battle based on the efforts of man. Scripture warns us against this type of spiritual enterprise with unbelievers:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? – 2 Corinthians 6:14

True believers must be separate from unbelievers, including Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, in positions of authority or influence in the advancement of any spiritual engagement, of which marriage clearly is. Marriage cannot be separated from God as a spiritual institution, as it was clearly instituted by God, in Scripture (Malachi 2:13-16, etc.)

While the document does close with, “In this and in all that we do, we are motivated by our duty to love God and neighbor,” this is the only reference to God in the entire document. But is this reference worthy? Russell Moore, by his signing of this document, seems to be asserting that he, along with the Catholic Bishops and Greek Orthodox ministers, love and worship the same God. Does Russell Moore again not know the difference between the Roman Catholic God, represented in bread and wine of the Eucharist during Mass, and the true Biblical God, as represented in the 66 books of Scripture? Does he not know that Mormons worship a god, who is one of many gods, who had eternal sex with Mary, and had a son named Jesus, who was nothing more than an exalted man of flesh? Apparently not, because this isn’t the first time he’s compromised the truth of Christ in order to seek a man-centered solution to marriage with unbelievers–a spiritual problem that can only be solved with the Gospel. Hebrews 4:12 says:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Yet, Moore continues to show his distrust in the Word of God by relying on man-centered reasoning, and appealing to ecumenical efforts, to approach society’s problems. Again, while I agree with Moore that we have a serious problem, and that it should be addressed, his methods of doing so are less than biblical. Russell Moore, don’t you think it would be more effective to stand with the Word of God, alongside other believers who proclaim the Word of God as truth and authority, rather than standing with those who worship false Gods, and rely on the reasoning of man?

Click Below for Original Document:

Open-Letter-on-Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-April-2015

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

Zechariah, was filled with the Holy Spirit. In the old testament, particularly with Ezekiel, the Spirit of God is known to bring prophecy (Ezekiel 11:1-25). Of note, when the Holy Spirit brought prophecy, it always glorified the Father and the Son. This is another example of this truth. Zechariah is prophesying, and speaking the Word of God here. He is not speaking this of his own will. The Spirit is acknowledging through him that the Father is keeping his promise to redeem his beloved people of Israel. The Lord has spoken through his prophets throughout history, since creation, bringing the promise that his children will be delivered from the hand of the enemy. We are slaves to the world, and to our sin, and Satan is the god of this world. Through Jesus Christ, God has promised salvation from this enemy. This merciful act by the Father, just as he swore to Abraham (Genesis 22:16-18) to deliver his offspring from the hand of the slavery, from Pharaoh, he is now delivering us from slavery of the greater enemy. Just as he put the Israelites in the land of Canaan, away from their enemies so that they could serve God without fear, those who are in Christ can now serve God without fear. We don’t have to fear death, because Christ has conquered it. We are part of a great land, the Kingdom of God, in which the enemy cannot destroy.

Zechariah continues to prophesy, speaking of his son, who is here to prepare people for their savior, Jesus. John will be a great teacher, teaching people people about the salvation to come, and calling people to repentance. Malachi prophesied, “But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall.” (Malachi, 4:2) Verse 78 here shows that God is fulfilling this prophecy. Jesus is that “sun of righteousness,” shining light on the darkness of our sin, and the depravity of our souls. He is the lamp unto our feet, and the light unto our path (Psalm 119:105) that guides us to the knowledge of saving grace. John, through his future ministry, is to prepare our hearts for this glorious savior to soon come.

As anyone who’s been following my blog knows I’ve been highly critical of Ronnie Floyd and the SBC’s 2015 Annual Meeting theme, “Great Awakening.” I believe the Southern Baptist Convention has spun out of control under current president Floyd, and is heading downhill faster than ever. Ronnie Floyd is no stranger to questionable practices and teachings, and has been exposed for his mishandling of Scripture to teach Robert Morris’ first fruits tithing heresy, as well as ties to a New Age ministry that practices a borderline form of witchcraft, known as prayer circles. He also endorses New Ager Mark Batterson’s book, The Circle Maker, which also promotes an unbiblical form mystical prayer.

Ronnie Floyd recently participated in the “Reset America Summit,” sponsored by the Awaken America Alliance. On the Awakening America Alliance home page, their “purpose” is described as:

Awakening America Alliance exists in order to provide a broad umbrella under which the body of Christ in America can unite together in seeking a contemporary spiritual awakening. Awakening America is issuing a wake-up call for revival in the church and a Christ awakening in the nation by utilizing unified activity, various forms of media, and highly visible events, as well as encouraging collaboration together in prayer, fasting, and God-inspired action to impact the nation’s non-Christian population.

What exactly is a “Christ-Awakening?” Notice the methods described here that are used to achieve this “Christ-awakening;” unified activity, various media, highly visible events, collaborative prayer, fasting, God inspired action? First, I want to talk about this method of collaboration together in prayer. While prayer is a great thing, and I highly encourage biblical (one-way) prayer to God, Ronnie Floyd is known for promoting unbiblical forms of prayer. First off, one of the sponsors of this event was OneCry Ministries. I have talked about OneCry before. OneCry is a branch of Life Action Ministries, that promotes chalk circle prayer, and two-way prayer involving “being quiet,” “waiting,” and “listening for that still, quiet voice.” . Note the following paragraph excerpted from a workbook put out by OneCry:

It’s a challenge OneCry is issuing to men, women, teens, and even children…It involves a simple piece of chalk. With this piece of chalk, we kneel to draw a circle around ourselves and then look to heaven expectantly, praying, “Lord God, send revival, and begin it right here in this circle!”

This unbiblical form of worship is eerily similar to the prayer circles that Mark Batterson teaches in his book, the Circle Maker, also endorsed by Ronnie Floyd. Nancy Leigh DeMoss, leader of OneCry Ministries traces this practice back to British Evangelist, Gipsy Smith. Note what Byron Paulus, head of Life Action Ministries says about Smith:

Rodney “Gypsy” Smith was born in a tent, raised in a Gypsy camp, and never attended a day of school; yet he influenced millions of people for God through his powerful preaching. Not exactly a recipe for success . . . unless we take our eyes off of everyone else (refuse to compare), step inside a chalk-drawn circle, and say, “Lord, I need revival!”

In 1999, Ed Tarkowski published a four part study on the use of prayer circles within the charismatic and apostate church. He traces the practice back to paganism and witchcraft. Note what Tarkowski says about the origins of Prayer Circles:

The PRAYER CIRCLE is not found in Scripture. It’s origin is not from the word of God. But, from this Witch’s web page of definitions, we see the primary place of the Prayer Circle:

“Q. What form does the practice of Witchcraft take? The form and context vary from group to group and between each ritual, and may run the gamut from elaborate ceremony to spontaneous ritual to simple meditation. Generally the practice is to consecrate a sacred space, the “circle” and then work magic and worship the Goddesses and Gods within it according to the forms agreed upon by that particular group of Witches.”

“CIRCLE: Sacred space wherein all magick is to be worked and all ritual contained. It both holds ritual energy until the witch is ready to release it, and provides protection for the witch.”

“You also need to understand the basic structure of rituals. Casting circles, calling quarters, invoking the Goddess and God, raising and directing energy, grounding and centering and closing the circle.”

In many cases, the people themselves form the circle and are the circle, and they are “invoking God and/or the Goddess” when they stand to form it. But the circle is where the spirit passing himself off as the Holy Spirit manifests in bringing about the consciousness on spiritual unity.

I also find it interesting that he notes that the people themselves can form the circles. This form of prayer circling is a common practice found in the Catholic Church. It is a form of “collaborative prayer” in which people believe that by standing in this circle, and holding hands, that their prayer is somehow amplified, and God is more likely to answer it. This sounds exactly like what Ronnie Floyd is trying to promote with his unified, “extraordinary prayer” campaign.

And what is this “Christ Awakening” that they are referring to? Well, I have researched this term extensively, and I keep getting lead back to the New Age idea of awakening the “Christ Consciousness.” Christconsciousness.info describes the term like this:

Awakening Christ Consciousness is an application of a powerful interdisciplinary understanding of a technology of creativity interlinked through a common set of information to create health, wealth, inner satisfaction or whatever we desire to create

Almost sounds Word of Faith doesn’t it? That’s because the charismatic Word of Faith movement within the Church carries these unbiblical ideas and beliefs from the New Age movement, and mystic religions. Jude 1:4 says most people won’t notice these things creeping into the church:

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

New Age Roman Catholic, Roma Downey and husband Mark Burnett were also participants in this conference. Downey, who is endorsed by SBC President Ronnie Floyd, has a troubling and growing influence within the Evangelical Church. Her unbiblical television miniseries, A.D. The Bible Continues, has been widely accepted within the Church. Roma Downey is a proponent of the Seven Mountains heresy, in which she believes that we can regain control, or dominion, over God’s Kingdom by regaining control over these seven cultural “mountains of influence.” One of the “mountains” she is purporting to take control over currently is the Arts and Entertainment mountain. Why is a professing Roman Catholic, who openly adheres to New Age beliefs and practices, speaking at an Evangelical Conference? Is this the “unified activity” that Awakening America Alliance is referring to in it’s “purpose” statement?

Further on AAA’s page, there is a blog post titled “Peace with God.” This blog post is a MUST READ. I can’t repost the entire blog here, but I will summarize it. It’s a blog that says it’s taken from the 4 Steps to Peace (with God) website. It is basically outlines a set of four steps you need to follow to become saved. Sin and repentance are brushed over, and no mention of man being dead in trespasses and sin. No mention of the depravity of man, but basically just an outline of God’s “love” and a simple repeat-after-me prayer to pray, then you can be saved.

So AAA is promoting a unity between unbelievers and believers, around weak and even false Gospels, utilizing unbiblical, borderline pagan witchcraft forms of prayer, to “awaken” our souls into a “new” consciousness, and the President of the Southern Baptist Convention is taking part in this activity? Why? Because it’s right in line with Ronnie Floyd’s beliefs and agenda. As I reported before, Ronnie Floyd’s theme for the 2015 SBC Annual Meeting is the “Great Awakening.” Floyd is noted for saying:

For the sake of our nation and the spiritually lost around the world, it is time to humble ourselves before God. For this, I plead with all Southern Baptist pastors, missionaries, laypersons, denominational leaders, churches, denominational entities, conventions, colleges and universities; from student to adult, regardless of age, vocation, or status. As we come to God in humility and repentance, entering into this special season of extraordinary prayer, we plead with God for spiritual revival personally, revival in the church, and the next Great Awakening in the United States.

As you can see, Floyd has every intention of uniting the visible Church, regardless of denominations, conventions, etc., in order to promote a cultural social Gospel that will see them take moral “dominion” over America. It’s sad to see that so many of our sound pastors and leaders have fallen victim to this spiritual attack brought into the Church by the New Age movement, but it’s becoming more and more prevalent. Sadly there are very few who see the danger, and are vocal about it. Ronnie Floyd should not be promoting anything Roma Downey does, he should be calling her to repent of her idolatry, and turn to Christ alone as her savior. There does need to be an awakening, but not an awakening like is being promoted here. Our Evangelical pastors and leaders need a good slap in the face, and wake up to the dangers around them before it’s too late.

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” – 2 Peter 2:20-22

There’s no doubt that women are gaining a substantial voice in the Evangelical Church today. There’s Beth Moore, who travels extensively, speaking at conferences to audiences of both men and women. There’s Ann Voskamp, a well known writer of personal religious experiences, and of course, similar author, Sarah Young. Priscilla Shirer is gaining popularity among Evangelical congregations. And of course there are the famous Word of Faith pastrices, Christine Caine and Joyce Meyer. There are many others, including Lisa Bevere, Paula White, Kelly Minter, Angie Smith and Margaret Feinberg. But what do these women all have in common? They either teach something unbiblical, practice something unbiblical, or, in most cases, both.

For example, Beth Moore is known for channeling spirits claiming to receive direct revelation from God. She claims God “lifted her up” and “gave her a vision” that Roman Catholics and Protestants should forget their doctrinal differences and unite. Priscilla Shirer, a disciple of Moore, is a promoter of contemplative prayer, and other mystical activities. Best selling author, Ann Voskamp, regularly blogs and writes about imaginative romantic love encounters she has with God, and so on. And nearly every one of these women who are rising in popularity have a regular audience of not just women, but men. And not men who are there to critique her work, or to make sure she is biblically sound, and safe for his beloved wife to listen to. No, they are there to learn from, and be instructed by these women, just like the wives are. But can we really blame the problem on the women?

.  .  .

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He created night and day, land and water, vegetation, birds, sea creatures and land animals. He then created man and woman, Adam and Eve, and placed them in the garden, known as Eden. God gave them dominion over all of his creation, but gave them one command–not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All was well, until, one day, the serpent deceived Eve into eating of the fruit, upon which she then deceived Adam into following suit. God became angry with them for disobeying.

Though Eve was the first to eat of the fruit, Roman’s chapter 5 makes it clear that God held Adam responsible for sin entering the world, and causing death (Romans 5:12-21). God created Adam first, and then created Eve to be his helper (Gen 2:18). This means Adam was the head of the two, and Adam was responsible for any sin that Eve committed.

This is exactly the problem we have in the Church today. We have women, running around unchecked by men leaders, and most men just following suit. One example of this is Beth Moore’s bible studies. Lifeway Bookstores, an extension of the Southern Baptist Convention, publishes and sells “women’s” bible studies by Moore, and many churches, from many denominations, engage in these studies. When speaking to different pastors from various churches concerning this, I usually find that most of the elders have not reviewed Beth Moore’s materials, and have no idea some of the outlandish claims she makes, or what she teaches. Upon confronting them with the evidence, they simply “do not have time” to review it, or simply don’t care. This is especially true in the larger churches and mega churches. The men are so busy dealing with church activities, preaching and speaking engagements of their own, or simple day to day congregational and pastoral duties, that the women are just left to fend for themselves. Many take the position that “since Lifeway sells it, it must be okay.” But this theory has been recently thoroughly debunked.

Ann Voskamp’s 1000 Gifts is another popular “bible study” among women. Ann Voskamp is known for writing about semi-erotic, romantic encounters she allegedly has with God. Women, by nature, seek affection and approval from their husbands. This is why God commands men in Eph 5:25 to love and to cherish your wife, but also for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24). Women need leadership from their husbands. 1 Peter 3:7 says:

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

But what we see with most of these women that are rising in popularity is what appears to be a female dominant role in their personal marriages. Beth Moore regularly travels to speaking and teaching engagements without her husband, as well as these others. Christine Caine is an ordained pastor of her “church” in Australia, and also regularly speaks and travels without her husband. Husbands aren’t overseeing their wives’ writings and teachings, and any attention that they pay to their wives’ work is not through the lens of Scripture.

I want to be clear, I don’t necessarily take the position that a man can’t listen to, or learn something from a women. I have personally learned a great deal by reading books and blogs that were authored by women. However, when women usurp the position of men in the church by holding authoritative positions over men, this is the problem. Any women that are in ministry should be working only under the authority of their husbands first and foremost. If the husbands were overseeing the work of the women in ministry, we wouldn’t see this rampant abuse of authority by women.

But I would suggest the problem is even deeper than that. As stated before, many of the elders and pastors of the church simply don’t have the time to oversee the women’s ministries, and therefore women are left to themselves. Additionally, husbands are simply unqualified to oversee the work of their wives. Let me rephrase that. So many of our women’s husbands today are tied up with things in their own life, work, sports, etc., that they simply do not have the Scriptural knowledge to either lead their wives spiritually, or to correct them. Furthermore, when men don’t fulfill their roles properly as husbands and ministers, it’s quite natural for women to step up and take on that responsibility.

I would suggest that in cases like Ann Voskamp, and her writings of semi-erotic encounters with God, perhaps stem from a shortfall of romantic fulfillment in her marriage. Voskamp, in a previous blog post, writes of an encounter where she saw a writing on the sidewalk that said “Hey Beautiful, You Are Loved!” She ascribed this writing to being a sign from God, and compares God to actor Ryan Gosling, saying:

And she laughs loud and we’re carried and hey, who needs Ryan Gosling and his “Hey Girl” meme when you’ve got God with His “Hey Beautiful” promise?

Sadly women are buying into this type of religious eroticism all through the Church. This dangerous perception of God’s love is completely unbiblical, and if more men were fulfilling their Scriptural duties as husbands, women wouldn’t be seeking this type of affection from God. Men aren’t speaking out against this type of heresy, instead, they are praising it. Look at what well known pastor of Village Church, Matt Chandler, tweeted about Voskamp:

I think @annvoskamp is becoming one of my favorite writers. Tremendous piece http://t.co/Vf2Zyxn6Mm

— Matt Chandler (@MattChandler74) August 13, 2014

So what can we do about it? I would suggest that Christian men turn off the televisions, open a Bible, and learn how to step up and be a man. Pay attention to your wives. Your wife needs your affection, your love and your acceptance, but she also needs your guidance. You must be able to provide her with guidance. Your problem is you care more about who your NFL team is drafting than you do about your wife sitting in her bed reading Jesus Calling while looking for some kind of affection. Educate yourself. Educate your pastors. Do not be afraid to speak up in your church if your church is doing something you perceive to be unbiblical. They may or may not listen, but it’s your biblical duty to do so.

“Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. “However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.” – Ezekiel 3:20-21

Some people just can’t let bygones be bygones. A few Days ago, Joni Hannigan of the Christian Examiner blog wrote a flimsy piece claiming that Calvinist bloggers bullied Willy Rice into disinviting Carson from the 2015 SBC Pastor’s Conference. It was tacky enough that she barely sourced anything in her article, and those she did source were obscure comments made by a little known civil rights proponent, all while claiming her “journalism” was superior to those “Calvinist Millenials,” who are “merely bloggers.” One thing she did cite, however, was David Uth, pastor of First Baptist Church, Orlando, as saying:

“I think the decision to disinvite him is sad and more importantly wrong.”

Now David Uth wants to elaborate on his statement. Hannigan quotes Uth saying:

“When I said I was sad and I thought it was the wrong decision, it wasn’t so much about Ben Carson because I think now, with him being a named candidate, it would be a bit awkward,” Uth said in a May 5 telephone interview. “The problem that I have with it is how it happened, not as much that it happened.”

Uth’s problem with “how it happened,” much like Hannigan, is that he believes a few, vocal, set of bloggers bullied Rice into making this decision. He continues, according to Hannigan:

“I have great respect for Willy Rice and I trust him. My struggle with it is how do we allow a vocal group, whomever they may be, to basically kind of dictate or to make the call — and it’s hard to lead when you have to appease certain groups.”

Uth’s real problem here is that the decision to drop Carson makes him look bad. Uth had Dr. Carson take the podium three times at his own church in June of 2014. In a way, the decision to drop Dr. Carson from speaking at the Pastor’s Conference alongside David Uth is a rebuke of Uth for having Dr. Carson speak in his own Church. In a last ditch effort to protect his own credibility, he really grasps at straws to try to make excuses for Carson’s invitation, and therefore, scolds those who spoke out against it, causing Carson to be uninvited.

The SBC was once led by all of the like-minded megachurch pastors who are more into playing politics than preaching the Word. At one time, their voices were the loudest. That status has been stripped of them. Now, while the SBC is still far from where it should be as far as leadership, voting, nominations, etc. is concerned, there certainly are a growing number of vocal bloggers who’s voices are starting to be heard. But Uth think’s this is a bad thing. Much like Hannigan, Uth thinks bloggers are just a very small fraction of people with few followers. But if that were true, how could we be so vocal? Without followers and supporters, how would our voices be heard? The truth is, the majority of the Southern Baptist Convention thought having Carson speak at the event was a bad idea, even before he became a presidential candidate. Baptist21’s blog incurred hundreds of comments in support of their concerns over Carson. Social media lit up over Pulpit & Pen’s blogs, and SBC Voices’ Dave Miller even expressed his surprise that so many voices were heard, and addressed by Rice.

Uth even admits that “it would be a bit awkward,” now that Carson is a presidential candidate, to speak at the event. So why can’t Uth let it go? Here’s why:

“I’m sure in my heart because I know Ben Carson fairly well, that Ben is the most humble person around, and he will be fine,” Uth said. “I was hopeful that our convention could hear from him because of his incredible gifting from God.”

Dr. Carson, a brilliant retired neurosurgeon turned politician is one of a minority of blacks who have ever attempted to run for president as a Republican. That’s what this is about. David Uth, just like the rest of the elitists in the SBC, saw this as an opportunity to claim an intellectually intelligent black man as a team member, and present him to the world as a token to make the SBC look more attractive to both the world, and the Republican party. What it boils down to, bottom line, is money. If the SBC can attract more people, regardless of their beliefs, churches can grow, more money can roll in, and the elitists can line their pockets. There really is no other valid explanation.

Hannigan paraphrases Uth as follows:

Uth, who heard Carson speak three times when he took to the pulpit at First Baptist Orlando for three services in June 2014, said he was not under the impression Carson was going to speak on “theology” at the conference, but would be sharing his testimony.

What testimony? Of how he became a cult member? Of how he’s on his way to Hell if he doesn’t repent and believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, not to be confused with Michael the Archangel? These guys keep speaking of how “humble” Carson is, and how much he “loves God,” but they just can’t seem to get this through their thick heads. Dr. Carson IS NOT a Christian, he is a Seventh Day Adventist. It’s not because he’s a political candidate, it’s not because he’s of another “denomination,” it’s because he’s not saved. An unsaved person, regardless of what your political position is, or denomination, or testimony, has no business standing up and addressing Christian leaders on anything, theological or not. Why can’t they see the problem in this? It distracts from the Gospel–it takes people’s attention off the differences between believers and unbelievers, and unifies them under a set of false beliefs. Then true Christians will begin to think that Seventh Day Adventism is orthodox Christianity, and they don’t need to be evangelized. But apparently that’s of no concern to Uth, as Uth says:

“We knew that coming in when we had him here. He has an incredible story I would like for our world to hear,”

Uth isn’t concerned that the world hear the incredible Gospel of Jesus Christ, he would rather the world hear Dr. Carson’s journey from childhood, to successful career, to damning, Christ-rejecting idolatry. Uth just can’t let it go though. He is clearly upset that he didn’t get his way, and clearly believes that only the elites should be able to make the decisions about who the SBC presents to the world.

Uth continues:

“I’m not sure that we can move ahead in the future with the kind of strength that I think we must have in unity as long as our goal is trying to fulfill our own agendas and our own feelings and honor them by influencing them by something like this — in who we have speak at a meetings,” he explained. “It’s very difficult to lead when you are constantly trying to deal with the pressure of the direction you need to go.

“A lot of people seem to think they have a better idea of what God wants then the ones assigned by God to make that decision,” Uth said. “I pray we let our leaders lead and for our witness sake, follow in unity, not uniformity.”

So Uth thinks that the SBC leaders are the only ones that “know what God wants?” Is the SBC now Catholic? Do we need to seek God’s will through a priest, or through a hierarchical system? Perhaps Ronnie Floyd is at the top of this system now? Seriously? What about the priesthood of all believers, a longstanding doctrine that the SBC has affirmed for ages? But Uth has earned his way his way to the top of the system, and can’t stand the idea of having his subordinates question him. How dare they! Those meddling bloggers out there just trying to fulfill their own agendas, while we real leaders at the top… well, we know what God really wants for everyone, but Rice was bullied into making a decision for the sake of unity.

During this entire event, I have yet to hear any of these so-called leaders present the Gospel to Carson. They have spent all of this time defending him, and decrying Rice’s decision to drop him from the meeting, but have they once focused on the Gospel? No. These leaders, who all claim to know him “personally,” and “very well,” should have been trying to share the true Gospel with him. But their concern isn’t Carson’s salvation, it’s pandering to the world. It’s about presenting an image to the world, as Uth says:

“I think this leaves a really bad witness to the world. Once again, we are known for what we are against, rather than what we are for. It gives the impression you have to be exactly like us in order for us to listen to you, or to hear you,”

What we are supposed to be for, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what we are supposed to be against, are false Gospels.

Uth contends, however:

“I’m in full support of the decision that Willy made, because I trust his leadership,” Uth said. “I regret that he felt any pressure from anyone as to what the Lord wanted for us to hear at the pastors’ conference.”

If Uth really believed that Lord wanted us to hear something from Carson, then why is he supporting Rice’s decision? I’m certainly no staunch defender of Willy Rice, as Rice has made plenty of bad decisions, including asking Carson to speak to begin with, however, he did make the right decision to drop him. It was an embarrassing fiasco, and Rice tried to save face by downplaying it to making a sacrifice for the sake of unity, but the reality is, he realized it was an awful mistake. And despite his inability to come clean, and admit the mistake, at least he made the right decision do drop him. However, I believe if Rice would come out and tell the truth, rather than try to save face with the other elitists, all of this would die down, and be forgotten, but as long as Rice stands where he is, his cohorts are going to follow, and continue to make this about bully bloggers rather than the truth.

David Uth just needs to get over it.

***Note, this article was written by Jim Fletcher at his WND blog, and is being reprinted here with permission. You can view the original article here.

“The Internets” have given everyone a voice today. Obviously, that’s both good and bad. Computer technology has really leveled the playing field, so the classic “writer living in his parents’ basement” can have a platform, mostly, like a high-profile New York writer.

At least that’s the theory.

One gets the feeling, though, that some of the high-profile folks resent the heck out of all this.

Case in point would be many of what I’d call evangelical elites in America. These are the famous celebrity pastors, ministry heads and media types who have placed the mantle of leadership on themselves (for the most part). What they detest is anyone questioning them or their methods.

It’s an amazing phenomenon to watch unfold.

It’s well documented that Rick Warren has a burr under his saddleback over those pesky “discernment folks” who regularly point out the easily-documented flaws in his “purpose-driven” agenda. “Pastor Rick’s” association with New Age thinkers is part of the public record (although, let’s be honest, the majority of evangelicals in the pews will never care about any of this, only that they can participate in a PDL “bible study,” eat finger foods and go home feeling good about themselves).

When a researcher/writer like Warren Smith exposes Rick Warren’s troubling network, the (still Southern Baptist) pastor sometimes lashes out. Who can forget his almost comical split response a few years ago on Twitter, when one day he offered that one should be gracious when dealing with those who disagree with one’s viewpoint. A few days later, he urged his many followers on Twitter to “un-follow negative twits.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so grotesque.

What we essentially have within American evangelicalism is a band of elites who control the narrative. Rick Warren would sit atop that pile, along with Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley.

If Stanley wants to give messages that seem to help mainstream the homosexual agenda, he responds to “critics” by clamming up, for the most part.

If Rick Warren is critiqued by someone who knows what he’s talking about (Smith), he lashes out.

Then there are the fellows who are what I’d call second-tier elites (though no less influential).

Guys like Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer.

Stetzer I’ve discussed before. Not much to say about Ed at the moment; he’s blocked me from seeing his Twitter messages, and no longer answers me via email. This after I questioned him about LifeWay’s prior knowledge of the Alex Malarkey book/hoax.

But Rainer is no less culpable. In fact, Rainer, president and CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources, has a popular blog. He often writes tips for pastors who have to deal with “critics.”

A fascinating thing to note in these missives is that Rainer subtly implies that the critics are almost always wrong. In other words, he will write about how loving and gentle a pastor/leader should be when answering a critic. He does acknowledge that sometimes, a leader can learn things from critics.

Yet the thrust of Rainer’s (and, by extension, all these religious leaders) charge is that critics are just mean-spirited losers who are, for some reason, bent on disrupting the all-important unity among ministries and denominations.

It totally fascinates me that these people are eager to launch and maintain writing and speaking platforms that they then use to dispense worldly wisdom, yet if someone begins to pry into some unsavory aspect of their leadership (what did LifeWay know about Malarkey, and when did they know it?), said critic must be defamed and marginalized.

There are very troubling signs that the Southern Baptist Convention has allowed all sorts of bad philosophy (via books in LifeWay stores, conference speakers and curriculum) into the tent. But in the Rainer/Stetzer orbit, it is the “critic” who is at fault.

One of the best books I’ve read on Warren’s agenda was written by Noah Hutchings of Southwest Radio Church. Titled, “The Dark Side of the Purpose Driven Church,” the book outlines the destruction of many evangelical churches by the strong-arm tactics of PDL.

When I asked a high-profile Southern Baptist pastor about Hutchings’ book, published in 2011, he said that Hutchings is a “lunatic.”

I asked if he’d read the book.

“No.”

Had he read critiques offered by researchers like Smith and Ray Yungen?

“No.”

Then how did he perceive that Noah Hutchings is a lunatic?

“Because he’s divisive, looking for a demon behind every bush.”

Actually, no. He’s not.

This response is deeply disturbing, because if researchers like Smith are correct, dark forces set about decades ago to undermine and ultimately harm the evangelical church. Just check out Warren Smith’s work.

There is a clear agenda to marginalize whistleblowers within evangelicalism.

But I have some words of comfort for the offenders: most evangelicals in the pews will never care. Your agenda is probably safe.

The downside, though, is that a steady, incremental erosion of true gospel preaching and teaching is afoot. Honestly, it’s rolling downhill like a two-ton boulder.

The evangelical elites today (some refer to them as the “evangelical industrial complex”) control the agenda and the narrative in churches all across America. If they want to, for example, promote radical leftists like Cornel West to evangelical audiences, by golly, they do it.

If they want to publish and sell books with occult roots, by gum, they do that, too.

Whatever you want to call this powerful ruling elite – I like “mafia” – just know that in a few short years, the evangelical church in America will bear no resemblance to its ancestor.

The EIC Mafia is seeing to that.

Critics be damned.

Psalm 12 Outreach has obtained documents showing that divorce and child custody proceedings have been filed in Parker County, TX, on 4/9/2015, between Ergun Caner and Jill Caner. A restraining order against Jill was sought by Ergun, but canceled by Judicial Officer Graham Quisenberry. Lawyers have been obtained by both parties. See document below.

*Note, this information is not posted to boast or make fun of the situation. It is merely here as an example of the consequences of this grievous, unrepentant sinful lifestyle of lies that Mr. Caner has led. I, too, pray that his life circumstances, under a sovereign God who is in control of all things, will lead him to repentance, and that God will be glorified.

Click here for a copy of the court filings.

The Gospel Coalition, a network of evangelical churches founded by D.A. Carson, and Tim Keller, has been in a downward slide since it’s inception. While the original intent of the coalition seemed well, the accountability within the organization has been less than stellar. In other words, the members of the council of the TGC hold eachother to such a high regard, that any criticism of it’s members is looked at as malice. Besides Tim Keller, a well known evolutionist, who does not hold to the absolute authority of Scripture, TGC has aligned itself with many liberal members over the years. Members, such as Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald, whose association with the organization has backfired, yet TGC has managed to stay alive and well.

More recently, there was Justin Taylor, a blog contributor for The Gospel Coalition, posted an article calling into question the inspiration and authority of the Bible, by claiming there are biblical reasons to doubt the young age of the earth. He says:

Contrary to what is often implied or claimed by young-earth creationists, the Bible nowhere directly teaches the age of the earth.

and then goes on to make a case that the creation accounts in Genesis are unreliable, and therefore, not to be taken literally. Dr. Randy White, a known conservative Bible teacher, and pastor of First Baptist Church, Katy TX, had this to say about Taylor’s article:

Another reason why I’m no fan of The Gospel Coalition: old earth stupidity http://t.co/kR5wumNZoH

— Randy White (@pastorwhite) January 30, 2015

Thabiti Anyabwile, another Council member on staff at The Gospel Coalition, among others, is an ardent supporter and promoter of the ERLC’s Racial Reconciliation efforts, (a Southern Baptist version of White Privelege). Russell Moore, the ERLC, and Thabiti Anyabwile held a “Racial Reconcilation” summit in March, in which this idea was penned a “Gospel demand.” But the entire agenda behind this effort is to promote a socialist ideology through the Church, and use perceived incidences of racial injustice as a platform to promote this ideology. (Please see, Why Racial Justice isn’t a Gospel Demand)

On May 15, The Gospel Coalition announced that Russell Moore would be joining them as a council member. They had this to say about Moore:

[Russell Moore] represents the kind of work TGC passionately supports: robustly biblical, theologically driven, gospel-centered ministry in the Reformed tradition for God’s glory and his people’s good.

Russell Moore, who has done nothing but promote a socialist agenda, and used his position within the conservative ranks of the traditionally conservative SBC to creep in his ideology, has certainly not been theologically driven, at least not in a biblical, traditionally Baptist theology. Russell Moore has been politically and culturally motivated beyond all accounts. Recently, he came out and made a statement that Alabama judges must uphold a gay marriage law, even if it goes against their Christian morals, or they should resign. He made this statement, even though the law was against the state’s constitution. He has also advocated for attending gay wedding receptions.

More examples of his political motivations is his eager willingness to fellowship with unbelievers, in order to promote moralistic laws and ideologies within the government.  Moore has partnered with Roman Catholics on several occasions, in which he has done so. In January, he partnered with the Roman Catholic church to promote anti-abortion laws. Not that anti-abortion laws aren’t a good thing, but we are commanded in Scripture not to join hands with darkness in order to accomplish a goal. The reason being, is it weakens the Gospel, by making it look as though we approve of the RC’s false gospel, in which apparently Russell Moore does. Moore says “I don’t want to see any fewer Rosary beads at the March for Life.” This does absolutely nothing to advance the Gospel–you know, the one The Gospel Coalition claims they brought him on to advance.

Dr. Moore as well did the same thing last year by visiting the Vatican, and holding hands with the king of idolatry, the Pope, and photoshooting with nuns, in order to promote traditional marriage. He is also espouses what he calls “creation care,” a Christian-themed version of environmentalism, (mother-earth worship).

Dr. Randy White says about this latest move by TGC, “TGC is about every kind of social justice initiative there is, but seems pretty void of the Gospel.” I concur with him. The Gospel Coalition has long lost maintaining the Gospel as it’s central focus, and has become just another cultural-political force within the visible Church. Now The Gospel Coalition has brought Russell Moore on because he represents what they want. So now, Moore has a highly influential position within not one, but two organizations within the Evangelical church to bolster his “new religious right” ideologies, which are nothing more than a socially conservative, moralistic socialist package, enforced by government. The more support he gains from church leaders, no matter how radical they are, the more credible he looks, and the stronger he grows, and the easier it becomes to transform the Church into what he wants it to be. A platform to transform the United States into a Communitarian socio-economic system, one in which he himself would be exempt from due to his elite status.

On May 17, 2015, Pastor of Saddleback Church took the opportunity during Sunday Morning worship service to make a plea for more money. He twists several Scriptures in order to guilt members of his church into believing that if they aren’t giving 10 percent of their income on a weekly basis, they will not receive the blessings of God. He then ends his message with having his members sign an oath, “pledging” to give 10 percent of their income from this point forward, and that it “saddens him” to “know that some members would be missing out on God’s blessings,” and that “people might not go to heaven” because they didn’t give their money to his church.

Please see video below:

You can see the original video in it’s entirety by clicking here.

You may also be interested in how Russell Moore and the ERLC are compromising the Gospel through Interfaith Coalitions.

By now, everyone knows that Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, leans socially progressive. Moore has, on multiple occasions, partnered with left-leaning organizations on behalf of the SBC in order to advance political, as well as theological, positions through government. Moore is well known for his collaboration with the apostate Roman Catholic church in his endeavors to promote traditional marriage, anti-abortion legislation, and more. So it comes as no surprise that Moore is now joining forces with the liberal Baptist denomination, The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, in order to push for legislation banning predatory lending habits by pay-day lenders.

The new Faith for Just Lending coalition, formed between Russell Moore’s ERLC, the CBF, the Center for Public Justice, and several other liberal organizations, is claiming that the poor are being treated unfairly by pay-day lending companies, and are unjustly taking advantage of them with high interest rates, and trapping them in a dependent cycle of usury. While this is true, the defenders of this coalition, who are pushing for legislation to control this, are cooperating in an unbiblical way in order to justify their cause, and as usual, weakening the Gospel by doing so.

The argument could certainly be made that time would be better spent taking the Gospel to these “poor” people, as well as to those who are responsible for the predatory tactics. However, we’re not here to argue for or against the legislation, we’re arguing against the fact that our supposedly conservative denomination is once again putting the Gospel on the back-burner in order to advance the legislation. The concept that Moore and his supporters really just can’t seem to grasp is that by joining hands with people who do not hold to orthodox views of Christianity does long-lasting damage to the doctrinal divisions between us, and gives the impression that we are on the same page spiritually. This is not to say that legislation banning predatory lending, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, is not a good thing, but there are much better ways to go about seeking it than watering down the Gospel.

Why can’t Russell Moore grasp this concept? Because he is, as he prefers to call himself, a “moral communitarian.” He sees his high ranking position within the Church as a pedestal to promote his social agenda, and even though he has the image of being a moral and social conservative, he is politically liberal, from his early days as a Democrat staffer to yesterday’s admission that man has caused global warming at the ERCL academy (more on that from Pulpit & Pen to follow). Moore stated in an interview with Justin Taylor:

I would like to see the ERLC serve as a catalyst for a kingdom vision that transforms congregational cultures to carry out the mission of Christ in the world. This means speaking to the larger culture and to the political arena, but not as an interest group wielding power to get our way. The time has come to replace moral majoritarianism with moral communitarianism.

Now, “moral majoritarianism,” historically is a conservative Protestant movement aimed at restoring traditional moral cultural laws and liberties through the use of government. While this is historically a more biblical way that Christians should be involved in politics, Russell Moore wants to step away from this idea of “majoritarianism,” and replace it with “communitarianism.” Communitarianism is a soft form of socialism, (or Communism) that strips individuals of their personal rights, and replaces them with laws that are put in place for the “greater good.” We can see this in a recent tweet made by Moore regarding the vaccine controversy:

Herd immunity and eradicating disease is a matter of the public good. Life or death. Vaccination is pro-life and pro-neighbor.

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) February 2, 2015

Russell Moore isn’t concerned with the individual rights of parents, who may have extremely valid health concerns regarding their children’s vaccinations, or who may be concerned that some of the vaccines injected into their child’s body may have been cultured using aborted fetal tissue. His only concern here is the public good. He frames it as though if you are against his point of view, you are “anti-life,” or “anti-neighbor.” When pressed on social media about his stance, he had his colleague, Joe Carter, and a pediatrician, Justin Smith respond on the ERLC blog to try to rationalize his position as follows:

Knowing that these vaccines are safe and have saved millions of lives through their use, what are we to do? … Clearly, the process by which these vaccines are made is not ethically ideal…The key consideration in whether using currently available vaccines is licit or immoral is whether there is material cooperation with the evil act of abortion. If the abortion was conducted in order to harvest tissues that were to be used for the vaccine, then it would clearly be immoral. But in the case of the vaccines listed above, the abortion was carried out for other reasons and the tissue was acquired post-mortem for the purpose medical research.

The purpose of this argument is not to take a stance for or against vaccinations, as we believe that should be left completely up to the parents. Our argument is to show that Russell Moore has little regard for traditionally biblical positions, such as parental rights and authority, when it comes to promoting his own socialist ideals. Now that Moore has partnered with the CBF and other liberal organizations on the issue of predatory lending, he will be pushing for more communitarian legislation. Barrett Duke, Moore’s right-hand man, and VP of the ERLC says, “God is not an economic Darwinist. He does not believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to the treatment of the poor,” and Moore says he is “happy to work together [with the other liberal organizations] on this issue to stand against unchecked usury and to work for economic justice, human dignity and family stability.” The coalition stated as one of it’s principles, “Government should prohibit usury and predatory or deceptive lending practices,” and the SBCadopted a resolution calling for the same thing.

So clearly, Moore, and the ERLC are on the same page as these other left-wing groups in adopting a legislation that would limit individual freedoms, while removing the responsibility of the individual. While the Gospel of Jesus Christ puts an emphasis on individual responsibility, Moore continues to  remove this facet from the Gospel. Much like his “racial reconciliation” efforts, he seeks to place the blame of the individual on the shoulders of the greater community. The Gospel teaches that the first requirement to salvation is an acknowledgement of, and repentance of personal sin. However, Moore seeks to remove this acknowledgement of personal sin, and create a universal system in which “all” have a responsibility in their behaviors, and it’s the community’s problem to solve. This is a fundamental principle of socialism, and Russell Moore now has several high ranking positions within the evangelical church to use as pedestals to promote his agenda.