Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Vt. Judge: Birth Mom Must Transfer Custody Of 7-year-old Daughter To Former Lesbian Partner

Vt. Judge: Birth Mom Must Give Child To Ex-partner

Fact: Virginia’s state law and constitution expressly ban enforcement of any right or order arising from same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Despite this, failure on Miller’s part to turn Isabella over to Jenkins would place her in contempt of the Vermont court and likely result in a warrant for her arrest.

"Unrefuted testimony has shown that for the last five years, Janet has neither attempted to phone nor write Isabella. She has never sent Isabella a card of any kind for any occasion. Janet has refused to attend Isabella’s Christmas plays, because she does not want to be around a Christian environment. She has also said that it is not in Isabella’s best interest to be raised in a Christian home."

And the wages of sin continue to wreck havoc on our children. To all you people who support the oxymoron "gay marriage" - God is against you!

Monday, December 28, 2009

Dear Pastors

Enough is enough.

Loose the worldly, political, save the world, make the world a better place nonsense! God has not fallen off His throne and has never for a split second lost control and has never been "consumer" driven.

God's word has never needed men (you dear pastor) to give it meaning. If you get confused, don't pull out the "Jesus said..." dance (only the red letters in your Bible) - they carry no more authority than the black lettered words you choose to ignore and distort. They both have the same author.

Stop preaching "What would Jesus do.." and start preaching "what Jesus did" - the gospel!

The gospel is sharper than any intellectual, moral, scientific, or philosophical sword you could possibly use. Don't be afraid that is it the most dangerous weapon in human history; it was specifically designed to be. Stop relying on inferior methods. (1 Cor 1:25).

If you desire to change the world, culture, lives, and behavior, preach the gospel. To do anything else in its place, is disobedience and utterly worthless.

PS. God is not pleased with your man made worldly declarations of inter-faith unity, common ground moral causes, nor your so called "world peace" plans. All such things are but a lie, a worldly lie, that await God's judgement.

Our God knows his enemies, he does not mistake them for friends, nor treat them as such. He regards iniquity as a trespass, and therefore he has not broken down the bounds of law, nor the hedges of right: there are trespasses still, and God perceives them, and notes them down, and such as go on in their trespasses are trying his longsuffering and provoking his justice. God sleeps not, neither does he wink at human sin, but calls upon all men everywhere to repent.

And it is clear too that God has the power to smite those who rebel against him. Dream not of natural laws which will screen the wicked—"He shall wound the head of his enemies." They may lift up those heads as high as they please, but they cannot be beyond the reach of his hand. He will not merely bruise their heels, or wound them on the back with blows which may be healed, but at their heads he will aim fatal blows, and lay them in the dust. He can do it, and he will.
- Charles Spurgeon

What "another gospel" sounds like....thanks to the UMC bishops.

Update: Please read this post on the same topic - Methodist Bishops wrong again

God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action
A Pastoral Letter from the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church.

"Because God’s blessing, care, and promise of renewal extend to all of creation, we can speak today of “environmental holiness” as well."

"As people in the tradition of John Wesley, we understand reconciliation and renewal to be part of the process of salvation that is already underway. We are not hemmed in to a fallen world."

1. We as your bishops pledge to answer God’s call to deepen our spiritual consciousness as just stewards of creation. We commit ourselves to faithful and effective leadership on these issues, in our denomination and in our communities and nations.

2. We pledge to make God’s vision of renewal our goal. With every evaluation and decision, we will ask: Does this contribute to God’s renewal of creation? Ever aware of the difference between what is and what must be, we pledge to practice Wesleyan “holy dissatisfaction.

3. We pledge to practice dialogue with those whose life experience differs dramatically from our own, and we pledge to practice prayerful self-examination. For example, in the Council of Bishops, the fifty active bishops in the United States are committed to listening and learning with the nineteen active bishops in Africa, Asia, and Europe. And the bishops representing the conferences in the United States will prayerfully examine the fact that their nation consumes more than its fair share of the world’s resources, generates the most waste, and produces the most weapons.

4. We pledge ourselves to make common cause with religious leaders and people of goodwill worldwide who share these concerns. We will connect and collaborate with ecumenical and interreligious partners and with community and faith organizations so that we may strengthen our common efforts.

5. We pledge to advocate for justice and peace in the halls of power in our respective nations and international organizations.

6. We pledge to measure the “carbon footprint” of our episcopal and denominational offices, determine how to reduce it, and implement those changes. We will urge our congregations, schools, and settings of ministry to do the same.

7. We pledge to provide, to the best of our ability, the resources needed by our conferences to reduce dramatically our collective exploitation of the planet, peoples, and communities, including technical assistance with buildings and programs: education and training: and young people’s and online networking resources.

8. We pledge to practice hope as we engage and continue supporting the many transforming ministries of our denomination. Every day we will thank God for fruit produced through the work of The United Methodist Church and through each of you.

9. We pledge more effective use of the church and community Web pages to inspire and share what we learn. We celebrate the communications efforts that tell the stories of struggle and transformation within our denomination.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth - Romans 1:16

These bishops are ashamed of the gospel of Christ!

When did alleviating the sufferings of humanity caused by poverty, disease, oppressive work conditions, society's injustices, civil rights abuses, etc.... save one soul?

A "fix the earth" theology is a damnable heresy. When Christ returns He will be looking for those with FAITH, not some small asinine carbon foot print! (Luke 18:10). Utter shame on these bishops.

What matters to God, is that we repent of our sins and believe the gospel, and at the very center is the cross of Christ.

Galatians 1:8- As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Saturday, December 26, 2009

United Methodist Jim Winkler - Scripture twisting again

United Methodist Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church & Society and a man who spends much time fighting for abortion rights, has written an article regarding the National Health care debate - "Word from Winkler — Congregational malpractice."

Mr. Winkler's views here should be a chilling reminder of the terribly un-biblical direction much of the United Methodist's church leadership is headed; human dignity is being stressed over human depravity. Winkler isn't concerned folks get proper health care as much as he is interested in making the message (the very Gospel) of Jesus Christ acceptable to worldly men.

Winkler and many others in the leadership of the United Methodist Church (of which I am a struggling member) will unashamedly resort to scripture twisting reaching gymnastically proportions. Case in point, Mr. Winkler states the following:

The provision of health care for all without regard to status or ability to pay is portrayed in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:24-35). In a conversation that began with the question of how one might obtain eternal life, Jesus asserted that one must love God and one’s neighbor. In response to the next question as to who one’s neighbor is, Jesus told of a Samaritan, an outsider, who coming upon a wounded traveler, provided him with health care. Jesus described the duty to provide health care as owed regardless of the merit or ethnicity of the person in need, and owed to the limit of one’s economic capacity. By the way, this is from #3201, “Health Care for All in the United States,” 2008 Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church.

The parable of the Good Samaritan begins with a question posed to Jesus by a Scribe (a legal expert in the law); one of the religious elite usually accompanied by a few Pharisees as well. The only groups of people Jesus confronted head on with their self righteousness; a character flaw, by the way, not an health care issue.

Notice Jesus' words to him after he had answered - "Do this and you shall live." Isn't this the promise of the law? Keep the law and you will live. Problem is, no one can keep the law, we all fall short of the divine standard, which should have made this scribe drop to his knees with a confession of guilt. Instead he tries to justify himself (v.29). Winkler misses this on purpose!

The Pharisees, scribes, Sadducee's etc... had consistently demolished the true meaning of God's word. In fact, they were the "spiritual gate keepers" during this time, and had little concern for God's truth. You will remember - their hate for the Truth ultimately tacked Jesus to the Cross!

Winkler may think defending "health care" reform is a virtue, but he is as far from the Truth as were the religious elite of Jesus' day.

Make no mistake - nothing is more evil than false religion. Winkler and many others may attempt to cloak themselves in robes of biblical truth, but are nothing less than missionaries of self righteousness.

When was the last time Winkler addressed the world's unbelief? as if a government run health care law was more important? When was the last time Winkler and his co-horts trusted the holy spirit and not worldly devices?

The scribe would have believed the wicked, especially the Samaritan, were to be hated because they were God's enemies. Winkler refers to the Samaritan as an "outsider" attempting to make a very subtle point that the "outsiders" of our modern day are those without health care, poor, or hungry. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

Winkler would have been Truthful and scriptural if he said the "outsiders" were the broken hearted sick in sin. The very folks Jesus came to save and the very folks this scribe would have kept out. Jesus used the Samaritan for good reason, the scribe would have rather died than even touch the dirt of Samaria. This parable is about the spiritual condition of the scribe, not a lesson in health care.

Helping those in need is every Christian's privilege. Notice also the Samaritan used his own money, about two days of wages, and showed mercy without a "law" commanding him to do so. Yet the scribe had the law, and the Samaritan did not. According to Winkler, if your a Christian, you would (must) support state run "charity", that which takes, not freely gives, from some folks and gives to others. This is the exact opposite of what true biblical Christianity teaches.

[Please recall in Acts 4 - Ananias and his wife Sapphira]. God desired free selfless and sacrificial giving, not an outward act whereby they wanted to "look like the church" but were in reality a heart filled with deceit. I wonder how Winkler would address this topic. I bet he would have had no problem at all accepting Ananias and his wife's contribution; not as Peter's rebuke of asking them why Satan had filled their hearts! That wouldn't be very pragmatic and some other "christian" may be "forced" to go without health care or even food! In short, their 'gift' would be welcomed by Winkler as I see it.

Winklers last comment is worth noting "Any congregation that doesn’t seek health care for all of the uninsured should be sued for malpractice!"

Winkler is indeed living by the law as ignorantly, hypocritically, and absorbed in a satanic self righteousness that is only perhaps exceeded by the "religious elite" of Jesus' ministry.

I would ask Mr. Winkler what the Bible says about suing another brother or sister, but a man who defends the murder of the unborn is probably not particularly interested in anything that God's word says that exposes his twisted theology.

Winkler and men like him "have their reward in full" (Matt 6:2). I pray they are exposed and refuted as often as their mouths speak lies. I also pray they repent.

The scriptures are clear - Winkler's theology is a "tare" in the church, and they are accursed anti-Christs which must be exposed.
Galatians 1:8-9
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

HT: Eternity Matters "Another reason it's hard to stay in the Methodist Church"

On the first day of Kwanzaa...

A new handy reference guide about the history and true purposes of Kwanzaa! With nearly 20 different sources used in research, learn what is revealed about Kwanzaa. Examine each of the following revelations with more to come in the book:

  • Find out how Kwanzaa was created not only to replace Christmas, but to become an alternative religion for Black people only

  • Read about the creator of Kwanzaa, Maulana Karenga’s hatred of Christianity and other religions he considers Eurocentric

  • Discover how Kwanzaa’s rituals as practiced are but imitations of ancient African religious rites

  • Learn in detail how Kwanzaa compromises biblical teachings for the Christian

  • Examine the bigotry and Black separatism behind the practices of Kwanzaa under the guise of community unity

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

The Bible and opinion

Bible - God has spoken, and His word (the Bible) is utterly clear.

Opinion - God is still speaking, and the Bible must be compared to man's new ideas and understandings.

Example: Bishop Mark Hanson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - "the understanding we have of homosexuality today does not seem to be reflected at all in the context of the biblical writers, so let us bring our understanding of sexual orientation that has been opened up to humankind over the years to this conversation."

Please note - the Bible means what it says and says what it means. Hanson has just asked us to do the exact opposite of what God commands all men to do - believe Him.

Further Resource:
Many scholars have attempted to exegete the passages to favor their position. But the end result is either a misinterpretation of Scripture, or a rejection of Scripture's infallibility, or both. Circumvention of the passages through personal biases and forced presuppositions allows much room for contextual and exegetical misconstrual. The burden of proof lies heavily with the homosexual advocates, who are left with a Bible that unequivocally condemns homosexuality at all levels. The avenue of denying Scripture's reliability, inerrancy, and validity would seem to be the only route to follow.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Bravo to Radford University professors Brown and Franck!

Gwen Brown is professor of communication at Radford University in Virginia; and Matthew Franck is chairman of the department of political science at Radford.

Speakers analyze Obama’s invitation to Notre Dame commencement.

In their joint presentation in the same session with Beckwith, the husband-and-wife team of Brown and Franck made similar observations.

Brown said the Obama speech met generic requirements of a commencement speech, and it succeeded politically but failed ethically. The president "smuggled in" an argument about the relationship of faith to reason, Brown said, and depicted the pro-life side as unreasonable.

"For Obama, reason and faith are not mutually supportive, but rivals and antagonists," Brown said.

In his analysis of the Obama speech, Franck said the president praised himself for having learned not to "demonize" those on the other side of the abortion issue, and he paid tribute to Notre Dame and its students for demonstrating, by the invitation to him, that they also do not demonize people either.

Franck said that Obama deftly used references to "common ground" on "moral issues" like poverty, AIDS and the death penalty, but depicted abortion as "just another cause-of-the-month that some people choose," in spite of the fact that abortion is "the only one of these 'moral issues' that entails the deliberate and targeted killing of innocent human beings with the sanction of the law."

The Obama message to the graduates about abortion, Franck said, was that the pro-choice side sprang from reason, whereas the pro-life side sprang from faith; and faith, Obama told the graduates, "necessarily admits doubt."

"What lesson did they (graduates) learn on their last day under the tutelage of Our Lady's university, courtesy of the president of the United States?" Brown asked. "They learned how to make a bad argument look reasonable and even acceptable if it is cloaked in the robes of rhetoric. ... This was, by ethical standards, an abysmal last lesson."

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

DC council proposes same sex marriages

Let's do a review here.

The DC council praises itself for its initiatives of free condom distribution and their clean needle "exchange" program


at the same time votes to change the definition of Marriage, thus encouraging the very behavior plagued by AIDS and intravenous drug use.


Evil and Evangelism

Rev. DL Foster nails another nugget of Truth to the wall.

RE: The The Manhattan Declaration - A Call of Christian Conscience.

1. We cannot stop evil, we can only inhibit it though holy living, preaching the gospel and refusing to support leaders who are hell bent on legalizing this madness (attention Obama supporters).

2. The growing evil and spread of wickedness is a sign to us. Dont miss it trying to make the world a better place.

Evangelism starts and ends with Faith. God's word has nothing in common or desirable with citizen's of this world. In fact, God's word conflicts with those desiring to remain citizens of this world YET has the power to transform those who know they are sick in sin and in need.

Therefore, any indifference to God's word is an utterly clear sign one is still lost, and it is these folks we must reach. A call to repentance would be better than any "universal" call to "conscience."

1 John 2:14-18 (New American Standard Bible)
14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Friday, November 06, 2009

Do you know Jesus? Without His word, you do not.

"Do you know who Jesus is? Not the cultural Jesus, conservative Jesus or the black Jesus. Do you know him beyond intellectual assent, living out a daily relationship as his disciple? Have you truly identified with him in the fellowship of his sufferings? Have you examined yourself to know whether Christ is in you (2 Cor 13:5)? If you havent or if you are still in a marginal, uncommitted spiritual state, youre in grave danger."

"GCM Watch documented many times how the gay christian movement has led the way in “re-imagining” Jesus. In their darkened minds Christ is the object of a sex act, a promiscuous homosexual, a virgin homosexual martyr and more. In the dark recesses of the religious, but Christ deficient mind, satan recreates a christ to mirror the wickedness of the individual’s own sin. Thus, a person can believe the image they worship is “Christ” but in reality its only a reflection of their unregenerate mind."

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Gay Marriage is 0 for 31!

PORTLAND, Maine- Voters in Maine have rejected an effort by lawmakers there to impose homosexual "marriage" in that state.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine -- known for its liberal-minded electorate -- and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign. With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, proponents of traditional marriage had 53 percent of the votes.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Big victory for traditional marriage in Maine.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Theological Thursday

No, you are not so special that God saved you.

God is so special that He saved a wretch like you and me...

Saturday, October 24, 2009

All of humanity as one thing in common...eternity.

"All I’m hearing is some new age “God is love” one-size-fits-all crap .
. . I don’t have time for this now . . . I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real Hell . . . I don’t need to “ask myself,” I need answers, and all your questions and uncertainty are only making things worse . . .
I need someone who will look me in the eye and tell me how to find forgiveness, because I am running out of time!"

There was a similar exchange on the television show - House. It is good to see that some writers have at least some grasp of the utter foolishness that surrounds a life a liberal relativism.

HT: Eternity Matters - a Truth resource!

Beloved Spear - a "one size fits all crap" resource.

"I think it's up to each one of us to interpret what God wants."

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Dear Conservatives...

Conservative Bible Project - no thanks and no thanks!

Reinterpreting the Bible in order to aid any political or social viewpoint is indeed - liberalizing it!

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Theological Thursday: Judging?

A gold nugget from a friend named Peter:

"And here is something for your “logic” file for those who barf the “judge not lest ye be judged” corn and beer on your shoe:

The need to exercise judgment is axiomatic, in that one must invoke it in any effort to deny it."

Write that down kids, it's a keeper!

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

What right do you have to call yourself a Christian?


You vote for a man who supports abortion?
"the wholesale destruction of children"

You celebrate and support "gay christians" in their rebellion?
"morality can never be defended by a mere appeal to nature or desire."

You think the Bible is not the word of God?
"If God inspires it then it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they’ll still write exactly what God intends."

ANSWER IS: You are no Christian at all and remain God's enemy, not chosen, the non-elect, the goat who will bring God glory in Hell.

If you are God's enemy, not chosen, the non-elect, the goat headed to Hell - Pray fervently for forgiveness and that Christ Jesus may restore and save you. God turns away no one who does just that!

It's a command, not a suggestion.

Monday, October 05, 2009

The Hollywood left appalled that director Roman Polanski has been arrested for his unpunished 1977 rape of a 13 year old girl!

Polanski Crime Worse Than People Know
By Jack Cashill

The Hollywood left and their fellow travelers are, of course, appalled that director Roman Polanski has been arrested for his unpunished 1977 rape of a 13-year old. This should not surprise.


Shortly before the Oscars someone had posted the grand jury testimony of the victim of that misdeed, Samantha Geimer, on the Internet. Hollywood gossips were upset--not with Polanski, but with the "smear" against him. The testimony, however, is worth revisiting, and it rings entirely true. Polanski tells much the same story in his autobiography, Roman, though he remains shocked that "I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love." The description that follows is not for children.

HT 4Simpsons

Friday, October 02, 2009

Latest Jennings horror story involving 15-year-old boy!

MassResistance update: National outrage growing over appointment of homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as "safe schools czar" in US Dept. of Education. MassResistance work being cited. Congress taking notice.

Recently the Americans for Truth website and others publicized an outrageous incident that took place back when Jennings was a teacher at a private school in Massachusetts, which he wrote about in a book. In the book (and in a subsequent taped interview) Jennings describes how he counseled a 15-year-old boy at the school to continue having a sexual relationship with an adult man the boy met in a bus station restroom. Jennings even described how the boy seemed happier the more the man sodomized him. Jennings never reported any of this to authorities, but instead encouraged the boy to "use condoms."

Since this became public, the calls for Jennings to be removed have been growing across the country. And although the mainstream media continues to ignore it, it will not go away. It's reached Fox News, the Washington Times, and conservative web sites and talk radio around the country.

Like the Van Jones incident (the Obama "czar" who was forced to resign after his strong ties to radical communist organizations were exposed), this will be a very hard story to continue to ignore.

HEAR Rush Limbaugh discuss Kevin Jennings and 15-year-old boy

Sean Hannity: Statutatory rape -- Where's the vetting process?

Read more here:
WorldNetDaily: 'Safe schools' chief encouraged child sex with older man
Washington Times: EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure
Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Sex scandal double standard
Fox News: Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job
Fox News: Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Admits He Poorly Handled Underage Sex Case Was Troubled Teen Seduced by Adult Homosexual and Counseled by GLSEN Founder Kevin Jennings Really 'Gay'? LISTEN: Audio of Obama 'Safe Schools' Czar Kevin Jennings - Told Teen Student 'Brewster' that he Hoped he Used a Condom in Sex with Homosexual Predator
PowerLineBlog: On Obama's Vetting process -- two possibilities here
Human Events: Jennings--Unsafe for America's Schools by Tony Perkins

Friday, September 25, 2009

Will our pets go to heaven?

Question: "Do pets / animals go to Heaven? Do pets / animals have souls?"

Answer: The Bible does not give any explicit teaching on whether pets/animals have “souls” or whether pets/animals will be in heaven. However, we can use general biblical principles to develop some clarity on the subject. The Bible states that both man (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 1:30; 6:17; 7:15, 22) have the breath of life. The primary difference between human beings and animals is that humanity is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), while animals are not. Being made in the image and likeness of God means that human beings are like God, capable of spirituality, with mind, emotion, and will, and they have a part of their being that continues after death. If pets/animals do have a “soul” or immaterial aspect, it must therefore be of a different and lesser “quality.” This difference possibly means that pet/animal “souls” do not continue in existence after death.

Another factor to consider is that animals are a part of God’s creative process in Genesis. God created the animals and said they were good (Genesis 1:25). Therefore, there is no reason why there could not be animals on the new earth (Revelation 21:1). There will most definitely be animals during the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 11:6; 65:25). It is impossible to say definitively whether some of these animals might be the pets we had while here on earth. We do know that God is just and that when we get to heaven we will find ourselves in complete agreement with His decision on this issue, whatever it may be.


I have always thought they will go to heaven, simply because God loves us and we loved our pets. It is called Heaven for a reason, right? I know, I can be a little too deep in my theological answers so I thought I had better add the above answer.

Monday, September 14, 2009

“there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death” (Prov 16:25)

Pastor D.L. Foster has posted and excellent commentary on Tonex. I would only add, Tonex is representative of the spirit of the anti-Christ, the spirit of our age.

Read A sad day for Tonex.

This particular quote from Pastor Foster is nothing short of a blaring Truth which men cannot hide from! "A man’s seed in another man is death, but a man’s seed in a woman (even if it is sin) carries the possibility of life. Attempting to equalize the two is the highest offense to the nature of God who is and gives life."

Pastor Foster addresses with Scriptural profoundness the following:

(1) Tonex says he was molested, but doesn't affix the molestation to his homosexuality.

(2) Tonex says he believe[s] that “God doesn’t honor promiscuity in either hetero or homosexual lifestyles – same gender loving.”

(3) Tonex thinks “safe sex” and so-called gay monogamy are more important than obedience to the will of God.

(4) Finally, Tonex is a false pastor.

"If Tonex were a pastor from God, he would speak against those things done in the dark and against those who think they are hidden from God’s sight."


Friday, September 11, 2009

"Where was God on September 11?"

Provided by

Question: "Where was God on September 11?"Answer: On September 11, 2001, God was exactly where He always is – in Heaven in total control of everything that happens in the universe. Why, then, would a good and loving God allow such a tragedy to happen? This is a more difficult question to answer. First, we must remember, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). It is impossible for finite human beings to understand the ways of an infinite God (Romans 11:33-35). Second, we must realize that God is not responsible for the wicked acts of evil men. The Bible tells us that humanity is desperately wicked and sinful (Romans 3:10-18, 23). God allows human beings to commit sin for His own reasons and to fulfill His own purposes. Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally thought.

God looks at things from an eternal perspective. We look at things from an earthly perspective. Why did God put man on earth, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in Heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? It must be remembered that the purpose for all creation and all creatures is to glorify God. God is glorified when His nature and attributes are on display. If there were no sin, God would have no opportunity to display His justice and wrath as He punishes sin. Nor would He have the opportunity to show His grace, His mercy, and His love to undeserving creatures. The ultimate display of God’s grace was at the Cross where Jesus died for our sins. Here was unselfishness and obedience displayed in His Son who knew no sin but was “made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This was all to the “praise of His glory” (Ephesians 1:14).

When thinking of September 11, we tend to forget the thousands of miracles that occurred on that day. Hundreds of people were able to flee the buildings just in the nick of time. A small handful of firemen and one civilian survived in a tiny space in a stairwell as the one of the towers collapsed around them. The passengers on Flight 93 defeating the terrorists was a miracle in and of itself. Yes, September 11 was a terrible day. Sin reared its ugly head and caused great devastation. However, God is still in control. His sovereignty is never to be doubted. Could God have prevented what happened on September 11? Of course He could, but He chose to allow the events to unfold exactly as they did. He prevented that day from being as bad as it could have been. Since September 11, how many lives have been changed for the better? How many people have placed their faith in Christ for salvation as a result of what happened? The words of Romans 8:28 should always be in our minds when we think of 9-11, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, and are called according to His purpose.”

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Keeping Lowell and Carolyn Groff in our prayers.

Read their story about the death of their son, Russell, here. The so called gay christian movement is one coin with identical sides; to put it quite simply - it's utter evil disguised as light. Thank God His children see it for what it is, an utter lie!

Archive for September, 2008
Gay blogs, and lies posted about Russell, and his parents, part one
Posted by: Carolyn on Sunday, 28th Sep, 2008
Evil, cruel, but more so, we believe, illegal……..
Posted by: Carolyn on Saturday, 13th Sep, 2008
The sparkle left Russell’s eyes…..
Posted by: Carolyn on Saturday, 13th Sep, 2008
A Day on the river with Dad…….
Posted by: Carolyn on Thursday, 11th Sep, 2008
Where the roses never fade………….
Posted by: Carolyn on Tuesday, 2nd Sep, 2008

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Go share your faith

I have been blessed with coming across an outstanding Christian blog / web site - Go Share Your Faith.

The author Bob, has been a great blessing to me personally over the last year, even though we started off on the wrong foot. In other words, I was right and he was wrong. That is such a familiar theme in my life, why is that ya think? [dripping sarcasm and no response necessary].

That said - thanks brother! You truly are obedient to God's great command; sharing the good news of Christ Jesus, with no apologies necessary!

Warning: Arminians beware, he knows his stuff...

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Are you zealous for good works?

Source - Here to Titus, Paul makes the equally demanding point that it is not enough to merely declare that truth that Christ is a Savior who has done great things; we must be a people for whom great things He has done. A people for whom great things have been done will not be an unchanged people. And in the same way that our sinners' nature has caused us to sin, our savior's redemption and purification will cause us to love what is good, and do it.

And you, dear pastor reader, must preach this. You must teach this. And you must live this. Your people will not be perfect, but they are purified. Teach them to live because that is true.

How can we love what is good, if we still speak of a faith that does not exist, essentially living UNCHANGED lives? Think about it, pray about it, and please count the costs, ok?

Monday, August 24, 2009


"Homosexuality, its acceptance or rejection, is deeply personal because so many Americans find the issue to be the core of what they believe to be most sacred, the family. Even bastions of conservatism, like the Southern Baptist Convention, have dealt with this issue on the convention floor, with the expulsion of a few churches known to accept gay clergy. What was known in the past as both taboo and hideous, a mental disorder, has now been accepted as reasonable and respectable.

Is this an issue of human rights? If so, what impact does this have on the evangelical world? Are gay rights movements of the 1990s and 200Os the equivalent of women's rights movements of the 1920s and 1930s? Do they have the same philosophical power of the 1960s civil rights' movements on racial equality? How should the church respond to the growing tsunami of homosexual ideals and values, which will not so easily disappear? Should it embrace the movement? Should it vilify it? Should it promote change and healing?"

Read entire paper by Samuel S. Shin, Trinity Journal, Spring 2005.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Gay rights are not civil rights

Blacks did have a very hard row to hoe, but to discount the row assigned the glbti as an easy, and one without discrimination, is a fabrication of the bigoted mind. - says Rev J D Spears Says: July 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am

By the way, I had to look up what "glbti" means, the "i" part is new to me.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex.

Here is the problem, sexual desires are not civil rights. It amazes me that this actually needs to be explained to folks. If sexual desires are a civil right, then those who are sexually "oriented" towards children or their own siblings are being discriminated against. Why do the "glbti" folks hate them so much?

One word you will not hear out of pro-gay "Reverends" mouths is - Holiness. To proclaim anything Holy one must concede to the existence of absolute moral Truths. God is holy and His word is holy; separating and redefining the two is the first thing "pro-gay" Reverends must accomplish. Changing God's definition of Marriage will be one of their first major victories.

Anybody see what's happening here? If not, allow me to break it down:

Sodomy is not wrong, there is no such thing as a sexual desire that is "wrong." All sexual desires spring forth out of god's love.

A mother and a father are optional when raising children.

Personal preference is god, all people have personal preferences thus all people are gods.

Conclusion - The sooner one's skin color and sexual desires are considered the same thing, the sooner nobody will know the difference between the Truth and a Lie. Now I wonder, just who would benefit from a world filled with such undiscerning minded people?

Hat Tip to Pastor DL Foster "Smalltown Texas pastor takes big stand against homosexuality"

Monday, July 13, 2009

Homosexual man was allowed to adopt two children, allegedly for the purpose of molesting them.

Deafening silence from black leaders have a white homosexual male who admitted online that he was "into incest" and had adopted two black children (males) because they were easier to get than their white counterparts. This man was arrested for repeatedly abusing these children, he posted the attacks online because he's sick, and his alleged victims happened to be black -- but the crickets are chirping.

Mainstream media will not even report that the man is a homosexual or, in some instances, even that the children are black. They won't report that Frank Lombard had a live-in partner in a community that includes other homosexual couples with black adopted children.

Black Americans, do you wonder why our "leaders" aren't getting involved? The answer is: they can't. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton especially have aligned themselves in cause with the homosexual movement. When homosexuals began demanding civil rights and comparing their plight to that of black Americans, Sharpton agreed. (Now while it pains me to do so, I must commend Jackson for condemning this comparison.)

Sharpton and Jackson are well-known for playing the "race card" -- but in this case, which undeniably involves racism, they fold.

At its core, the horrific occurrence in North Carolina is not a black/white issue. I would be equally outraged if the adopted children were white and the details, as disgusting as they are, were brought out. But one cannot overlook the fact that a homosexual man was allowed to adopt two children, allegedly for the purpose of molesting them. The fact that the children are black made them easier to adopt, thereby leading to their victimization.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Obama's moral clarity deficit

by Matt Barber
Indeed our debonair young Commander-in-Chief sees the world through the murkiest of gray-colored glasses. Though evidence of this abounds, I can think of no starker example than his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is "born alive" – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease and steps must be taken to save her life.

In 2002, Born Alive passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet Obama, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. He complained that "adding an additional doctor" (read: an actual doctor) to save the child's life is "really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

Did you get that? To require that a doctor save the child survivor of a botched abortion would "burden the original decision" of the mother to kill her. The not-so-subtle implication, of course, is that they should, instead, put her aside until she dies. Or Рas I attempt to hone that moral clarity, pass̩ though it may be Рdeliberately kill her through wanton neglect.

This is infanticide by any objective measure; but not to the moral relativist, and not to Barack Obama. There is no such thing as an "objective measure," you see, only a subjective "choice."

So here it is in black and white -- Black: It's always wrong to kill babies. White: Doctors should make every effort to save the life of babies born alive. Gray: To require such would "burden the original decision" of a mother to kill her baby.

Black: It's always wrong to kill peaceful protesters. White: The U.S. demands the killing stop or we will stop it. Gray: We're monitoring the situation to see how it plays out.

Then again, I ask: Why should we expect moral clarity from this president? How can we expect him to value the lives of innocent Iranians halfway around the world when he doesn't even value the lives of the most innocent of his fellow citizens?

We can't.

But we can hold him accountable for it.

Monday, June 29, 2009

What a judgeless nation looks like

A nation that makes no moral judgments is doomed for destruction. The absolute necessity of making moral judgments is built into creation itself. No man is without excuse.

The do not judge crowd has but one alternative; allow evil to flourish and call that which is utter wickedness and evil - good.

Here’s a nation, among others, that has not heeded such truths:

Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret

Swedish national library in child porn scandal

Sweden pays man after sex with 14-year-old

Police: Swedish teens offering sex for booze

Man raped in Stockholm suburb

Woman charged for raping another woman

Man sentenced to eight years for child rape

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The book of Job and God's Value

One question that is not often addressed about the book of Job, is the question about God's Value. We often hear about God's Justice; why does a "blameless" man suffer, but what about the Value of God in and of itself?

In the beginning of Job we are witnesses to a conversation between Satan and God. Satan is fundamentally making an accusation against God, not simply accusing Job. Satan is basically saying - 'hey God, you know there is nothing about you that's worth serving, other than man being afraid of you and man worrying that you might withhold blessing.'

Is there any reason of value enough for a person to love and serve God if God takes away everything?

Is there any reason to value God for just who He is?

If you truly know God, you will serve and praise Him in all circumstances, why?

Job 19:25 "as for me, I know my Redeemer lives," and 19:27 "and whom my eyes will see"

These verses are utterly astounding in light of the Old Testament's time period and the limited knowledge of life after death. God's sovereign power is reflected in His creation and His care for it. We have no idea, as God's answer to Job reveals, how great the forces of chaos and evil are in this world. Nor do we have the right to know God's detailed eternal plans, although we most certainly have the right and priveldge to ask Him. What we should and must know is that God is in complete control of all, and not one of His children will be snatched away. This God-Satan conversation is not a water cooler wager over what Job will do; it does however tell us human wisdom will never answer all the issues of life - only God can do that.

Our eyes, like Job's eyes, will one day see this in the presence of our creator and redeemer.

So, why value God for just who He is? He is God, and we are not.

Job 38:8-11 - in a nut shell says - The raging forces of evil and chaos are but a little baby infant that God puts a diaper on and sets in a play pen and says "stay put."

Until you recognize God's wisdom; wisdom built into creation itself (btw man is the only creature created in HIS image); you'll continue to make idols out of scarecrows, place them in your melon patch of half truths, get your neighbors to follow your lead, and you will worship a false god until it's too late.

God is in complete control, and God's gifts are never earned; and true knowledge of God is indeed a gift, His act of grace.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The White House Issues Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Government Employees update:
On June 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed a presidential memorandum granting benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. President Obama’s action follows closely behind his proclamation declaring June to be “LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgendered) Pride Month” as a second official action favoring the homosexual community. As a result, for the first time in our nation’s history, homosexual partners of federal employees will receive benefits just short of health insurance and retirement funding.

Relared artice [A matter of pride?
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. - "Morally serious persons must take the president's proclamation as a morally serious act. As such, it demands a response. Evangelical Christians dare not respond with a claim of moral superiority as if we are not ourselves sinners. But we must be clear that we cannot find pride in sin, whether these are our own sins or those of others. The Gospel of Christ simply does not allow us to see sin -- any sin -- as a matter of pride." ]

Traditional marriage is the building block of a stable society and a foundational Biblical principle. With a stroke of his pen, the President has single-handedly undermined the foundation of marriage with no input from the legislature, judiciary or the people of the United States.

Responsible citizenship requires action. One of the most effective ways to express your displeasure over President Obama's action is to politely call the White House through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

What homosexual activists in schools do with children

MassResistance update: Transcripts and audio tapes are now PUBLIC for all the nation to hear and read! Please pass along.

NOTE: Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN has just been appointed by the Obama administration to run the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education! Jennings was running GLSEN at the time of this conference and defended it..
"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

Have you wondered what homosexual activists do when they are alone with kids in the tax-funded “gay clubs” in schools and other activities? It’s not pretty. In fact, it’s very disgusting. Now you can hear for yourself.

The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

We have the actual audio recordings of what went on at one such event in March of 2000. Children as young as 12 were instructed by adults (state employees!) how to perform a range of dangerous and perverted homosexual sex acts.

These included: homosexual oral sex techniques, inserting one’s entire hand in someone else’s rectum, sado-masochism techniques, girls using “dildos” and rubbing their sex organs together for pleasure, and much more.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Harvey Milk: Re-writing history Gollywood style

Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid
Lionized by Hollywood and California state legislators, the real Milk was a demagogue and pal of Jim Jones.

by Daniel J. Flynn

excerpt: bold mine.

Nine days prior to Milk’s death, more than 900 followers of Jim Jones—many of them campaign workers for Milk—perished in the most ghastly set of murder-suicides in modern history. Before the congregants of the Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones’s deadly Kool-Aid, Harvey Milk and much of San Francisco’s ruling class had already figuratively imbibed. Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco–based headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted “volunteers” for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s criminal endeavors.

“Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage. The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued: “Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.” John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown. This, the only remarkable episode in Milk’s brief tenure on the San Francisco board of supervisors, is swept under the rug by his hagiographers.

Sean Penn’s Harvey Milk is as real as Toby Maguire’s Spider-Man. Who has time for the sordid details of purportedly staged hate crimes and boosterism of America’s most prolific mass murderer when there is a gay Martin Luther King to be mythologized? Even the fervent atheist Milk understood the need for patron saints. When confronted by a jaded supporter over his fabricated tale that the Navy had booted him out because of his sex life, Milk responded: “Symbols. Symbols. Symbols.” He understood his movement better than his movement did. When the facts didn’t fit the script, both Milk and his present-day admirers adjusted the facts. As the elected sponsors of Harvey Milk Day realize, Californians are more likely to remember the celluloid hero they saw depicted by Sean Penn earlier this year than the obscure city official who walked largely unnoticed in their midst three decades ago.

The advocates of a Harvey Milk Day know box office. They don’t know the real Harvey Milk.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Message from LU's Chancellor RE Student Democrats

Liberty University is a distinctly Christian university with a stated mission of training Champions for Christ. It is the largest and fastest growing evangelical University in the world. Students and parents appreciate and support the values of the University.

Officially recognized student clubs and organizations that bear the name of Liberty University are expected to uphold the standards and principles of the University and act in a manner consistent with its mission. For nearly two years the University has been evaluating how best to advance its mission and to support student organizations. In order to avoid the problems encountered by other faith-based educational institutions involving student organizations, Liberty University has adopted a policy that governs such groups.

The policy states, in part: “No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University.”

Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians promote the destruction of innocent human life. While students may meet on campus, debate, and discuss important and controversial issues of the day, Liberty University will not lend its name or fund organizations whose stated purpose is to promote and advance issues that are contrary to its Christian mission.

Over the last several decades, Democratic clubs have existed at Liberty University as unofficial student clubs not endorsed by the school. Last Fall, the College Democrats asked that the university officially recognize their club. They promised to support only pro-life candidates and their charter provides that the club supports the right to life. Unfortunately, the club supported candidates over the last 8 months that support abortion rights. As a result, Liberty University converted the club’s status back to that of an unrecognized club. It was not banned as so many press outlets irresponsibly reported. The club can continue to exist and meet on campus like other clubs and student groups that are not officially recognized by the university. They cannot use Liberty University’s name, will not receive the small financial subsidy that officially recognized clubs receive (about $500 per year on average) and they cannot hold public events on campus. There will be no other restrictions on their activities. Liberty University encourages free speech and open debate on its campus and free speech will not be restricted.

Liberty University is not singling out the Democratic Party in this action. If a Republican club supporting abortion sought endorsement from the University, it would be denied. The sanctity of life is one of Liberty University’s non-negotiable core values and it simply cannot lend its name or financial support to any group that actively works against Liberty’s core values.

A student club of Democrats who are pro-life and pro-family, and who are seriously intent on bringing positive change to the Democratic Party, would be refreshing. But the rhetoric must match the actions, meaning that such a club seeking official recognition would not want to endorse policies or candidates contrary to Liberty’s mission. Such a group should state in its’ name its’ distinctive mission to immediately tell the world that this club stands for the core values of Liberty University.

We hope that our students bring positive change to all political parties, not just Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents. These groups could debate many topics, but agree on Liberty’s core values. Liberty will not lend its name and financial support to any club or organization that actively seeks to undermine the mission of the University and its core values.

Friday, May 01, 2009

Son of Promise and Child of Hope?

1 Samuel 8:18"Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

Monday, April 27, 2009

The apostle Paul was a just homophobic rich man…says new Obama appointment

RE: Obama's recent "faith based" appointment

GCMW: There’s no easy way to say this. The gay christian movement (gcm) is demonic. It is but a parallel counterpart to the gay political movement. The only difference between the two is that the gcm has a religious facade. It denies the authenticity of scripture, the veracity of scripture and the authority of scripture but yet claims to love Christ and want to be called by his name. To deny that God’s word is true is to deny Christ himself. Help me understand this. If you claim to be a Christian,but reject the only primary source of Christian teaching, doctrine and history as untrue, what would that make you? And why would any church accept such a person as a “brother in Christ”?

SPECIAL NOTE: For all the defenders of the dross who claim there’s no “gay agenda”, please get educated.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

WOMEN AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP: part seven - Conclusion

This is the conclusion of my research on this most "touchy" subject. Please read all seven posts before commenting, and I will welcome your thoughts.

VII. Conclusion
Proper worship (roles) is not an insignificant matter to God. The story of King Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26:16-21 should provide ample evidence if one takes the Bible authoritatively. Uzziah, one of those kings who “did right in the sight of the Lord”, began to think he could do whatever he wanted; burn incense at the altar thus performing the role of the priests, and God struck him with leprosy. Nor are the commands of God to be taken lightly; 2 Samuel 6:6-7 – God “strikes down” Uzzah for merely touching the ark, in attempting to catch it from falling off the cart. R. C. Sproul has remarked – perhaps for thinking his hand was cleaner than the dirt it would have fallen on. The scriptures are replete with warnings and guidance. The fact there are disagreements over scripture, should remind us that it is not the clarity of scripture that is at issue, but rather the problem always lies with ourselves.[1]

The debate over female leadership in the church is not about who is better able to serve, preach or teach; it is more precisely over the sufficiency and utter clarity of God’s word. We are created male and female for a reason, to diminish this fact is to corrupt the very image of God and the very order He has ordained since creation. The empirical evidence of a world ignoring such divine revelation is abundant; abortion rights, homosexuality, divorce, the desire to be a single parent, teenage pregnancies, fatherless homes, and yes – supporting female church leadership is also a direct consequence of failing God’s clear directives. If the church does not confront the world with the truth of God’s word, who will? The church may be mocked by the world for obeying such archaic “male chauvinistic” hierarchies, but then again, the world does not fear God. Ecclesiastes 5:1 –“Guard your steps when you go into the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil.”

[1]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 109.

Saturday, March 28, 2009


VI. The True Issue: Deception

Is the issue over women leadership in the church really that big a deal? Is there a common denominator that can be discerned within this recent controversy? Raymond Ortlund, mentioned previously, made note that the occasion of the fall had taken place on the occasion of a sex role reversal. Paul’s instruction to Timothy as recorded in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 was directed precisely at refuting false teachings and practices. According to Roy B. Zuck, the meaning of the word “to teach” in verse twelve is used approximately one hundred times in scripture, and in only three instances does it refer to the teaching of individuals.[1] Ann Bowman concludes that Paul was clearly explaining that women are neither to teach nor exercise authority over men in the “worship assembly,” and are directed, has Paul had previously stated in verse eleven, to receive instruction with an “inner attitude of quietness and submission to the truth of God’s Word (and His chosen teachers).[2] Both scripture[3]and history, repeatedly give witness to the ease at which believers may be self deceived.[4] Therefore Paul’s point is that if such role reversals caused the fall, it clearly could wreak havoc on the church if repeated – “The woman must not be the one who leads the man in obedience to her.”[5] To do otherwise, is to be yet again - deceived.

The argument that there have been many women, who have visibly blessed the church while ignoring Paul’s prohibitions, is nothing more than the ends justifies the means argument, and secondly ignores the fact that God continues to give blessings despite our mistakes.[6] According to Rekers, when the church begins to deny the biblical distinctions between men and women and their respective roles in both the family and church, it is in essence denying the very image of God.[7] Where women desire “freedom” to lead and teach men in public worship, the subtle reality is an outright rejection of God’s clear commands, which inevitably leads to more rebellion. Some may proudly hold the banner up that reads “Motherhood – Just Say No!,” [8] others may peruse the “perfect job”, in essence “feminism” is indeed a “social movement” and it demands it all. [9] These demands, fueled by an “egocentric type of feminism” may indeed be the greatest danger to the church in the days to come.[10] Perhaps as the secular world continues to portray the “fulfilled” woman as the woman who pursues it “all”, women begin to accept this world view and inevitably carry its philosophical tendencies into the church.

What may be called the “traditional view” of women and men’s roles may perhaps be better understood as a “biblical worldview.” Litfin notes that this view is not some Napoleonic artifact invented by “traditionalists” seeking security in their own contrived ideas; but rather the very concepts of authority and hierarchy are from God, not men.[11] Litfin writes:

Clearly, then, the biblical world view is inimical to radical feminism, requiring feminist of both secular and liberal Christian stripe to reject in favor of perspectives more conductive to their purpose. God, if he exists, is redefined, usually toward the impersonal. Revelation, if it exists, is viewed as an ongoing thing, discovered in the unfolding of human experience. The concept of an original divine will for creation is rejected in favor of a more fluid, evolutionary vision of reality. Notions of hierarchy, authority, and submission to authority are ridiculed and in their place appear and appropriate set of “god words” hailing egalitarianism, human rights, and transcendence of sexual distinctions.[12]

Is it a coincidence that the fall in the garden happened upon questioning the authority and clarity of God’s word, fueled by a crafty set of “god words” appealing to the flesh? Do male and female roles really matter, or is God’s word simply unclear; therefore we should continually seek and discover new truths as our human experiences dictate? Furthermore, should the church for the sake of unity, dismiss this issue as irrelevant or not as important as abortion, slavery etc...? Or should we fear God as we seek His truths? Isaiah 66:2 – “To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”

[1]Ann L. Bowman, “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Bibliotheca Sacra 11, no. 2 (April 1980): 200.
[2]Ibid., 203..
[3]See Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8; 2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Cor. 3:18; James 1:26.
[4]Ibid., 205.
[5]Ibid., 206.
[6]George W. Knight III, “How Should Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Work Out In Practice?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 355.
[7]George Alan Rekers, “Psychological Foundations for reaing Masculine Boys and Feminine Girls” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 311.
[8]Dorthy Patterson, “The High Calling of Wife and Mother in Biblical Perspective,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 370.
[9]Ibid., 371.
[10]Craig L. Blomberg, “Not Beyond What Is Written: A Review of Aida Spencer’s Beyond The Curse: Women Called To Ministry,” Criswell Theological Review 2, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 421.
[11]A. Duane Litfin, “Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 136, no. 543 (July-September 1979): 267.
[12]Ibid., 269-270.

Friday, March 27, 2009


V. Feminist Hermeneutics

Some folks may be inclined to ask “Are these differences (the man drives the car; the woman changes the diapers) goals God has commanded us to pursue?”[1] Galatians 3:28 for many in the church appears to hold the key to Christian “equality” and it is this verse that must be considered logically prior to any texts that seem to indicate any “inferiority” among the sexes.[2] It is argued that the follower of Christ must come to the more difficult texts - 1 Timothy 2:12-13, and simply recognize that Paul was battling this particular tension. Mollenkott provides one such answer to this particular tension:

We must open our eyes to these conflicts, demonstrating faith in the God who allowed them to appear in the New Testament. We must conquer our fear that honest attention to what we see in the Bible will undercut the doctrine of inspiration. We must allow the facts of Scripture to teach us in the way it was inspired, rather than forcing Scripture to conform to our own theories about it.[3]

In essence, Mollenkott is encouraging “us” Christians not to be afraid to approach the scripture and find contradictions; “inspiration” is a false idea and contradictions are the natural result of any man (Paul) made doctrine. Some have even argued the texts we find in Paul’s writings were nothing more than Paul just thinking out loud and trying to work through his own conflicts.[4] This approach could obviously be applied elsewhere in scripture, including any texts that appear to contradict a more modern understanding of sexual boundaries, including homosexuality. If the assumption is made that Paul’s writings were influenced by a male “chauvinistic” rabbinic background, then surely he could be called “homophobic” by today’s standards simply by his rejection of same sex sexual relationships. In fact, Paul Jewett, mentioned above, appears to have no problem at all with homosexual orientation being understood as a “natural” orientation; he thinks it should be distinguished differently from what the New Testament teaches - it is not a “perversion” but rather a natural “inversion.”[5] It is this approach to the biblical texts that serve as an example of how the texts themselves are interpreted against modern day sensibilities and or “cultural norms.” In other words, homosexuality is only wrong when it’s not a “perversion.” That clearly begs the question – who defines “perversion” God or modern day (post modern) wisdom?

What about those “feminist” who hold a higher view of scripture and its authority? Feminist who are more of the evangelical persuasion have argued that the more “clear” passages, Galatians 3:28 for instance, should be the starting point when looking at less clear passages.[6] Paul W. Flex asks if it possible for the interpreter to exclude bias in the hermeneutical process, or is this just a delusion that is hiding behind some “veneer of objectivity?”[7] At this point it should be noted that the historical orthodox position has always affirmed the full equality of males and females “in Christ.”[8] Paul’s writing in Galatians is not concerned with any role relationships that may be found in the Church[9], but rather it teaches “an egalitarianism of privilege in the covenantal union of believers in Christ.”[10] How then does one apply the text of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in today’s church? Isn’t the fact alone that some women who claim Jesus as Lord, being led by the “holy spirit” to lead and teach men within the church, enough evidence? Are they not entitled to full “equality” and are they not only doing God’s will?

Howard Clark Kee argues that the church’s “vitality” can only be regained when it recovers what he calls the “revolutionary insights of its founders - Jesus and Paul.”[11] His reference to the “oldest strata of the Jesus tradition” is to be found in the so-called Q document, and it is here we find the oral tradition of Jesus’ activities and where women are given the most “special attention.”[12] His authoritative reference to the Q document, may lead some to think this document may be found at the local bookstore, they will however search in vain. Kee, as others mentioned previously, argue that Paul’s writings were still bound and influenced by a male dominated culture, and argues that those texts which seem to be “waning” in the ecclesiastical roles of women is evidence that they were produced in his name by a later generation; thus in keeping with the Roman Greco world.[13] He also supports his argument by referencing the Gospel of Thomas and the Letter of Barnabas (non-canonical texts) as to contributing to the climate in which influenced Paul’s writings.[14] He concludes by recommending the church get back to the “inclusiveness” of all people including “sexual boundaries,” so that it will once again be a more “positive movement” in our society.[15]

Bruce Barron argues the egalitarians may have won the day when it comes to women in ministerial positions.[16] He writes had it not been for this passage in 1 Timothy 2, this debate over women in leadership positions would not even exist.[17] He does admit, however, that the passage is clear and that those in the egalitarian camp must reinterpret the passages using what some groups have called “hermeneutical oddities.”[18] Barron suggests that Paul utilizes the creation account, not to convey some timeless principle, but rather to refute a Gnostic myth that had put Eve over Adam in intellectual superiority.[19] He contends that Paul’s writing in Timothy makes much more sense when interpreted against this background; temporary instructions given to Timothy for dealing with a specific struggle in Ephesus.[20] He concludes that from a “sociological” standpoint, women in ministry are not like the evils of slavery or abortion, nor is it focused on any central principle that involves salvation; thus he concludes Paul, in our current day, probably would have adopted a more tolerant view.[21]

[1]Susan Foh, “Why Joanie Can’t Be Johnny” Christianity Today, 8 April 1991, 49.
[2]H. Wayne House, “Paul Women and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 541 (Jan-March 1979): 44.
[4]Ibid., 45.
[5]Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 83.
[6]Paul W. Felix, Sr. “The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 170.
[7]Ibid., 175.
[8]S. Lewis Johnson Jr. “Role Distinctions in the Church: Galatians 3:28,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 163.
[10]Ibid., 164.
[11]Howard Clark Kee, “The Changing Role Of Women In The Early Christian World,” Theology Today 49, no. 2 (July 1992): 225.
[12]Ibid., 228.
[13]Ibid., 231.
[14]Ibid., 237.
[15]Ibid., 238.
[16]Bruce Barron, “Putting Women In Their Place Putting Women in their Place: 1 Timothy 2 and Evangelical Views of Women in Church Leadership,” Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 4 (December 1990): 451.
[17]Ibid., 452.
[18]Ibid., 453.
[19]Bruce Barron, “Putting Women In Their Place Putting Women in their Place: 1 Timothy 2 and Evangelical Views of Women in Church Leadership,” Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 4 (December 1990): 454.
[20]Ibid., 458.
[21]Ibid., 459.

Thursday, March 26, 2009


IV. Genesis – The Fall

Dr. Bill Domeris views the fall as “an explanation of the structures of society as experienced by the writer.”[1] Genesis 3:16 – “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” According to Domeris, the only thing the woman has lost here in the fall is her equality that she had once enjoyed.[2] Woman is to be viewed as man’s “fellow worker” and this should be sufficient to dismiss any idea that a woman’s role is to be some sort of “permanent nurse and housemaid.”[3] Domeris’ low view of scripture becomes evident when he first, refers to the Gospel of Thomas[4] and secondly when he complains that the writers of the Gospels had failed to recognize this new sense of valuing women that Jesus had ushered in; “Sadly the Gospel writers have lessened the revolutionary implications of Jesus’ band of followers by their concentration on the Twelve.”[5] According to Domeris, Paul simply failed to fully realize what he had written in Galatians 3:28, and instead continued in other letters to give the “legalist” in the Jewish synagogues a strong foothold.[6] Domeris’ implication is that in essence, Paul must have been struggling with Jesus’ “new and improved” view of women against his more Jewish “legalistic” understanding of women. He concludes that the notion of “submissiveness” is a travesty, and as long as men are to be seen as the “spiritual head” of the family, women will be nothing less than second class Christians.[7]

Without Genesis chapter 3, the recording of the fall, the Bible as a whole would make no sense, nor would life itself make sense.[8] As moral beings, being created in God’s image, both Adam and Eve knew their roles and it could be argued Satan was aware of these roles as well. Satan’s subtle approach is significant – “Indeed, has God said…?”(Genesis 3:1). Catching Eve when she was alone, without Adam to counsel or warn her, and for the first time perhaps, never imagined by either of them that it was even possible for a creature to actually question God’s word.[9] If scripture is considered to be divine revelation, then it has always been a very dangerous thing, either by addition or deletion, to alter God’s word (Revelation 22:18-19). Eve’s answer becomes quite revealing, for she added to and subtracted from God’s actual words – Genesis 3:2 “From the fruit of these trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it or you will die.’” God had actually said they could eat “freely” from “all” the trees except one, and God did not forbid them from “touching” the fruit; Eve’s “supposed” restriction, fueled by Satan’s question, becomes apparent in her developing resentment.[10] Is there any “resentment” today when women are “restricted” from specific roles within the church or family and who might be fueling it?

The text in Genesis 3 relating to the fall is crucial, especially in examining what it does and does not say. Genesis 3:6 – “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” What had actually happened? Raymond Orthund observes that it is most “striking that we fell upon an occasion of sex role reversal.”[11] Who gets the blame? Paul clearly blames Adam for the fall in Romans 5:12-21, and God did not summon both Adam and Eve, but it was Adam alone who had the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.[12] It could also be noted that what deceived Eve is also common today – “it was a delight to the eyes” and “desirable to make one wise.” In essence, Eve had decided that Satan was telling the truth - provoked by physical, emotional, and intellectual appetites.[13] Are some of these same “appetites” the driving force behind the notion that women, as well as men, are called to lead the church and it really doesn’t matter? Will the clarity of God’s word be ignored, either by addition or deletion?

[1]W.R. Domeris, “Biblical Perspectives on the Role of Women,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, no. 55 (June 1986): 58.
[4]Ibid., 60.
[7]Ibid., 61.
[8]Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 106.
[9]Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1976), 110.
[10]Ibid., 111.
[11]Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 107.
[12]Ibid., 108.
[13]John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN, 2005), 16.