Archive for the ‘Evangelicalism’ Category

 

I just received word on Sunday morning that late Saturday evening, a great man of God, a partner in the ministry and a dear friend, Dr. Roy Zuck, passed from this life into the presence of his Savior.

The last time I saw Dr. Zuck was at the Pre-Trib Study Group conference in early December. Even though we frequently corresponded, sometimes several times a week, we had not actually seen each other for many years so this was an unexpected gift from the Lord to see him once more on this side of eternity. I frequently tell my students that while we must be careful to not put men on pedestals, there are good reasons for us to have “heroes in the faith” – not just those who have lived in the past, but those who are our elders and from whom we can learn as living role-models in the present. Dr. Zuck is one of those heroes for me and he finished well.

I first met Dr. and Mrs. Zuck when they came to Hungary in the late 1990s and he became one of our regular guest teachers in the Bible institute. The Word of Life Hungary ministry soon found a special place in their hearts and they came many times over the next several years until Mrs. Zuck’s health began to decline. At one point, we learned from another DTS professor some “inside” information about just how much Dr. Zuck loved the students, staff and ministry in Hungary. This professor told our students in class one day that DTS seminary had been trying desperately to get Dr. Zuck to teach classes at the seminary, all of which would have been completely full and would have meant somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000 in tuition to the school. However, Dr. Zuck declined the offers, telling them that he was too busy with other ministry commitments. However, that was the same year when Dr. and Mrs. Zuck came to Hungary twice, once for two weeks in the spring and again for three weeks in the fall.

It was just this sort of relationship that came from serving the Lord together on the mission field with great servants of the Lord which was one of the great blessings of being the director of the school for 15 years. We were able to have so many to our homes for meals and fellowship. Some of my most treasured memories of being parents on the mission field was when tthey would sit at the table with us, sometimes for hours, and just talk about the ministry, the Bible, theology (and yes, even Hungarian politics on occasion) and our kids were able to be a part of that. Our daughter Becky, being younger, would often decide that leaving the table to play was more fun than discussing a particular fine point of theology. Yet, Chris, even from a very young age, would almost always stay at the table listening to the discussions with men like Roy Zuck, Stan Toussaint, Tom Constable, Mark Bailey, Homer Kent, Ron Blue, Stephen Bramer, Dave Wyrtzen, Jimmy DeYoung and countless others—the list is incredible. These were gifts from God to us as missionary family.

Dr. Zuck was a unique man with tremendous talent and an incredible work ethic. I remember that during one of his “days off” as a guest teacher in Hungary, he edited 100 pages of an upcoming book. And it was his meticulous attention to detail which made him one of the premier editors in the evangelical world. Many of you reading this article have undoubtedly benefited greatly from his work as a co-editor with Dr. John Walvoord of the Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the DTS staff. His book, Basic Bible Interpretation, (published in 1991), is, in my view, the definitive introductory resource on the subject and can already be considered a classic work on the subject (and should be in every believer’s library). The list of books that he authored or edited is an incredible testimony to his heart, talents and giftedness from the Lord.

His commitment to the Lord, people and ministry was evident in many ways. He always carried around a notepad in his shirt pocket and I’ve seen him pull it out on many occasions during just a normal conversation to write down a name or a fact or just something someone said so he could refer to it later. He was very devoted to his students in particular—even to those he hadn’t met yet. I have heard from others that during his years as a full-time professor at DTS, he would memorize the names and faces of every incoming student. And when he came to Hungary, he always asked for a student directory to be sent several weeks before he arrived. I have watched students from all over the world be stunned when as the new guest teacher for the week, he would walk up to them on the first day and call them by name (and usually getting the pronunciation close to right even for notoriously difficult Hungarian names).

Dr. and Mrs. Zuck touched the lives of many, many people from around the world. As I travel, it is not unusual for me to run into someone who knew them and had stayed in there home, even as Karen and I had on at least a couple of occasions. When you were with them, they made you feel like you were at the very center of their lives. And this showed up in many ways for us personally. Not only was Dr. Zuck one of the first formal endorsers of the ministry of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity when we were just beginning to think about a new ministry in 2008, he was committed to what we are doing and began to personally invest in our lives and ministry with monthly financial support over the past couple of years.

Dr. Zuck’s commitment to the ministry of ABI and to us personally was especially evident over the past year. As soon as it looked like my article about The Harbinger was going to actually turn into a book, I asked him if he would consider being an editor. He graciously agreed and I am so very grateful for the work he did as the first of three editors who contributed so much to making the book far better than it ever could have been had it depended only upon me. Then after the book was completed, he provided a powerful endorsement and purchased a number of copies to share with others who were being caught up in The Harbinger illusion.

His attention to detail, which made him a great editor, also contributed to him being a master teacher who always had a tremendous command of the subjects he taught. One of his favorite books of the Bible was the Book of Job with its message of learning how to handle adversity and suffering in a godly way. I witnessed Dr. Zuck’s mastery of that book in a chapel service at the Bible institute in Hungary as he taught the entire book of Job (through a translator, no less) in 30 minutes. And it was no mere academic exercise for him. The lessons he had learned and taught were deeply reflected in his book, Barb, Please Wake Up! which chronicled the long, faith-challenging road to recovery for his daughter who was involved in a nearly fatal car accident from which she suffered severe brain injuries.

During Dr. Zuck’s tenure as a professor of Bible Exposition at DTS he also served as the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Academic Dean (1985–1992). In the Dean’s office he helped start new degree programs as well as extension programs. Under his leadership the Doctor of Ministry, the Master of Arts in Cross-Cultural Ministries, and the Master of Arts in Christian Education were started and took shape. In 1991, he published the textbook Basic Bible Interpretation, which has been widely used in classrooms around the world. After leaving the Dean’s office in 1992, he devoted himself to teaching and served as Chair of the Bible Exposition Department from 1992 to 1996, after which he continued as Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition.

After retiring from the classroom, he continued to serve as editor of Bibliotheca Sacra. He also continued to work on many writing and editing projects, including serving as managing editor of the twenty-eight-volume Swindoll Leadership Library. He freelanced for several publishers and created tracts for the American Tract Society. In the summer of 2000, he began working as the copy and theological editor for another of the seminary’s publications, Kindred Spirit. It was also during this time, as I mentioned earlier, that he served with us in Hungary on several occasions.

Dr. Zuck’s character, as a man of God, was also seen in his devotion to his wife in her last years as she succumbed to the ravages of Parkinson’s disease. He cared for her at home, when it would have been a difficult task even for the staff of a care facility. After she had gone home to be with the Lord, he would often mention in our fairly frequent email correspondence how terribly lonely he was and how much he missed her. Saturday night must have been quite a reunion.

Click here to order the book on The Berean Call website

Click here for the Kindle version on Amazon.com

(Paperback version available soon through Amazon.com)

The last three months have been quite incredible. Since Tom McMahon (executive director of The Berean Call) first contacted me on April 29 about my ABI article critiquing The Harbinger, we have been on a speeding train just trying to hang on.

I am extremely grateful to the entire staff of The Berean Call who have been with me every step of the way since my book was little more than just the article. Everyone involved has put in a monumental effort to make everything come together in a such a short time frame. Roy Zuck (who has been in publishing for decades) recently described this as being “almost unheard of in publishing circles.”

This is even more amazing given the extensive scrutiny the book has undergone to make sure we get this right. The book has gone through multiple rounds of editing by three different editors and as well as three critical readers who carefully examined it for accuracy, theology, logical arguments and overall tone. And finally, it has been read by an additional six theologians and ministry leaders, who along with two of the critical readers, have provided a total of eight initial endorsements. Besides these things, they have designed the covers and formatted the book in about one-fourth of the time usually allotted.

The level of controversy surrounding The Harbinger and concerned reviews has been virtually unprecedented in that so much of it has been generated within conservative evangelicalism. Although other recent books have caused a stir within the broader evangelical community, some have said they have never witnessed anything quite like this in their decades of ministry life.

Everyone agrees that America is in deep spiritual trouble and that the country is now or soon could be under God’s judgment. Everyone also agrees with Jonathan Cahn’s overall message, which is a broad call for national repentance. However, the serious disagreements center on whether the author has genuinely received this message from God and whether he has indeed discovered an ancient mystery in Isaiah 9:10 that correlates precisely with events over the last decade in the United States, beginning with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Those of us with deep concerns about the book are persuaded that he has not either case.

This is not simply an academic issue nor does it only involve inconsequential minutiae. The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? demonstrates that Cahn’s book is ultimately an illusion which gives the impression that God’s direct intervention is the only possible explanation for what is said to be the replay in America of events prophesied to Israel in Isaiah 9:10. As with any well-executed illusion, the audience is astounded by what they think they are seeing – but what they think they see does not actually correspond to reality. The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? pulls back the curtain and gives another “camera angle” so that the mechanics of the illusion become obvious.

This “reveal” shows that maintaining the illusion depends the mishandling of Scripture, faulty theology, misleading statements, the selective use of historical facts and unsupported speculation. Consequently, The Harbinger falls far short of the biblical requirements necessary to conclude that such a message is truly from God. The broad implications of this are significant and far-reaching.

I have written my book so that anyone can accurately, clearly and fairly understand what is in The Harbinger whether or not they have read that book. It should be helpful for those who wonder what all the commotion is about or who have been encouraged to read it by someone else. We also hope it will be helpful for those who have had reservations and concerns and for those who are not yet sure what to make of it. We are also hopeful that those who have embraced The Harbinger will take some time to read The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction and perhaps reconsider their views once they see there is another side to the whole issue.

The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?  is now available for ordering from The Berean Call website. The book is also listed on Amazon.com, however, it will be a couple of days before they receive a shipment.

It will also be available in Kindle format in about a week. In addition, I have finished recording the audio version of the book, which will probably be available shortly after The Berean Call annual conference next weekend. There has also been some discussion of possibly doing a Spanish version, including audio, but this has not yet been decided as far as I know.

I am looking forward to discussing the book with Jimmy DeYoung on his Saturday radio program (info at the Prophecy Today website). Brannon Howse has also invited Tom McMahon and me to join him for two full hours on his radio program on Monday and Tuesday beginning at 2:00 PM EST (1:00 CST) (www.worldviewweekend.com).

Next week I will be heading out to The Berean Call conference in Bend, Oregon. Tom McMahon has invited me to take one of his two sessions to discuss biblical discernment based on my book, using The Harbinger as a case study. We believe this is an important issue which needs to be addressed in a fair way. We also see it as a significant opportunity to help many believers as they think through how to consistently apply a biblical hermeneutic and carefully evaluate anything they might read or hear that purports to be a biblical message.

I want to sincerely thank all who have prayed for me and the entire process. We would also appreciate your ongoing prayers as we are unsure of what the overall reaction might be given the immense popularity and influence that has been enjoyed by The Harbinger and its author.

Click here to order The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? from The Berean Call website

Note: The first chapter, foreword, preface and endorsements are also available for download in pdf format from the order page. (near the bottom)

 

ENDORSEMENTS

JIMMY DEYOUNG
President & Founder, Prophecy Today

“David James has done an excellent job in this book, a review of the book, The Harbinger, being very careful not to bring personality into focus but instead to take a critical look at the biblical aspects of the book. Having read the book a number of times, David studied the hermeneutic used in the book to examine the use of a single passage of scripture taken out of context to understand what the author had done to develop a fictional book while the same time telling the reader that everything in the book was real.

“I believe that David did the research required to give a fair look at Jonathan Cahn’s work and, at the same time, apply the age-old truths of Bible interpretation to help any potential reader of The Harbinger to be aware of the problems in this work. I know that David spent much time in prayer and consultation before he approached the writing of his review, and his only desire is to hold up the truth that we don’t get doctrine, or our understanding of Bible prophecy, from a fictional novel but from the Word of God, the Bible.”

_______________

BRANNON HOWSE
President & Founder, Worldview Weekend

“All across America hundreds of thousands of people have purchased Jonathan Cahn’s book, The Harbinger. By far, the majority have given it rave reviews as well as promoted it, defended it, and recommended it to everyone they know. Unfortunately, this represents a pervasive lack of biblical knowledge and discernment in the church and is why many of us have written and broadcast our deep concerns about the book. I believe David James has used true discernment, extensive research, and biblical hermeneutics to reveal the dangerous message of The Harbinger. James’s research also defends the authority of Scripture against the increasing trend of experience, extra-biblical revelation and mysticism.”

_______________

PAUL BARRECA
Teaching Pastor, Faith Bible Church
Vineland, New Jersey

“Whether or not you’ve read The Harbinger, you must read David James thorough and thoughtful response in The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? The popularity of Cahn’s book has many Christians wondering if the Bible contains a secret message for America enveloped in the details of the 9/11terrorist attacks. I recognized a dangerous hermeneutic at work in Jonathan Cahn’s fast-paced novel but was daunted by the challenge of providing a response for my congregation. David James provides such a response. This book gives the reader a detailed, point-by-point analysis challenging Cahn’s barrage of data and “connect the dot” attempts. David James does this with clear biblical methodology while avoiding personal attacks against Cahn. This book is an example of the way that Christian dialogue should be conducted.”

_______________

ROY B. ZUCK
Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition
Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra
Dallas Theological Seminary

“Jonathan Cahn’s book The Harbinger has been a bestseller for many months. A messianic Jew, Cahn is the senior pastor of the Jerusalem/Beth Israel Worship Center in Wayne, New Jersey. The Harbinger presents the view that Isaiah 9:10-11 refers to the United States, and in particular to the catastrophe of 9/11 and the States’ subsequent economic problems. James masterfully demolishes Cahn’s efforts to relate this passage to the States, pointing up numerous hermeneutical and interpretive fallacies in Cahn’s approach. Anyone interested in The Harbinger needs to note the numerous errors in Cahn’s thinking, as presented in James’s excellent analysis.”

_______________

GARY E. GILLEY
Senior Pastor, Southern View Chapel, Springfield, Illinois
Director, Think on These Things Ministries

“Jonathan Cahn’s, The Harbinger, is a warning to America that God’s judgment is imminent unless the country repents and turns to the Lord, and that very soon. If the book is read merely as a novel warning our country to wake up spiritually, it has value, but the author makes immediately clear that “what is contained within the story is real” (p. 7). In other words, Cahn believes that God pronounced exacting judgment on America, and that judgment is found in Scripture, specifically Isaiah 9:10-11.

“Cahn determines that this text in Isaiah contains a mysterious prophecy directed not to ancient Israel but to modern America. At this point the author massages Scripture, American history, and current events in an attempt to prove that God’s judgment on the United States has been hiding in these verses but have now been unlocked by the careful investigation of Cahn. Once someone decides they can cherry-pick verses at will, change the meaning of these texts to fit his theories, and use random hermeneutical methods, anything can be “proven.” However, very few people will recognize what Cahn has done, and fewer still will do the hard work of investigating his interpretations.

“Here is where David James has greatly benefited the body of Christ. He has carefully, graciously and thoroughly analyzed the claims found in The Harbinger and found many of them lacking biblical support and historical accuracy. James has written this book not merely to expose error but to keep God’s people from being led astray by false teachings and improper hermeneutical approaches to Scripture. I believe he has accomplished these goals in The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?”

_______________

TOMMY ICE
Executive Director, Pre-Trib Research Center
Pastor/Teacher and Church Planter, Community Bible Church, Omaha, Nebraska

“Just because something is popular within today’s evangelical community does not mean that it is biblical. The Harbinger is a popular book for many within evangelicalism that claims to provide a message from God, but it is not built upon a true biblical foundation. Dave James provides a fair biblical analysis for anyone wanting scrutiny of The Harbinger. I commend James’s book, The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?, for those seeking the truth rather than popularity.”

_______________

LARRY DEBRUYN
Guarding His Flock Ministries

 “In a fair and balanced way, Dave James exposes the eccentric biblical interpretations upon which The Harbinger is premised. He demonstrates biblical and theological inaccuracies contained in the story created by Jonathan Cahn, one which the author claims to be partially real. James connects the dots between multiple biblical, historical, and factual problems, which gives the reader the sense that The Harbinger has undertones of Anglo-Israelism and Christian Dominionism. Though perhaps not intended by the author, these concepts form an underlying philosophical framework upon which the theoretical “secret” of America’s future appears to be based. For readers possessing a heart to discern truth from error, The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? frames fundamental issues related to an accurate understanding of Bible prophecy in our modern world. Highly recommended.”
_______________

LARRY J. WATERS
Associate Professor of Bible Exposition
Dallas Theological Seminary

“One of the most asked questions in biblical prophecy today is, “Where does the United States fit into eschatology?” Jonathan Cahn’s The Harbinger tries to answer that question—however, he attempts to do so with many unfounded hermeneutical “jumps” that cannot be sustained. Dave James goes to great lengths to debunk Cahn’s theories and offers a balanced look at end-time prophecy and the USA. Where Scripture is silent, it is best not to impose one’s own presumptions on the text. For those interested in this subject, James offers extensive objections to Cahn’s presumptions.”

Click here to order The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? from The Berean Call website

feedback

For years there has been a discussion among missiologists and linguists concerning the proper translation of certain biblical passages into various languages in the Muslim world. Over the years, the discussion has turned into a debate and more recently into a full-blown controversy that has gained a lot of momentum over the last few weeks. The present controversy centers around specific decisions by Wycliffe Bible Translators, SIL International and Frontiers (an exclusively Muslim ministry) concerning the translation of the “Father-Son” (“divine familial”) language in a number of Bible versions created for the Muslim world.

Note: In the case of Frontiers, this issue was addressed in a 2007 article by Thomas Cosmades (a Turkish-born missionary and evangelist) where many other significant translation problems were noted.

As part of the groundswell of opposition to these changes, Biblical Missiology initiated a petition campaign aimed at trying to persuade the above-mentioned organizations to reconsider publishing these translations. It appears that in response to the petition, as well as concerns within those organization, Wycliffe and SIL have temporarily suspended their plans to approve their publication.

Wycliffe Bible Translators

In recent weeks, the debate over the translation of the divine familial terms (words translated into English as Son of God, Son, and Father) has grown. It is the policy of Wycliffe USA that the literal translation of divine familial terms be given preference. If the accuracy of the meaning would be lost when using a literal translation, Wycliffe USA, along with SIL, has sought to provide clear guidance for the translation teams. It is this allowance, in rare cases, that is the point of debate. While Wycliffe USA believes this approach has allowed for accurate and clear translation of the divine familial terms, the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks deserve prayerful consideration.

SIL International

(6 February 2012) In light of a number of questions raised about our Best Practices Statement on the translation of Divine Familial Terms, we recognize it is important to have a fuller dialogue with our many partners globally and benefit from their input to our approach in Scripture translation related to this issue. Since questions about our commitment to these translation principles have been raised, we will proactively engage to understand the concerns, clarify misunderstandings, and where indicated, adjust practice.

Therefore, SIL announces that as of today, February 6, 2012, in situations where we are involved and partnering with others in translation, and have the responsibility to do so, we will put on hold our approval of publication of translated Scripture around which this criticism is focused.

I have not found any indication that Frontiers USA has followed Wycliffe and SIL, and appear to be standing by the following statement:

When reached for comment, Frontier’s director Bob Blincoe defended the Turkish translation stating, “If it has the Turkish-Greek interlinear, it is faithful to the original Greek.” When pressed further how “protector” and “guardian” could be equivalent to “Father” and “proxy” and “representative” to the “Son” in the translation, he said, “It has the original Greek, it is true to the exact Gospel of Matthew.”

As part of the petition campaign, Biblical Missiology created an informative and well-written FAQ (published prior to the above statements by Wycliffe and SIL) that outlines the major issues and concerns surrounding this controversy. Below are extensive quotes from the article followed by my response to the matter of “culturally relevant/ sensitive translations” in general and “Son of God” specifically.

Lost in Translation FAQs

Years of private exhortations, meetings with agency leaders, internal dissent from agency staff including resignations over the issue, criticism and earnest appeals from national believers most affected by the translations, group discussions, conferences of proponents and critics, missiological articles, and church and denominational admonitions, have all failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations.

In the summer of 2011, a group of Insider Movement advocates and critics met to openly and respectfully discuss their differences. The issue of Muslim Idiom Translation was a major focus. At that conference, there were hopeful signs that progress had been made, including a commitment to faithfully translate familial terms. Then three things happened in the fall of 2011 to dispel those hopes. First, Wycliffe/SIL issued policy statements allowing the use of alternative terms. Second, Wycliffe/SIL leaders published an article that presented their rationale for these changes. Third, Wycliffe/SIL demonstrated their commitment to this translation practice by posting an online version of Frontiers’ translation of Matthew, which replaces “Father” with “guardian” and “Son” with “representative.”

As reported in Christianity Today,[1] an SIL meeting in Istanbul resulted in a Best Practices statement that said translations “should promote understanding” of the term “Son of God.” It did not, however, include the more objective requirement that the term is translated faithfully and accurately in the text of the Bible. Lest there be any doubt that alternative language is permissible, the same sentence added, “while avoiding any possible implication of sexual activity by God” (emphasis added).

Wycliffe’s Translation Standards indicate that in Muslim contexts “where it has been demonstrated that a literal translation of ‘Son of God’ would communicate wrong meaning, an alternative form with equivalent meaning may be used.” Who decides what a “wrong meaning” of “Son of God” is? The reader? The translator? Why not translate the term accurately and faithfully, and offer explanation as needed? Further, the examples of an “alternative form with equivalent meaning” to “Son of God” deeply trouble us. For example, the controversial Turkish translation uses “representative of God” rather than “Son of God,” thus failing to convey Jesus’ deity and the familial relationship of a father to his son.

For years, SIL Translation Consultant Rick Brown has been publishing articles promoting alternative terms for “Father” and “Son,” arguing, for example, that “Muslims have heard that Christians call Jesus the ‘offspring of God,’ and this has been presented to them repeatedly as exhibit A in the case against Christianity and its ‘corruption’ of the Bible. So there is a dire need to correct these misunderstandings and to invalidate the accusation in a timely manner. This can be done in communications of every sort, but by all means it should be done in the Scriptures” (emphasis added)

In the Turkish text of Matthew, “Son” is rendered as “representative” or “proxy,” and “Father” is translated as “protector” or “guardian.” Turkish Christian leader Thomas Cosmades expressed in a 2007 letter his deep concerns of the Frontiers translation, describing it as a “lamentable and hazardous wager.”[4] While the Frontiers translation had been produced years ago in hardcopy, it was SIL’s decision to post it online that confirmed their commitment to publishing Bible translations that remove “Father” and “Son” from the text.

Wycliffe/SIL justify using alternative terms to Father and Son because they say Muslims cannot hear these terms in relationship to God without inferring that God had sex with Mary, a blasphemous notion in Islam—and Christianity as well. There are at least two problems with this justification: it is not true and it is not biblical. The justification is not true in that native speakers of Arabic, Turkish, Bangla, and other languages say their words for “Father” and “Son” do not have these sexual implications—and certainly not any more than other languages.

Other Arabic speakers reject the notion that their commonly used terms are inadequate. As Jihan Husary says, “Arabic is my native language so I can affirm that there is no valid reason to change those terms in Arabic.”

Regardless of whatever is actually said in the footnotes—which itself has been controversial—our focus is that in various ways, “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” do not appear in the text of some translations.

In late January 2012, SIL released a statement saying, “SIL restates emphatically: SIL does not support the removal of the divine familial terms, ‘Son of God’ or ‘God the Father’ but rather requires that Scripture translation must communicate clear understanding of these terms.” On a first reading, that sounds acceptable. But given other statements that explicitly allow alternative terms, SIL likely means that in some cases they will relegate the terms to the footnotes or introductions. To us, that is still removing them from the text. Note that rather than explicitly committing to keep “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” in the text, they instead promise to “communicate clear understanding of these terms.” That is a subjective commitment that in practice has led to translations such as Matthew 28:19 in Arabic, “Cleanse them with water in the name of God, the Messiah and the Holy Spirit,” which is not a faithful or accurate translation of the verse.

When reached for comment, Frontiers’ director Bob Blincoe defended the Turkish translation stating, “If it has the Turkish-Greek interlinear, it is faithful to the original Greek.” When pressed further how “protector” and “guardian” could be equivalent to “Father,” and “proxy” and “representative” could be equivalent to “Son,” Blincoe said, “It has the original Greek, it is true to the exact Gospel of Matthew.” [7] We disagree. Attaching an interlinear (a separate document matching Turkish words with biblical Greek) still leaves the Turkish text replacing “Father” with “guardian.” Senior Turkish pastors and Christian leaders opposing the translation have signed the petition, including Engin Duran who says, “I am a Turkish Pastor and I don’t wan’t to use this wrong translation in my church. How dare they can publish such a wrong translation and distribute it in my country? Already Muslims in my country believe that the Bible is changed by men and these mission agencies are making it harder for us!”

The reaction of national Christians is overwhelmingly and strongly negative. Bangladeshi Christians have produced a short video expressing their concerns. On February 8, 2012, the Presbyterian Church of Pakistan wrote a letter to “Christian leaders and believers worldwide” criticizing SIL and Wycliffe’s translation practices and “justifications for the sake of convenient translations.” Additionally, church leaders in places like Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia have called for an end to these translations, but to no avail.

Further research reveals that the above may only be the tip of the iceberg:

According to Joshua Lingel of i2 Ministries, “Even more dramatic a change is the Arabic and Bangla (Bangladesh) translations. In Arabic, Bible translations err by translating ‘Father’ as ‘Lord.’ ‘Guardian.’ ‘Most High’ and ‘God.” In Bangla, ‘Son of God’ is mistranslated ‘Messiah of God’ consistent with the Quran’s Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), which references the merely human Jesus. [source]

According to reports, of the roughly 200 translation projects Wycliffe/SIL linguists have undertaken in Muslim contexts, about 30 or 40 remove the terms father and son with reference to God and Jesus. [source]

The Commendable Work That Has Been Done

The Lord has unquestionably used Wycliffe, SIL and Frontiers for decades to reach untold numbers for Christ through their tireless efforts to get the Word of God into the “heart language” of great numbers in largely unreached people groups. I am inexpressibly thankful for these organizations and for the individual missionaries who in so many cases have forsaken all to follow the Lord in faithful obedience to the Great Commission. I would not want anything I write to be misconstrued as disparaging in any way the ministry that has been accomplished for Christ or impugning the motives of anyone either individually or collectively. My intention is not to be critical of these men and women of God, but it is rather to offer a critique of a philosophy of ministry and of methods that may flow from that philosophy.

Response to Culturally-Sensitive Translations and Changing Familial Terms

Pragmatic versus biblical approaches

Over the past 10-20 years, it seems that there has been a broad shift toward pragmatic approaches to philosophy of ministry, and away from thoroughly biblical ones. More than once, I have heard the catch-phrase, “Whatever it takes!” as a sort of ministry motto.

Of course, this idea flows from a very sincere desire to reach the world with the gospel and the truth of God’s Word. I would suggest, however, that somewhere along the line, “whatever it takes” has undergone a shift away from “whatever the cost” to “whatever works.”

This is not simply a matter of semantics – it represents a paradigm shift. If “whatever it takes” takes on the pragmatic meaning of “whatever works,” it simply doesn’t work as a philosophical foundation. For example, lying often actually works, i.e., it can be used to achieve a desired outcome, but it is obviously not a commendable method. The same can be said of many things that sometimes work (even if temporarily) such as cheating, robbery, violence, etc.

And unfortunately, pragmatism’s philosophical twin is the idea that “the end justifies the means.”

Combined together, the argument for a culturally-sensitive philosophy of translation for “familial terms” related to the Father and Jesus might go as follows:

1. We are called to make disciples of all nations.
2. Because the eternal destiny of individuals is at stake, nothing is more important than seeing them trust Christ for salvation.
3. However, some cultures, because of unique customs, worldviews, and religions find certain aspects of Christianity inherently objectionable, making them extremely resistant to “normal” methods of ministry.
4. Therefore, in order to effectively penetrate these people groups with the gospel, we must find ways to overcome, minimize or otherwise get past their objections by using methods and means that are culturally sensitive.
5. When trying to reach Muslims with the gospel, we must find ways to translate “familial” terms in a way that adequately describes the relationship between the Father and Jesus, while not offending their cultural / religious sensibilities in way which can cause them to reject the gospel out-of-hand.
6. The substitution of familial terms in these passages has essentially no substantive impact on the overall meaning being communicated by the biblical authors. (This will be questioned later.)
7. Reports from missionaries in the Islamic world indicate that Muslims are much more receptive to the gospel and the teachings of Christianity in general once these terminology obstacles have been removed – and that many are coming to Christ largely because of these culturally-sensitive translations.
8. The translators, organizations and missionaries using these translations are in no way denying the deity of Christ or that Jesus is the Son of God, so there are no fundamental theological compromises or changes taking place at the personal or organizational level.
9. Whatever concerns and objections might be raised concerning such culturally-sensitive translations pale in comparison to the overwhelming positive results of seeing multitudes of Muslims turn to Christ.

As one missiologist, Rick Brown (who has worked in Africa and Asia since 1977), puts it in a February 2010 interview with Christianity Today:

“Missionaries can live in a Muslim culture for decades, blaming Muslims for being ‘resistant’ to the gospel, when the problem actually lies with linguistic and cultural stumbling blocks,” Brown told Christianity Today. “Once these are removed, many Muslims are quite open and interested in knowing more about Jesus.

The question that must be raise, however, is whether these arguments legitimately justify implementing this particular culturally-sensitive approach to translation?

Objections by Middle East Pastors and Christian Leaders

If we’re going to attempt some sort of contextualization in any cross-cultural context – particularly when it involves translation issues – we need to listen carefully to the born-again believers in that culture, and especially to those whom the Lord has entrusted with ministry responsibilities.

As reported in Christianity Today (“The Son and the Crescent”), Georges Houssney founder-director of Horizons International (a ministry to Muslims), was asked in 1974 to contextualize an Arabic translation by using terms from the Koran. Pastors and Christian leaders throughout the Middle East reacted vigorously (sometimes threatening violence) to a 32-page test booklet which combined the birth narratives of Jesus from Matthew and Luke. In this version, “Son of God” was translated “beloved of God.”

He visited dozens of pastors throughout the Middle East and asked why they objected so strongly. They offered several reasons. They saw the booklet’s terminology as conceding too much to Islam. It threatened to confuse both Muslims and Christians, especially new believers who struggled to adjust to a more literal translation used in churches. They believed it would embolden Muslim apologists who teach that the Bible has been tainted due to translations that differ in significant ways.

Others pastors said Muslim apologists would notice that translators had borrowed phrases from the Qur’an and would claim that this proved the Qur’an’s superiority to the Bible. Or that Muslims would regard the translation as a nefarious plot to dupe Muslims into reading the Bible.

Finally, pastors noted that a translator who adopts words from the Qur’an risks leading readers to import their prior understandings to the Bible. In other words, if the Bible calls Jesus Isa, Muslims may associate him with the Qur’an’s account, which denies that he died on the cross, for example. Houssney eventually released a more literal translation.

Inspiration, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Sufficiency, Authority

These five inseparably-linked concepts form a logical progression that speaks directly to this issue.

The biblical view of inspiration is that process by which the Holy Spirit carried along the biblical writers to faithfully, accurately and completely write the very words of God. (This does not imply any sort of dictation theory.)

2 Peter 1:19–21

(19) And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; (20) knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, (21) for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16–17

(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It is broadly accepted by conservative evangelical scholars that the inspiration of the Scriptures extends to the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of the original manuscripts. This means that every word reflects a perfect decision by God so that His precisely-intended meaning would be conveyed by the specific words of the text.

From this flows the concept that the original text is without error.  To say that the text was perfect is not to say that it cannot be expounded upon, but it does mean that it cannot be improved upon. In other words, there is no upside to employing different words, while there is a potentially huge downside, not the least of which is actually tampering with the Word of God:

Revelation 22:18–19

(18) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Of course, John is specifically referring to the book of Revelation, but from Moses’ words we understand that John’s warning is based on a fundamental principle involving a prohibition and warning from God concerning anything He says.

Deuteronomy 4:2–3

(2) You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32

(32) “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

This principle is also seen in the provisions in the Mosaic Law concerning false prophets:

Deuteronomy 18:20–22

(20) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ (21) And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— (22) when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

By way of application, this would necessarily extend to the substitution of words that would alter the meaning of what God has said. However, this is exactly what has happened with the Turkish translation of Matthew 28:19 cited above in the FAQ by Biblical Missiology. In that translation it is reported that “Son” has not actually been translated, but actually replaced by “Messiah.”

NOTE: After much searching, I have not been able to find this specific translation on the internet, so I cannot independently confirm what has been reported. I am relying on the fact that it has been widely reported and has not been refuted by the organizations in question. That it is accurate is further confirmed by the decision to put a temporary hold on publishing these translations.

This goes far beyond the “word-for-word” versus “thought-for-thought” (“dynamic equivalence”) translation discussion. Dynamic equivalence seeks to accurately render the Greek and Hebrew with phrasing that carries the equivalent meaning in the target language. Even this is approach is fairly vigorously debated, but culturally-sensitive translations sometimes carry only a somewhat-related idea, but nothing approaching an equivalent one.

In the context of the inspiration-authority continuum, the obvious question is, “if words and phrases with different meanings are used to translate the original, do we still have an inerrant, infallible, sufficient and authoritative text?” Or more pointedly, “Do we still have the Word of God?”

In fact, it would seem that we are left with something far less than even paraphrases, which in most cases at least represent attempts to accurately render the concepts in the original text albeit with contemporary phrasing. (This is not meant to endorse the use of paraphrases in place of actual translations.)

Theological Issues

In the same CT article cited above, David Abernathy, a translation consultant in Africa expresses his concerns about the theological issues at stake:

“As much as Christian theologians have used the term and concept of ‘Word’ throughout the history of theology, they did so with the understanding that this eternal Word was also a person who was [the] eternal Son,” Abernathy wrote. “It is the eternal sonship that makes sense of calling him the eternal Word, but when that sonship is removed, the Trinity as we know it dramatically changes. There is no eternal Father-Son relationship, only an eternal God-Word relationship, which is conceptually very foreign to the doctrine of the Trinity as it has always been understood. The historic Christian understanding of the Trinity essentially collapses.”

J. Scott Horrell, professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and an adjunct professor at Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary (JETS), writes in St. Francis Magazine:

Ingrained in Islamic cultures, the words “Son of God” elicit the image that Jesus is God’s offspring through physical relations with a woman. Conversely, central to Christian faith is the invitation to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

What is the bottom line? Both terms “Father” and “Son” for God are repugnant to the Muslim. Yet in the Bible and Christian faith these words take on more meaning than mere metaphors or titles, rather they become the divine names that most disclose the divine relations. Without the Son there is no Father, and without the Father there is no Son. In the developing theology of the New Testament, the names “Father” and “Son” assume the force of being not merely external (or economic) descriptions but intrinsic to God’s own deepest reality. Again it must be asked, if “natural” terms replace “Son,” “Son of God,” and even “Father” in Muslimsensitive translations, then what other language allows us access into this intimate reality? If such designations were rejected by the Qur’an in explicit opposition to Christian faith—even if Muhammed misperceived these terms—what might serve as licit alternatives?

I have addressed the following questions: First, exegetically, are non-word-for-word renditions of Jesus as the “Son of God” omitting too much? My response is that the multi-layered meanings of “Son of God,” as in the Gospels, often point beyond the limited concepts of those in Jesus’s immediate world. Replacing Sonship language—as uttered from heaven at the baptism and the Transfiguration, by Satan in the temptations, and by demons as early testimonies to Jesus’s supernatural origin—can detract from the canonical text’s post-Easter implications. Jesus’s own Father-Son language reaches the deepest levels of divine self-disclosure.

To confess Jesus as the “Son of God” is finally to recognize both his essential equality with the Father and his eternal filial relationship. As for translation of the “Son of God,” all translation is unavoidably interpretation. Biblical translation carries the special responsibility of bridging not just from the text to the receiving culture. It further functions as an invitation to enter the Christian faith—the faith of the church. Therefore, especially in regard to the phrase “Son of God” when related to Jesus, extreme care should be exercised lest the rich meanings of the deity of Christ and his eternal relationship with the Father be subverted.

“Son of” (singular) versus “Sons of” (plural)

One argument that is sometimes employed as part of the justification for an alternate translation to “Son of God” is the use of “son” to denote something other than a familial or lineal relationship. Cited examples include “sons of the kingdom,” “sons of this world,” “sons of light,” “sons of this age,” etc.

These examples do demonstrate that “sons of” (plural) does not necessarily imply a familial / lineal relationship, although naturally, in many instances, this is the way it is used.  However, it must also be noted that of the 274 uses of “son of” (singular) with only one exception, it always denotes a familial / lineal relationship.  This difference in usage seems to be significant. (The single exception is in reference to the Antichrist, whom Paul calls the “son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3).)

Jesus’ other titles, besides “Son of God,” must also be considered. For example, Matthew refers to Jesus as “the Son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1) for the purpose of demonstrating his familial connection to Abraham as part of his presentation of Jesus as the Jewish King. Matthew also uses “the Son of David” as part of his argument that Jesus has a familial connection to David that makes him a legitimate candidate to be the Davidic King.

Furthermore, “Son of David” is used a total of 17 times in the gospels, which is the third most frequently-used title after “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” The familial / lineal connection is clearly a significant part of His identity and directly related to His claim to the throne of David.

The most frequently-used title for Jesus is “Son of Man” which occurs 87 times in 83 verses. While Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham and moves forward,  Luke’s genealogy begins with Mary and traces Jesus lineage backward, all the way to Adam – establishing the fact that Jesus is also truly a member of the human family.

This leaves us with Jesus’ second most frequently-used title: “Son of God.” It seems inescapable that given the purpose for the titles “Son of David” and “Son of Man” to establish a familial connection to David and to the entire human race, “Son of God” is explicitly, if not primarily, for the purpose of designating His familial relationship with God the Father.

First Century Jews

All of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish except for Luke. And all except James and Jude use the phrase “Son of God” in some way – for a total of forty-two times. Although it is frequently a record of the taunts and accusations against Jesus by His enemies, it is always referenced matter-of-factly and never challenged as to its accuracy.

Mark begins his gospel:

Mark 1:1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John the Baptist is quoted as saying:

John 1:34: And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

Nathaniel declared:

John 1:49: Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Jesus Himself challenged Nicodemus:

John 3:18

(18) “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Martha confessed:

John 11:27: She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

And John makes it clear that believing Jesus is the Son of God is at the very heart of the gospel and essential to the faith necessary to receive eternal life:

John 20:31: but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

These all stand in remarkable contrast to the violent reaction this identification frequently elicited, particularly by the Jewish religious leaders. Certainly no less than modern-day Muslims, first-century Jews, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, regarded such a claim as both extremely repulsive and the height of blasphemy. In their view, such claims demanded nothing less than Jesus’ death. However, this is a title that Jesus used of Himself – and which was also proclaimed by the Father at Jesus’ baptism when He said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17). This is also significant because it is a departure from the “son of” construction, and therefore informs us as to how “son of” should be understood.

The Work of the Holy Spirit

An important factor that culturally-sensitive translators seem to not take into account is that it is only the work of the Spirit of God in someone’s heart that can overcome all objections to the gospel related to Jesus’ identity. This is true not only concerning Him being the Son of God (as if that were the only issue). The obstacles to faith for every sinful human being includes the fact that He is also the Savior, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Creator, the Lord of Glory, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

The New Testament also makes it clear that the open recognition that Jesus is the Son of God, was not a problem in a cross-cultural setting any more than it was with the Jews, when the Holy Spirit is at work.

Matthew records the declaration by a Roman centurion who witnessed Jesus’ death:

Matthew 27:54: So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

In the book of Acts, we find the confession of an Ethiopian who was an attendant in a royal court:

Acts 8:34–37

(34) So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?”

(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

(36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

(37) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Summary and Conclusions

Goals and Motivating Factors

A number of goals and motivating factors can be identified as driving forces behind culturally-sensitive translations:

1. To reach as many as possible with the truth of the gospel and God’s Word in general, and see as many as possible come to faith in Christ.
2. To minimize or remove as many cultural, religious and philosophical obstacles as possible which are perceived to be hindering ministry efforts among Muslims.
3. To provide culturally-sensitive, alternate translations for biblical phrases and terms which are inherently offensive to Muslims, while remaining true to the meaning of the original text.
4. To change false perceptions that Muslims have about what Christian’s believe and teach.

Missionaries who have adopted this approach to translation report large numbers of Muslims who are reading the Bible for the first time, as well as large numbers of Muslim converts – perhaps in the tens of thousands world-wide. This is seen as undeniable evidence for the philosophical and theological correctness of the culturally-sensitive approach.

Preliminary Analysis and Evaluation

Based on the initial research and study of the issues surrounding culturally-sensitive translations of divine familial terms, I have come to the following preliminary conclusions.

1. Any approach that exchanges words which do reflect the contextual meaning of the original text for ones which are not genuine synonyms undermines the doctrines of the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, sufficiency and authority of Scripture.
2. To the degree that translated words depart from the contextual meaning of the original text, to that degree the translation ceases to be the Word of God.
3. There are biblical prohibitions against tampering with the Word of God – against adding or subtracting from that which God has revealed and there are warnings of potential serious consequences if this is done.
4. A significant number of pastors and Christian leaders who are native speakers of the target languages and who live and minister among Muslims have reacted against culturally-sensitive translations in ways ranging from deep concern to outrage.
5. God could have easily inspired the proposed alternate words in the first place. However, even though God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, in His wisdom He has inspired specific words and concepts that He knew beforehand would be offensive to Muslims.
6. Given the familial / lineal meaning and purpose of Jesus’ titles “Son of Abraham,” “Son of David” and “Son of Man,” that “Son of God” can be understood and replaced with non-familial terms cannot be easily justified.
7. The offense to sinful men from any culture is not limited to “Son of God,” but is much more broadly connected to Jesus’ identity as the Savior, King, Lord, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, etc. Changing just “Son of God” only potentially lessens one of a myriad of offenses, not the least of which is the offense of the cross.
8. The offense of “Son of God” to Muslims today, is no less an offense to the Jews of today or to those of the first century. Yet, “Son of God” has always been understood to be Jesus’ claimed identity – both by His enemies and by those who embraced Him as Lord and Savior. In spite of this, there has never been an attempt (of which I’m aware) to change these familial terms when ministering to Jews or any other people group.
9. It is only the work of the Holy Spirit, not the methods of men, that can overcome all obstacles, objections and offenses caused by the person and work of Jesus Christ.
10. For those who reject Jesus as Savior, changing the familial terms is not helpful. For those who accept Jesus as Savior, changing the familial terms is not necessary.
11. To change the divine familial terms is to change the gospel itself.
12. Pragmatic approaches, even when they appear to produce positive results, cannot be justified if they violate biblical principles.

The issue of culturally-sensitive translations seems to be part of a larger trend in missions called the Insider Movement, which is what could be termed as a “hyper-contextualization” philosophy of cross-cultural ministry. It includes a method for reaching Muslims with the gospel sometimes referred to as Camel Evangelism – and a sort of synthesis of Christianity and Islam, pejoratively referred to as “Chrislam.” I plan to discuss this movement in future articles.

Final Thoughts

That this is an issue at all points to the fact that we live in a fallen world that is at enmity with God and openly rejects the person and work of Jesus to bring the hope of salvation to all men. The Muslim rejection of Jesus as the Son of God is but one symptom of the underlying problem.

The task of fulfilling the Great Commission is faced with many obstacles, not the least of which are connected to cultures and religions. It is certainly commendable and wise methodology to be aware of and sensitive to cultural issues and to take steps to avoid causing unnecessary offense. This includes ministry philosophy and methodology. Our task is not to simply exchange one set of cultural norms for another by imposing our culture upon theirs. However, it is our task to bring the truth to bear upon every culture, which happens through individuals having their lives changed through a personal relationship to Christ.

The way in which we communicate that truth may vary from culture to culture, but the content of that truth is unchanging – and must not be changed.

site-map

This is Part 2 an article which appeared in the September / October 2011 edition of Voice magazine and is reproduced with the permission of its author, Dr. Kevin Zuber.

Dr. Zuber is Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute and a teaching elder / pastor at Grace Bible Church Northwest.

________________

Preface (by Dave James)

There were several catalysts in the process that ultimately led to the formation of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity. One of the first was a very late-night conversation with Dr. Jimmy DeYoung in 2007 (which I’ll get back to in a moment).

It was after midnight and we were returning to Hungary after speaking at the first prophecy conference ever held in Serbia (to the best of our knowledge). We were still rejoicing in the fact that the Lord had allowed us to be a part of something that had far exceeded everyone’s expectations. The organizers of the conference (one a Serbian Baptist pastor and the other an elder in a Brethren Church) had set up the locations for the meetings based on their hope that we might have as many as 100 people or so attend the conference. After the meeting on Saturday, a last-minute change of venue for the Sunday meetings was necessitated by the fact that around 500 had come out to hear the messages. By the last meeting on Sunday, it was estimated that close to 800 were in attendance that evening – approximately 10% of the evangelical population of the entire country of Serbia!

Back to the conversation: The question we were asking ourselves was, “Where is the next generation of prophecy speakers going to come from? Who is teaching and training them.” This also led to the observation that dispensationalism, in general, seems to be in rapid decline after over 50 years of being the most widely-held view within conservative evangelicalism.

In this article, Kevin Zuber deals with this specific issue and some of the significant implications flowing out of this shift away from Pre-Trib Pre-Mil Dispensationalism and toward Covenant Theology and its attendant “supersessionism.” As Dr. Zuber explains in the article:

[supersessionism is] the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

________________

Article by Kevin Zuber

This article appeared in the September / October 2011 edition of Voice magazine and is reproduced with the permission of its author, Dr. Kevin Zuber.

Dr. Zuber is Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute and a teaching elder / pastor at Grace Bible Church Northwest.

________________

Preface (by Dave James)

There were several catalysts in the process that ultimately led to the formation of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity. One of the first was a very late-night conversation with Dr. Jimmy DeYoung in 2007 (which I’ll get back to in a moment).

It was after midnight and we were returning to Hungary after speaking at the first prophecy conference ever held in Serbia (to the best of our knowledge). We were still rejoicing in the fact that the Lord had allowed us to be a part of something that had far exceeded everyone’s expectations. The organizers of the conference (one a Serbian Baptist pastor and the other an elder in a Brethren Church) had set up the locations for the meetings based on their hope that we might have as many as 100 people or so attend the conference. After the meeting on Saturday, a last-minute change of venue for the Sunday meetings was necessitated by the fact that around 500 had come out to hear the messages. By the last meeting on Sunday, it was estimated that close to 800 were in attendance that evening – approximately 10% of the evangelical population of the entire country of Serbia!

Back to the conversation: The question we were asking ourselves was, “Where is the next generation of prophecy speakers going to come from? Who is teaching and training them.” This also led to the observation that dispensationalism, in general, seems to be in rapid decline after over 50 years of being the most widely-held view within conservative evangelicalism.

In this article, Kevin Zuber deals with this specific issue and some of the significant implications flowing out of this shift away from Pre-Trib Pre-Mil Dispensationalism and toward Covenant Theology and its attendant “supersessionism.” As Dr. Zuber explains in the article:

[supersessionism is] the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

________________

Article by Kevin Zuber

In October, 2010 many in the evangelical world were focused on the third Lausanne Conference in Capetown, South Africa. The Lausanne Movement begun in 1974 by Billy Graham, John Stott and others in Lausanne, Switzerland has had only three such major conferences in its over sixty-year history.

The purpose of the movement was ostensibly to unite and focus the efforts of global evangelicalism for the task of global evangelization. The preparations for the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in Capetown included papers from several study groups; one such group was the Lausanne Theology Working Group. This group produced a document entitled “The Whole Church Taking The Whole Gospel to The Whole World.” This document was published on the Lausanne website¹ and in the January 2010 issue of Evangelical Review of Theology (vol. 34, no. 1, p. 4-13).

In one startling paragraph of that paper the members of the Theology Working Group at first affirmed the unity of the church: “We give thanks that the one Church that God has called into being in Christ is drawn from every nation, tribe, people and language,” but they then went on to assert that “no single ethnic identity can any longer claim to be ‘God’s chosen people.’” The theologians of the Lausanne Movement who produced this document further argued “God’s election of Old Testament Israel was for the sake of the eventual creation of this multi-national community of God’s people.” In other words, they assert that the purpose of the election of Israel was for the creation of the Church! This, of course, is a denial of God’s purposes for the ethnic descendants of Abraham and of a future for the nation of Israel.

The statement also asserted, “It is vital that we strongly affirm, therefore, that while there are multiple ethnicities within the one church by God’s clear intention, no single ethnic group holds privileged place in God’s economy of salvation or God’s eschatological purpose” [italics original]. And just in case the theological and practical thrust of that assertion was not clear enough the paragraph concluded, “For this reason, we strongly believe that the separate and privileged place given to Jewish people today or to the modern Israeli state in certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, should be challenged, inasmuch as they deny the essential oneness of the people of God in Christ.”

Many readers of this publication will recognize immediately that in this statement is a fairly obvious assertion of “covenant theology,” and an affirmation of “supersessionism,” or “replacement theology.” That is, the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

Why is this important?

Why should we be aware of this statement and what might be its import?

We might begin by observing that the general drift of wider evangelicalism is decidedly in the direction indicated by this statement, namely toward supersessionism.² Many, both inside the Lausanne movement and those close to it, when made aware of this statement and this paragraph found it unobjectionable and many endorsed it. This might have been surprising since, as noted, one of the professed purposes of the Lausanne movement was to create unity for the evangelistic enterprise of the church and this statement is obviously dismissive of a certain segment of evangelical Christianity. But authors of the statement and its subsequent defenders clearly felt that they were on a sufficiently solid theological footing when they choose to advocate for a particular supersessionist biblical/theological position and chose to dismiss those who hold to “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism.” The authors of the document certainly believed that the advocates of “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism” were insignificant enough as a group that they could be dismissed without significantly impacting the unity of the movement or the cause of global evangelization.

In short, it would appear that the authors of the statement believed that most of the Lausanne movement, and the wider evangelical public would agree with them in this dismissive marginalization of dispensationalism and the theological tradition that holds to a future for ethnic Israel. Sadly, I would have to agree with them in that theoretical estimate; that is, the proponents of “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism” have been by and large marginalized by the wider evangelical community. The fact that this paragraph went largely unnoticed and its implications largely dismissed cannot be due simply to the relatively obscure place of publication. The very fact that it was written, published and originally endorsed by the leaders of the Lausanne Movement demonstrates that they and others believed that it reflected (or would reflect when published) the viewpoint of a considerable majority of its adherents. In short, they determined that it was safe to advocate for supersessionism and to dismiss dispensationalism.

The broader picture

Again, why should this matter to us? At this point I want to try and bring into focus the broader picture. That is, I want to widen the focus and by that to enable us to see an even more alarming trend—namely, the marginalization of the dispensational theological tradition and the rise of supersessionism. To be clear, I am asserting here that the statement of the Lausanne Theology Working Group is by no means an isolated aberration but merely one more example that dispensationalism, grounded in the Old Testament covenantal promises to Abraham and his descendants, established in promises to David and the nation of Israel, is a theological position that is an “endangered” position,³ whereas supersessionism is finding a wider and growing support. I have several reasons to think this.

Some authors such as Craig Blaising, have suggested that the view that “God’s covenanted promises regarding Israel’s future… were transferred by God to the institution of the church” and that “the church was seen as the new Israel,”⁴ is a view that is “increasingly being rejected by Christians as not accurately representing the message of Jesus, his apostles, or Scripture generally.”⁵ Other authors, however, suggest otherwise. For instance, Barry E. Horner has documented the rise in church history and in the history of Christian thought and has clearly demonstrated the pervasiveness of this view of supersessionism throughout church history and in current Christian thought.⁶ While it might be true that premillennialism and dispensational eschatology reached in the twentieth century something approaching (at least among North American evangelicals) a degree of “popular theological hegemony” there are reasons to think that that status is very much in question in the early years of the twenty-first century. In short, certain trends seem to be indicating that supersessionism is on the rise and dispensationalism is on the wane.

For instance, as a very general indication of this development it can be observed that three of the latest major evangelical systematic theologies, Wayne Grudem’s,⁷ Millard Erikson’s,⁸ and Robert Reymond’s⁹ each advocate some degree or form of supersessionism.¹⁰ It is not a stretch to argue that these systematic theologies represent something of a consensus of a “broad evangelical theology.” And if that is so, then they indicate supersessionism is far from vanishing but is in fact becoming more and more the viewpoint of the academically oriented and theologically minded evangelicals. Furthermore, as these texts are assigned and read in evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges they are more likely to move students in a supersessionist direction.

Furthermore, I have seen a growing weariness, even resistance to the study of eschatology and in particular the study of the details of premillennial dispensationalism.¹¹ It may be fatigue from the best-selling Left Behind series or the influence of post-modern relativism.¹² In any case, many of my students and their friends in other Christian colleges and universities¹³ have decided that eschatology is just not that important.¹⁴ And the students are not alone in this regard. Many lay people are of the same opinion.

____________

feedback

Predictably – and appropriately, conservative Bible teachers, theologians and pastors have uniformly condemned Harold Camping’s adamant declarations that the Rapture would occur before the end of the day on Saturday, May 21, 2011. It is now being widely reported that Mr. Camping has since admitted that he is neither infallible nor a “genius”, while inexplicably insisting that God’s judgment, did in fact begin on May 21:

On May 21, this last weekend, this is where the spiritual aspect of it really comes through,” said Camping. “God again brought judgment on the world. We didn’t see any difference but God brought Judgment Day to bear upon the whole world. The whole world is under Judgment Day and it will continue right up until Oct. 21, 2011 and by that time the whole world will be destroyed.” (source)

There is little that I can add to what has already been said by many others about knowing the timing of the Lord’s return and false prophets, so the focus of this article is what I consider to be the greatest tragedy to come out of this whole matter – the wholesale dismissal of the idea of Christ’s return and the coming judgment of God. Many others are expressing the same concern.

Of course, there are many tragic stories in connection with Family Radio’s world-wide campaign to proclaim Camping’s apocalyptic message. Some faithful followers quit their jobs, sold their possessions, and emptied savings and retirement accounts in order to provide Family Radio with the funds needed to warn the world of impending judgment. The Guardian’s sister newspaper, The Observer cited a figure of more than $100 million that went into advertising around the world in countries from Israel to Iraq, from the Philippines to Viet Nam. When I was in Hungary last week, I heard reports of Camping’s followers handing out pamphlets on the streets of Budapest.

Some churches have even prepared to counsel those who might be contemplating suicide under the duress of staggering losses. [source]

On Friday, a mother in California slit the wrist and throat of her two daughters before slitting her own in order to keep them from having to endure the post-Rapture judgments. This double-murder / suicide attempt was averted at the last minute by a neighbor who discovered them in time to get the authorities and emergency crews to the home in time to save them. [source]

The Christian Post has reported that a teenage girl in Central Russia did commit suicide by hanging herself on Saturday. According to her diary entries, she did not consider herself to be one of the righteous whom God would take to heaven.

We are not righteous people, only they will go to heaven, the others will stay here on Earth to go through terrible sufferings. “I don’t want to die like the others. That’s why I’ll die now.”

Others who did not take such drastic measures, are still trying to cope with the ongoing realities of life with little of their lives left intact. Emotions among Camping’s followers have ranged from bewilderment to delusion, from despair to anger, from depression to outrage. It will probably be months before a clear picture emerges of the magnitude of the personal devastation.

However, as terrible and heart-wrenching as all these things are, I believe the greatest tragedy of Camping’s failed predictions began to quickly unfold on Saturday and Sunday across social networks and internet forums. One social media analytics company noted that on Twitter, 67% were joking about the “event,” 10% were criticizing Camping and 9% were planning “end-of-the-world parties.” [source]

All Facebook has published a “Top 10 Rapture Facebook Status Updates” list, which includes, among others.

Craig Gunnet: Rapture… brb

William J. Tjaden: …I think the rapture is starting! Ten minutes ago there was a bunch of people waiting at the bus stop down the street, and now they’re all *gone*!!!

Philip Lemoine: If you can’t think of a rapture joke, don’t worry, it’s not the end of the world.

Sally Stevens: I’m setting the date for the Rapture to really happen on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 and am taking donations as of now…

Many got in on the act by posting pictures such as these:

The whole story has spawned innumerable headlines, articles, and media reports, as well as countless blogs. And of course, the late-night comedians have had a field day with this. On an unprecedented scale, we are witnessing the open and unashamed mocking of the Rapture and the entire notion of the outpouring of God’s wrath in connection with Christ’s second-coming.

This, I believe, is the greatest tragedy – that fewer than ever before will take seriously the issue of the return of Christ and the coming judgment; that it will be more difficult than ever to persuade people of the need to be spiritually prepared for an event which they believe has no basis in reality – being promoted by a small army of unbiblical and unbalanced religious zealots with an escapist and elitist mentality.

The skepticism, mockery, jokes and even anger and disdain by some for all things Christian was inevitable. And yet, the Apostle Peter warned that exactly these kinds of responses would intensify even as the time of the return of Christ actually draws closer.

2 Peter 3:1–13 (NKJV)

⁽¹⁾ Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), ⁽²⁾ that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, ⁽³⁾ knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, ⁽⁴⁾ and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” ⁽⁵⁾ For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, ⁽⁶⁾ by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. ⁽⁷⁾ But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

⁽⁸⁾ But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁽⁹⁾ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

⁽¹⁰⁾ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. ⁽¹¹⁾ Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, ⁽¹²⁾ looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? ⁽¹³⁾ Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

As Peter notes, God’s merciful restraint in withholding judgment will be misinterpreted as being proof-positive that all such prophecies are nothing more than the rants of a long line of deluded doomsayers (like Harold Camping, for example). To add to the tragedy, a growing number of those who continue to insist they are “evangelical” are joining the scoffers’ chorus.

However, be certain of this: The Lord is coming. During the first phase of His return, the Lord will come as the Bridegroom, to meet His Bride, the Church, in the air. Then, after seven years of increasingly severe judgments, Christ will come to the earth as the Lion of Judah, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords – accompanied by the armies of heaven. At that time He will execute swift and sure justice against the enemies of God and establish His kingdom on the earth. This is not a fantasy or wild speculation.

1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 (NKJV)

⁽¹³⁾ But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. ⁽¹⁴⁾ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. ⁽¹⁵⁾ For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. ⁽¹⁶⁾ For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ⁽¹⁷⁾ Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. ⁽¹⁸⁾ Therefore comfort one another with these words.

And because no more biblical prophecies are left to be fulfilled before the trumpet of God sounds, the Rapture could happen at any moment (meaning its timing cannot be predicted).

Revelation 19:11-16 (NKJV)

⁽¹¹⁾ Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. ⁽¹²⁾ His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. ⁽¹³⁾ He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. ⁽¹⁴⁾ And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. ⁽¹⁶⁾ And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 22:20 (NKJV)

He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming quickly.’

Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

site-map

A few days ago, I posted an article by Jan Markell (Olive Tree Ministries) concerning Rick Warren’s newest initiative—a health and fitness seminar featuring three doctors representing three very different worldviews – Dr. Oz (a Muslim), Dr. Hymen (a Jew) and Dr. Amen (a Christian).

As a follow-up, I am posting this article by Jennifer Pekich (Ponderings from Patmos blog), who personally attended the event on January 15, 2011. This is a well-written, well-researched and very important article that has been picked up and re-posted on  many discernment and apologetics blogs across the internet.

I want to extend my personal thanks to Jennifer for her excellent work on this and for her permission to post her article here.

______________________

Saddleback Health & Fitness Seminar – Infomercial for Sustainable Development

by Jennifer Pekich (Ponderings from Patmos) (click here for original post)

Today on Patmos we will discuss my experience at the Saddleback Health and Fitness Seminar this past weekend.  I first arrived to Saddleback’s campus only to be told that “all parking lots were full.”  I drove across the street to see if there were any spots available in the business lots and they were full too.  I ended up parking in a housing tract and walked a mile or two back to Saddleback’s campus.  As I arrived, I overheard a parking lot attendant say they estimated about 6,000 people had come to the seminar.

I was a little late, so I was grateful to my nephew who went online and began to relay what was being said in the opening comments, as I didn’t want to miss what was to be the foundation of the talks that day.  I was a little taken aback when my nephew told me the first speaker, Dr. Amen, made reference to the Egyptian pyramids and how they were built upon an ”idea,” and if man could build something like that all those thousands of years ago, what could he do today if he put his mind to it?  I found that to be somewhat disturbing, as the pyramids, no matter how impressive they were, represent the ancient pagan religions which got their start in Babylon when Nimrod gathered men (the community) together to commit idolatry by building a tower to honor themselves as gods (Gen. Ch. 11). [1]  And yet here it was, the analogy that was chosen to illustrate this new “idea” Saddleback would launch their 52 week program with.  No matter what Dr. Amen’s intent was, I believe the analogy was appropriate, and the subtle message is telling…”MAN CAN DO ANYTHING HE PUTS HIS MIND TO.”  Sound familiar? (Read Gen. 3:4-5). [2]

As I began to head up the hill toward the main sanctuary, a Saddleback tram pulled up and the driver asked if I wanted a lift and I said I preferred to walk, but thanks.  The driver yelled, “Let’s all give her a hand folks, she’s started the Daniel Plan already!”  And the people on the tram cheered.  Nevermind the fact that I have been walking my entire life because I enjoy doing so, not because of some health and fitness campaign.  I sensed I was entering a nightmare.

The main sanctuary was full & it was standing room only.  They told me the overflow areas were full too.  So I found a spot on the patio outside the main sanctuary looking in.  I had a good view and could see the stage perfectly.  Their outdoor sound system made it so I could roam around, observe the audience, continue to listen to the guest speakers, and take notes.

To begin, I’d like to state that Saturday Jan. 15th, 2011 will go down in the history books as the day Saddleback Church was sold a bill of goods.  The masses had come out in droves for answers to their weight loss difficulties & health problems, but unbeknownst to them, they were being given a prescription for restructuring society & population control.

The prescription goes by the name Agenda 21, a.k.a. “Sustainable Development” or “Smart Growth.”  Agenda 21 is a published document put out by the United Nations with the intent to put limits on population and to restructure nation-states into a global society. [3] Rick Warren’s “new friends” had dubbed it, “The Daniel Plan – God’s Prescription For Your Health.”  A more appropriate title would’ve been, ”Sustainable Living - Destroying Inalienable Rights, One Community at a Time.”

By the time I settled into listening more intently, the second speaker, Mark Hyman, began.  It didn’t take too long to figure out what the basis of his message was.  We ”need to heal with community” (he termed this “accompaniment”), “we’re here for the sake of each other,” this plan “is our way out,” this plan “saved me,” and in fact will ”change the world.”   Saddleback was being told they were a “test community” to show the world how to live “healthy and sustainably.”  When I heard these words, my heart sank.  It was as I’d feared.  I knew which buzzwords to listen for, and he was hitting them all.  The audience was told they would be champions in health to show the world what “living sustainably” was all about, but Dr. Hyman is a leftist who is more than a champion in health, he’s a change agent for the global elite, as is Dr. Oz & Dr. Amen.  Dr. Hyman is the founder and medical director of the Ultra Wellness Center, he advises Dr. Oz’s healthcore group, and he’s a nominee to President Obama’s advisory group on prevention, health promotion, and integrative and public health. [4]  Hmmmmmm.  I smell an agenda.

Dr. Hyman practices what’s known as “functional medicine,” which means he uses a “whole systems” approach to medicine, in other words, he practices medicine ”wholistically.” This is also known as “Mind Body” medicine.  At Saddleback’s seminar, “mind body” or “functional” medicine was presented as if it’s completely scientific.  Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that yes, the body can be measured scientifically, but the mind falls into an entirely different category which can never be measured by science.  As stated by Dave Hunt in his book Occult Invasion – The Subtle Seduction of the World and Church, “Physical science, by very definition, can make no judgements concerning a nonphysical realm” as is the mind & the soul. [5] In other words, the mind and the soul are scientifically immeasurable.

It’s the same with the religions of ”Mind Science.”  Calling a religion “Mind Science” or “Scientology,” when there’s nothing scientific about it, is the same as calling a cereal “Grapenuts” when it contains no grapes or nuts.  But we live in an era when the masses have been sufficiently dumbed down and all it takes to impress is clever packaging and branding.  If “they” say it’s science, then dog-gone-it, it’s science!  After all, “these doctors are on television.”

As I sat through all 3 presentations by Dr.’s Hyman, Amen, & Oz, what came to mind were the traveling snake oil salesmen of the 1800′s.  They talk fast, so fast that the message that’s really being given, goes right over people’s heads.  They used tactics to tug at the heart strings such as videos of sick little girls who suddenly got well from being on “the program” and have been “set free” from relying on medications.  Then they flooded the audience with “facts” and “statistics” to scare any grandmother, such as “a tsunami of disease is hitting us,” “life expectancy is going down,” “1 out of 2 people are diabetic or pre-diabetic,” “70% of all agricultural land is taken up by growing animals to feed all the people,” “the bigger your body gets, the more your brain shrinks,” etc.

I about fell off my chair when Dr. Hyman stated, “The key to the success of the “Daniel Plan” is “group living”…”individuals” will not succeed, our only hope lies in “community.”  And with that, it was announced that the “Saddleback community” would be an example of “sustainable living” and would set the course to ”change this world”…and the crowd went wild!  I have to admit that visions of the masses being manipulated by Adolf Hitler’s oratory skills came to my mind, only this particular crowd had just been manipulated by a really bad infomercial.

Dr. Hyman said that he is a Jew, Dr. Amen is a Christian, and Dr. Oz is a Muslim.  And doesn’t that represent the demographic of “most of the population of the world?”  But then he said, “We’re all the same underneath.”  True to his snake oil salesman fashion, Dr. Hyman didn’t define his terms.  What in the world does he mean “we’re all the same underneath”?  That can mean a number of things.  Since he was speaking to a religious crowd, I’d venture to say some of the folks present took that to mean we’re all children of God (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), which is patently false according to the Bible.  The Bible says there are only two groups, children of wrath and children of God.  You’re either one or the other, a believer in Christ Jesus, or a non-believer. We aren’t “all the same underneath.” (Ephesians Ch. 2). [6]

The only way in which we’re “all the same underneath” is we’re all sinners in need of a savior, and the savior isn’t “sustainable living.”  The Savior is Jesus Christ and He is the only way unto salvation. (John 14:6). [7]  And to become a child of God, Jesus said, “You must be born again.” (John Ch. 3). [8]  The tragic thing about the talks given at Saddleback is, Jesus was never mentioned…and I mean NEVER.  There was a reference to Jesus in the opening worship song along with a few passing references to God by Rick Warren.  Daniel Amen mentioned that our bodies were ”a temple of the Holy Spirit and the brain is the innersanctum,” but in the lessons being taught that day, Jesus didn’t make the cut, “sustainable lifestyles” & “group living” did.

Following Dr. Hyman’s talk, my best friend arrived to observe the day with me, only to hear Dr. Amen mention in his presentation that he did a brain scan on one of his clients who had a habit of cheating on his wife.  The brain scan showed that there were “holes in the pre-frontal cortex of his brain” which controls the impulses.  In other words, this man wasn’t sinful, he was “mentally ill.”  All he needed was to get on the “Change Your Brain, Change Your Body” program, and his personal struggles with sin were remedied.  Once again, Jesus was removed from the equation.  My friend and I were dumbfounded when we listened to the Saddleback crowd cheer.  My best friend couldn’t contain it any longer and let out a, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”  My thoughts exactly!

Dr. Hyman recommended yoga and meditation to the crowd.  Dr. Amen gave a diplomatic denunciation of yoga (which is contradictory since he has recommended it himself), but about five sentences later mentioned a study done by a friend of his named Andy Newberg who did brain scans on Tibetan nuns and Franciscan priests while in “prayer and contemplation” and the study showed that “spiritual connection” is healthy.  Dr. Amen has been an advocate of ”Sa Ta Na Ma” meditation. [9]

If by chance any attendees of the Saddleback “Health and Fitness Seminar” read this blog post, I encourage you to educate yourself about what globalism truly is.  You also need to research Agenda 21.  As stated earlier, the purpose of Agenda 21 is to restructure society.  Sounds conspiratorial, I know.  But it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s a published document of the United Nations that’s in full swing.  Anywhere you hear the terms, “Sustainable Development,” “sustainable living,” “smart growth,” “going green,” etc., rest assured you’ve just been exposed to the U.N.’s Agenda 21. [10]

It shouldn’t surprise us that Pastor Rick Warren would allow a seminar of this nature at Saddleback, after all, he himself has “GONE GREEN.” [11]  He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. [12]  This illustrates the natural progression of one being unequally yoked with non-believers & buying into heresies such as ”Kingdom Now,” “Dominionism,” or ”Restoration Theology.”  Where these heresies reign, as they do at Saddleback, you will find that the focus subtly shifts from salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, to misguided efforts to restore mankind & the earth through “community” works, sustainable living, and social justice.  How convenient that these just happen to be the vehicles which the United Nations is using to further it’s own agenda to restructure society & unite the world under its governing body of global elites.

TRUE TRUTH:
2 Timothy 4:3-4
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

(I found it to be slightly humorous that, on page 9 of the booklet which Saddleback passed out to attendees, the symptom of “itchy ears” was listed in the “Medical Symptom/Toxicity Questionnaire”…oh, the irony!)

Endnotes:
1. Genesis 11:4 – “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.’”

2. Genesis 3:4-5 – “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

3. Agenda 21 -
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

4. Mark Hyman’s presentation at “Authors @ Google” titled, The UltraMind Solution: Healthy Body, Powerful Mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZVpsd2Nao

5. Occult Invasion – The Subtle Seduction of the World and the Church, Dave Hunt, Harvest House Publishers 1998, pg. 61

6. Ephesians Ch. 2:1-5 – “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).”

7. John 14:6 – Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

8. John 3:3 – Jesus answered and said unto him, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

9. Dr. Amen recommends “Sa Ta Na Ma” meditation a form of Kirtin Kriya yoga.
http://richardeward.com/kirtin-kriya-sa-ta-na-ma-meditation/

10. Agenda 21 – The U.N. Plan for Your Sustainable Community
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

11. A Greener Spirit: Evangelicals Embrace “Creation Care”
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/a_greener_spirit_evangelicals_embrace_creation_care

12. Council on Foreign Relations Membership Roster
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=W

Rick Warren has been broadly criticized for both his alliances and his projects. His latest initiative, launched on January 15 at Saddleback, is almost certain to attract similar attention – not so much because of the issue itself, but because of those who are partnering with him.

Jan Markell, over at Olive Tree Ministries, discusses this issue in her latest article which is featured in this edition of the ABI Blog. I hope you will take a few moments to read this important piece.
(This article is reproduced by permission of the author.)
__________________________
by Jan Markell

What on earth is Pastor Rick Warren thinking? I have avoided being harsh concerning Rick but on the issue I am about to outline, I must be blunt. A series of errors is outlined below but the zinger following them is my focus.

* Praising Syria for its religious freedom when it is an evil, repressive regime.

* Perfecting church-growth efforts that even include synagogues, but what is missing in the process is the proclamation of the gospel. Warren’s church-growth plan focuses only on numbers.

* Being a part of the leadership or board of advisors for questionable organizations such as the World Economic Forum, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation which is a pagan, ecumenical outfit.

* Speaking to the North American Islamic Society in July  2009 but withholding the gospel from his message. This was another ecumenical effort.

* Misquoting Jesus in The Purpose Driven Life saying that He stated, “My return is none of your business” when, in fact, the Bible emphasizes that His return is our blessed hope. The Bible encourages us to watch and pray for His return. This theme consumes more than one-third of the Bible.

* Embracing the false theology of Kingdom Now/Dominion eschatology which says the church will save the world through Pastor Warren’s global P.E.A.C.E. plan, global AIDS’ efforts, etc. This is raging through evangelicalism and is a delusion, as we are on a cursed planet that only Christ’s return can save.

* Underplaying the issues of hell, sin, repentance, etc., in his book and other global platforms he has been given.

Because of a new effort launched January 15 at Saddleback Church, I join the voices of vocal critics.  He has put the souls and lives of his people and millions more in danger.  I do not know his motive. Last Saturday he launched a year-long effort to get his congregation and himself in shape. You can hear and read about it on the Saddleback Web site: “God’s prescription for your health. Be a part of this transformational debut to be a healthier you! We’ll hear from world-renowned doctors on a plan to get healthy and stay that way in the new decade.”

Who are “the world-renowned doctors” who have designed this program just for Saddleback Church? Men who are blatant promoters of Eastern mystical practices. Let me elaborate.

Best-selling author Dr. Richard Amen is a professor of psychiatry and teaches Eastern religious meditation and New Age energy-based Reiki. You can hear Rick and Dr. Amen interacting on the Saddleback Web site. On page 238 of Amen’s book, Making a Good Brain Great, he states, “I recommend an active form of Yoga meditation called Krya Kirtan. It is based on five primal sounds.” He advocates repeating these sounds daily for 12 minutes.

Dr. Mark Hyman is a four-time New York Times best-selling author who again promotes mystical meditation based on Buddhist principles. In his book, The Ultramind Solution, Hyman emphasizes meditation, saying it doesn’t matter what religion one is — all will benefit from it (p. 322). He praises the practice perfected by Buddhists (p. 384).

Dr. Mehmet Oz is a promoter of Reiki and Transcendental Meditation. Oz says he is also inspired by Emmanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century cult founder who taught that all religions lead to God. Swedenborg denied all orthodox Christian beliefs. There are many followers of the cult of Swedenborgism today.

What is Pastor Warren’s comment on the character of his three guests? “I am honored to be partnering with these internationally distinguished health experts.” Has he no understanding that putting into practice the various procedures they teach will put his congregation in great jeopardy?

Is the deception that great today? And what about the tens of thousands of churches who align with Saddleback? Will they get on board as well, putting millions of Christian’s souls and lives at stake? How many demons are lurking around the wicked practices of Transcendental Meditation, Reiki,Yoga, and similar Eastern traditions?

As apologist Eric Barger says, “Among the most troubling aspects of Warren’s progression are his alliances. When the most visible Christian leader of our day rubs shoulders with and aids the causes of assorted globalists, New Agers, Muslims, and now looks to one who is inspired by cultist Emanuel Swedenborg, the results are devastating. When leaders decide to reject discernment in favor of ecumenism, then innocent, unsuspecting people are, in effect, targeted by Satan’s unrelenting plan to move the church away from the truth of God’s Word. This is a perfect example of why following men, instead of the Bible, is a dangerous proposition.”

Rick Warren says, “Americans are getting fatter and fatter and we must do something.” This seems a strange cause for a man some call ‘America’s pastor.’ Shouldn’t our burden as evangelicals be the leanness of the soul and not the body? Equally perplexing is why his church leaders and members are fine with this year-long effort to glorify men who promote Eastern mysticism and other practices that are ungodly.

Ministry leaders have to choose our battles. Criticizing Christian leaders causes us distress and results in the loss of supporters, donations, churches, and even friends.  We are called every name imaginable so understand that contending for the faith costs everything. But contending isn’t an option. It’s a commandment in Jude 3. Saddleback Church is now presenting a different gospel via the three doctors who will speak into the lives of many for one full year. These men will be affirmed by Pastor Rick Warren. There will be damage.

If some do not sound a warning, millions will be swept up in a program that could cause far more damage than obesity could ever do. The gods represented by the three doctors are after souls. They are gods who lead people away from eternal life in heaven and target souls for a Godless eternity. We cannot be silent no matter what the cost is to the critics.

Pray for Pastor Rick Warren and his church leaders. The program launched last weekend could be stopped by the leadership if they would grasp the offense of this effort.

To better understand such issues, visit our Web site category of “Spiritual Deception.”

feedback

A Theological and Historical Response to the Contemporary Home Church Movement

By Paul Barreca
Pastor, Faith Bible Church, Vineland, NJ
ABI Co-founder

A recent Associate Press article highlighted a trend among Christians to leave their churches and worship at home instead. (1) Sometimes called Organic Church, Missional Church or House Church, this movement appeals to many who have grown dissatisfied with the corporate and impersonal nature of many American churches. Propelled by books such as Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola and George Barna), Life After Church (Brian Sanders) and They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Dan Kimball), some Christians urge that the only legitimate form of worship is a small, non-institutional gathering. They claim to have re-discovered the true origins of Christian worship. On one extreme are the cultic teachings of Harold Camping, who advocates leaving the church because the church age has ended. More moderate examples include believers who have dropped out of their local church because of theological decay, an emphasis on methodology, and corrupt leadership. As we will discover, some illegitimately transfer these accusations to their church as they excuse themselves from its structure and accountability.

Some proponents of the house church idea foresee the demise of the church as we know it.

“Unless the church in North America makes big changes we are facing sure death, (Reggie McNealy, Missional Church Network).

“American Christianity is dying. Our future is in serious jeopardy. We are deathly ill and don’t even know it,” (Neil Cole, “Organic Church”).

Noted church statistician George Barna wrote,

“If the local church is the hope of the world, then the world has no hope.” “Local churches have virtually no influence in our culture… The church appears among entities that have little or no influence on society.” (2)

Because this trend emphasizes independence, it is difficult to estimate the number of American Christians that worship in this manner. A recent Barna study demonstrates a variety of responses. When Christians were asked whether they attended a religious service in the past month in a place other than a church, approximately 24% said “yes.” However, when asked if “you participate in such a group, sometimes known as a house church or simple church, that is not associated in any way with a local, congregational type of church?” the response dropped to somewhere between 3% – 6%. (3) This statistic reveals that while gatherings such as home Bible studies are popular, the number of Christians who have left their local church is still fairly small. However, this movement is very attractive to Americans who have been raised on a strong diet of anti-institutional free thinking. Our cultural focus on independence and our resistance to authority may very well mean that the house church movement will grow in the days ahead.

Some of the criticisms that cause people to leave their church are valid. We are living in a time when many churches have neglected the gospel and turned their focus on numeric growth by becoming more culturally relevant. Churches have compromised the gospel with bad theology and scintillating antics meant to draw a crowd. Everything from crass talks on sex, to reviews of raunchy movies are common fare in many churches. The response from some believers is to abandon the church all together, but this is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. While there are a growing number of churches that have abandoned the gospel, not all churches have followed the errors of our day.

When the Church Began

Buildings dedicated exclusively for Christian worship did not come along until Emperor Constantine proclaimed Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 325 AD. Before that, Christians worshiped in homes or public gathering places. This was not because worshiping in a home is a better way to worship. It was simply the only way to worship. During this period, Christians were persecuted by the Jews in their synagogues, and by the Romans through a series of local and empire-wide persecutions. Scripture gives us some indication regarding the places where believers met.

Homes. Aquila and Priscilla led a church gathering that met in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:5). Colossians 4:15 also indicates a church meeting in a home. But we ought not assume that this was a gathering of only a few people. The most likely place for Christians to meet would have been in a large home, rooftop or courtyard. Some Mediterranean homes were large one-family dwellings up to four stories high. (4) Architecture in this warm climate emphasized open air courtyards where large gatherings were held. Some homes could easily accommodate an assembly of up to 100 people, and it is possible that church meetings in such houses could have been at least that large. (5) Their purpose for meeting in homes was not a statement against organization or buildings. Churches during this time were carefully structured and included discipline, elders, and mission endeavors. They were not the casual, free flowing meetings that are common in today’s American version of the house church. Paul’s missionary journeys were organized by the church in Antioch. Paul’s greeting in Romans 16 includes a tally of 28 individuals with at least three entire households included in the Roman church. If these people met in a home it would have been a church of at least 50 people. They met in homes out of necessity. As Kevin DeYoung writes, “They didn’t meet in homes in an effort to start the world’s first nonreligious religion.” (6)

The New Testament contains examples of places other than homes where the believers met. This reinforces the idea that they met where it was most convenient and practical. Other New Testament meeting places include the following:

Solomon’s Colonnade: Acts 5:12 (7) The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.

The Hall of Tyrannus: Acts 19:9–10 So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
The Synagogue. James 2:2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. The word “meeting” is a translation of the Greek word for Synagogue. It is possible that the majority of Jews at this location, or at least the synagogue leaders trusted Christ and their synagogue continued to be their place of worship.

The Beginning of Church Buildings

Church historian Everett Ferguson gives us insight concerning the move to public buildings. “With the Constantinian peace, church buildings became public monuments, and the basilica type predominated. (This type of building) was widely used in Hellenistic and imperial times for both private and public purposes: as audience halls in homes of the wealthy and of the imperial officials, as law courts and exchange buildings on the forums, and as gathering places in the larger baths.” (9) Once it became legal to meet publicly, churches quickly utilized commonly available spaces, allowing their outreach to expand and the church to grow. This practice has been widely followed in various cultures throughout church history.

Today there are many places in the world where Christians meet in homes because they are not permitted to meet publicly. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative other than a house church. Missionary Kevin King reaches many Chinese students through his ministry at Columbia University in New York City. Those who trust Christ are directed to a house church that Kevin leads. He does this because he wants to provide a reproducible form of church worship that they can carry with them when they return to China. Since independent churches in China are not permitted to hold public meetings, Kevin’s example of a house church is the best way for them to learn how to lead a church in their native country.

Churches that meet in homes are also an important part of inner city evangelism. Many new churches begin in a home. But the fact that many churches meet in homes does not mean that every church must meet in a home. This is reductionism. Those who advocate the house church as the only legitimate way seem to be suggesting that most congregations over the past 2,000 years have been worshiping the wrong way. Such a suggestion is very misguided. By their insistence on house churches only, they silently accuse millions of Christians around the world of worshiping in the wrong way. Thanks to their superior enlightenment, the rest of us can be freed from our ignorance if we see the light as they have.
New Testament principles for the local church do not focus on the form of worship, or the location of worship. These have varied from time to time and culture to culture. Rather than determining whether a group is a legitimate church by virtue of where they meet, we should examine the validity of a church according to whether it meets the requirements of the New Testament. It is by these standards that many groups meeting in homes today cannot accurately be described as fulfilling the criteria of a New Testament church.

The Essentials of the Church

1.    Properly-appointed godly elders: Nowhere in Scripture do we find self-appointed elders. Leadership must be approved by existing leadership. Every New Testament church was led by elders, and we must insist that our churches today follow the same guidelines. Churches must be led by men whose calling has been verified by other elders. Mission and church planting endeavors must have the support and backing of a church where biblical eldership is present. This continuity of leadership is essential to maintain the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).

a.    Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
b.    1 Peter 5:2–3 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

2.    Willing followers: A church must have followers who submit to spiritual leadership of its elders (pastors). Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

3.    The preaching of the gospel: Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

4.    Teaching that produces mature disciples: Matthew 28:19–20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

5.    Ministry through spiritual gifts: The body of Christ is diverse. Each part needs the others. Rather than isolation, the body principle emphasizes cooperation and mutual edification, as we are instructed in Romans 12:5–6, “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.”

6.    Faithful administration of the ordinances: The church is required to conduct the ordinances of Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

7.    God-centered worship: The Lord calls us “a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Public worship is the delight and privilege of God’s people.

Conclusion

The location where a church meets does not determine whether or not it is a legitimate church, or whether or not it is worshiping properly. There are Christian gatherings that meet in homes on Sunday which are not a legitimate churches. And there are groups that meet in ornate buildings with a cross and a steeple who are devoid of spiritual life and do not proclaim the Truth of the gospel.

Some who advocate the house church concept have a misunderstanding of the New Testament examples of house churches. They also oversimplify the problems in the church today and transfer the guilt of some churches which meet in buildings onto all churches which meet in buildings. Pastor Kevin DeYoung responds to the criticism of what house church advocate Frank Viola calls the organized church by writing, “the church is always deserving of some critique, or even a lot of critique at times, but isn’t it a bit sweeping to declare that “everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible?” We should not disqualify all churches because of the gross failures of some.

For some believers around the world, the house church is the best, and often the only way to conduct corporate worship, teaching and the administration of the Christian ordinances. This will most likely continue until the Lord returns. There may even come a time in what was once “Christian America” where full-fledged persecution may force the closure of public church gatherings. That day has not yet come, but if it does, God’s people will continue to worship in whatever location the Lord provides.

We live in a culture that emphasizes isolation and independence. Many people seldom come out of their homes. Public interaction is avoided by many people who plug in their ear buds, roll up their windows, close their doors, shop online and remain in the comfort of their modern American homes More and more, we are being drawn into our own exclusive bubble of isolation. We need one another, in spite of our weaknesses, peculiarities, and failures. When there are disagreements, the Lord gives us Scriptural guidelines to resolve them. Unless your local church is teaching false doctrine or embracing sin, leaving it is not the best way to honor the Lord and encourage the body. The Lord Jesus died for the church and will return to bring her to glory. Until then, we should honor His body, the church, and embrace every opportunity to promote it’s growth.

____________________

1. Linda Stewart Ball, “House Church – Skip the Sermon, Worship at Home.” The Associated Press, Wed Jul 21, 2010, accessed August 12, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re/us_rel_religion

2. Quotations from Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Why We Love the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 2009), 26-27.

3. The Barna Group, “How Many People Really Attend a House Church?” http://www.barna.org/organic-church-articles/291-how-many-people-really-attend-a-house-church-barna-study-finds-it-depends-on-the-definition accessed August 13, 2010

4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 128.

5. DeYoung, 120.

6. Ibid, 120.

7. Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com.

8. Fergusson, 129.

9. DeYoung, 117.

site-map

Should we be concerned about Glenn Beck’s 8/28 “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington?

I have watched Glenn Beck almost every day since he has been in the 5 o’clock slot on the FoxNews channel and I agree with virtually everything that he says about the fact that we have been witnessing the decline of the principles and values upon which this country was founded. I tend to agree with much of his analysis as to why and how this has happened. I also agree that returning the Constitution to its rightful place in the legislative and judicial realms of government, as well as “Restoring Honor” would be a good place to start to get things turned around.

As a patriotic American I can stand with the half-a-million people who were present at the 8/28 rally on Saturday to let it be known that the majority of the citizens in the United States are not happy about the current state of affairs. And I could stand with Glenn Beck if we were only being called upon to exercise our rights as outlined in the Constitution with the goal of restoring integrity and honor to the governance of our country.

Many liberal pundits and politicians are calling Beck a radical right-wing hate-monger who is leading a bunch of angry, old, white, disgruntled,  leftovers from the McCain / Palin run for the presidency. The last thing I would want is to be identified with either those who are saying such things or the caricature they have used to cynically portray the majority of decent Americans in this country.

However, just as with the Manhattan Declaration last fall, this issue has been taken out of the political, civil and legal realm, and brought squarely into the religious / theological realm. This presents a serious problem that seems to be lost on many who should be concerned, including a significant number of evangelical leaders who joined him on his program on Friday and who were standing with him on the platform this Saturday. Through his radio and TV programs, and now with the immeasurably successful “Restoring Honor” rally, Glenn Beck has arguably become the single most influential religious leader in America.

It is true that Mr. Beck frequently talks about the need for personal faith in Jesus Christ. He regularly uses the language of conservative evangelicalism. He has devoted entire shows to decry the liberal gospel of collective salvation through social justice reforms and its cousin, Liberation Theology.

However, Glenn Beck is first and foremost a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. He often speaks about his Mormon faith and how much it means to him. And he credits his recovery from a life of self-destruction through alcohol and an immoral lifestyle to the faith he found in the Mormon church. He was baptized into the Mormon church in 1999 by his radio talk show co-host and close friend Pat Gray.(1)

Now, even though he has been around for awhile, in our celebrity-driven culture, Glenn Beck has become an overnight sensation with superstar status in his new role as a spokesman for many (though certainly not all) religious conservatives. He has eclipsed presidential candidate and fellow-Mormon, Mitt Romney, and is possibly now more influential than Sarah Palin (who is known for her open identification as a born-again evangelical Christian). Again, this is a serious problem precisely because he is on a faith-based mission.

Beck has repeatedly insisted that the Restoring Honor rally was to be decidedly non-political in nature – and he worked hard to make sure that happened. He fervently asked his radio and television audiences to leave their signs at home and to not expect that this would be a pre-election campaign rally:

First of all: No signs. Don’t bring your signs. Bring your hearts. Bring your open minds. That’s it. Bring your kids. Your kids are important. If you bring a sign, you’re going to be disappointed. No signs.(2) (click here for transcript)

But more importantly, he pulled together a group of religious leaders to make sure this gathering was understood to be explicitly religious. For those that might doubt that the goal was to make Restoring Honor about a return to religion, on Monday’s program, Mr. Beck explicitly said that the whole thing was  entirely about “God and faith.” He also believes that God gave a clear sign of his approval and blessing on Saturday:

I want to show you first [the] miracle that happened at…9:59, what happened was there was a flock of geese that ran. It was a flyover, if you will. Someone caught it on tape. Here’s the flyover. This was happening just as the opening music was starting. We wanted to have a flyover, but you can’t fly over in the District of Columbia. It was perfect coordination and perfect timing. Coincidence? Maybe. I think it was God’s flyover.

It was not supposed to happen. We couldn’t get a flyover. We couldn’t even get anybody dressed in a military uniform to present the flag. We tried for almost a year. We couldn’t get it done.

Thank God we had our flyover. (3) (transcript)

The concept to ultimately make this a religious rally can be clearly seen in an exchange months ago between Glenn Beck and historian David Barton on the April 29 Glenn Beck Show:

Beck: So I want to talk to you a little bit about something else you and I talked about off-air for a while and that is the Black Robe Brigade.

Barton: Yes.

Beck: And America, I’m going to ask you now if you have your pastor or your priest or your rabbi, whoever it is, tell them to turn on the show or take down this information because this is important.

You have to do this. The media is not going to it. The government is not going to do it. The parties are not going to do it. They don’t care. They’re about power and control.

If you care about the Constitution, this is what you have to do.

Tell me about the Black Robe Brigade. What were they? Who were they?

Barton: The Black Brigade or Black Regiment were the preachers, because they wore black robes. Black preachers, white preachers — they all wore black probes. And the British specifically blamed the preachers for the American Revolution. That’s where the title “Black Regiment” came from. One of the British officials talked about that.

It’s interesting that the British so hated what the preachers — they claim if it hadn’t been for the preachers, America would still be a happy British colony. So they blamed it on the preachers.

When they come to America, they start to decimating churches. They went to New York City. Nineteen churches — they burned 10 to the ground. They went across Virginia burning churches. They went across New Jersey burning churches. Because they blamed these preachers.(4) (transcript)

On Friday night, at the Kennedy Center, Glenn Beck hosted a program called “Divine Destiny,” attended by approximately 1900 religious leaders who were personally invited to the event. On a section of his website devoted to FAQs about Divine Destiny, we find the following:

Glenn Beck’s Divine Destiny is an eye-opening evening at the historic Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C that will help heal your soul. Guided by uplifting music, nationally-known religious figures from all faiths will unite to deliver messages reminiscent to those given during the struggles of America’s earliest days. The event will leave you with a renewed determination to look past the partisan differences and petty problems that fill our airwaves and instead focus our shared values, principles and strong belief that faith can play an essential role in reuniting the country.(5)

On Friday evening, Mr. Beck was introduced by Pat Gray:

This building was [filled] by invitation [to] some of the best and bravest pastors, priests, rabbis, clerics in the country. Tomorrow, we will announce the beginning of the Black-Robed Regiment. And here is what’s amazing, here’s what’s amazing, they keep saying this is a political event, and it is not. It is not a political event at all. I’m convinced that not just this event, but this time period is going to be remembered as the beginning of the great awakening in America.(6)

So, it is clear that Glenn Beck’s intent was to personally recreate a Black-Robed Regiment to lead the way in “restoring honor” to our country. On yesterday’s (8/30/2010) program which was devoted to discussing the many important aspects of the rally, one of the main focal points was the support and platform presence of  his “Black Robe Regiment.” There were 240 religious leaders, standing arm-in-arm in a display of unity with one another, with the man who had pulled them together for this explicitly religious event and with God. They were there because of their desire to take a stand for truth and a return to integrity and honor in leading this nation, which is a good thing. But they were also there because of their conviction that the only solution to the problem and the only hope for the nation is a return to God – and therein lies the problem, because it begs the question, “Which God?”

As you listen to Glenn Beck and read the many forums where this is being discussed across the internet, you will find that what happened this weekend is being celebrated and hailed as a true breakthrough because of the diverse religious views that these 240 men and women  represent. The group consisted of Protestant pastors (including evangelicals like John Hagee), Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams. (I have searched everywhere on the internet for several hours trying to find a listing of these 240 religious leaders, without success. If you find anything, please let me know.)

These leaders represent such divergent views of God that we cannot think that this is a call to rally together under the banner of the God of the Bible. Allah is certainly not the God of the Bible. Jews emphatically deny that Jesus is the God of the Bible. Catholics, who are still bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent, are obligated to view evangelicals as heretics if they wish to remain true to the official teachings of the Church.

And then there is the god of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In her weekly e-update, “Understanding the Times,” which came out today (8/31/2010), Jan Markell (Olive Tree Ministries) writes the following:

The theme of the Friday gathering of spiritual leaders and the Saturday rally was an encouragement to turn back to God. The not-so-subtle theme was “many faiths, but one God.”

I believe many conservative Christians would have been relieved if Glenn had not brought out Mormon doctrine that very few are familiar with. He stated at the Saturday event  that the American Indians are the “chosen people” — blatant Mormon doctrine. The crowd applauded in approval. You can view that here at the 4:30 mark.

He stated — and has affirmed this on his radio and television programs — that God is the only answer. While much was troublesome last weekend, who else is sticking their neck out saying we have to turn back to God and gathering hundreds of thousands in the process? It would be wonderful if Franklin Graham or even Joel Rosenberg could attract a half-million people and deliver the true gospel. We aren’t quite there yet. Again, by default, we defer to Glenn Beck.

The weekend opened on Friday night, Augsust 27, with Glenn’s “Divine Destiny” program which again, is straight out of Mormonism. Many participants have implied, or blatantly stated, that Glenn is a “saved Mormon” or on the way to becoming one.

Leading up to the statement referred to by Jan Markell above, beginning at the 3:01 mark, Beck says the following:

The story of America is the story of humankind. Five thousand years ago, on the other side of the planet, God’s Chosen People were led out of bondage by a guy with a stick, who was talking to a burning bush. Man first began to recognize God and God’s law. The Chosen People listened to the Lord. At the same time those things were happening, on this side, on this land, another group of people were gathered here and they, too, were listening to God.

How these two people came together, again, happened because people were listening to God. They didn’t have the right to worship God the way they saw fit. So, they got down on their knees – and they didn’t want to come to this land – they just did because they thought that’s what God was telling them to do. And with malice toward none, they got into their boats and they came.

God’s Chosen People, the Native Americans and the Pilgrims (applause).

As Markell noted, this is pure Mormon doctrine. The following is from an article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on the Brigham Young University library website:

The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, addresses a major message to Native Americans. Its title page states that one reason it was written was so that Native Americans today might know “what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers.”

The Book of Mormon tells that a small band of Israelites under Lehi migrated from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere about 600 B.C. Upon Lehi’s death his family divided into two opposing factions, one under Lehi’s oldest son, laman (see Lamanites), and the other under a younger son, Nephi 1 (see Nephites).

During the thousand-year history narrated in the Book of Mormon, Lehi’s descendants went through several phases of splitting, warring, accommodating, merging, and splitting again. At first, just as God had prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with the Canaanites in the ancient Promised Land (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3), the Nephites were forbidden to marry the Lamanites with their dark skin (2 Ne. 5:23; Alma 3:8-9). But as large Lamanite populations accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and were numbered among the Nephites in the first century B.C., skin color ceased to be a distinguishing characteristic. After the visitations of the resurrected Christ, there were no distinctions among any kind of “ites” for some two hundred years. But then unbelievers arose and called themselves Lamanites to distinguish themselves from the Nephites or believers (4 Ne. 1:20). (7) (click here for article)

On Sunday, John McTernan posted the following on his blog:

My heart is very heavy as I write this. I attended two events led by Glenn Beck. Friday night, I was at the Kennedy Center for a Glenn Beck special. He had a gospel choir singing with a mixed group of speakers. Beck was freely talking about the “LORD.” There were speakers from other religions. He was talking about the need for a spiritual revival, who can argue about that! The problem is that Beck is a Mormon with a different Jesus.

There were several prayers offered at this event and NONE were made in the name of Jesus. I was deeply grieved after I left.

On Saturday, I attended the huge rally. If it was just political, I could accept Beck as a leader; however, it went way beyond that. I am not questioning anything about Beck’s character or motives. What I am deeply grieved about is that this was not led by the real church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Is America in such desperate spiritual condition, that masses of Christians will follow a Mormon for spiritual revival? (8) (click here for his blog)

Again, just as in the Manhattan Declaration, Glenn Beck is calling people of all faiths to come together “in the spirit of God” – and in keeping with Mormon doctrine, he is specifically calling together what Mormons believe are the three strands of God’s Chosen People (Jews, Christians and Native Americans) under the leadership of Beck’s new Black-Robed Regiment. Beginning at 4:40, he introduces the following guests who represent these three groups:

I would like to introduce you to Rabbi Daniel Lapin (applause).

This is John and Kyla Ward. They are direct descendants of the Native Americans that met the Pilgrims on the shores as they arrived. (applause)

And Pastor Paul Jehle is a direct descendant from those that arrived on the Mayflower.

To restore America, to restore honor, we’ve got to start at the beginning and look at the pattern, when people came together, of different faiths, in the spirit of God, and the first thing they did was pray together.

At this point, Pastor Jehle delivers the opening prayer for the rally in unmistakable evangelical terms, clearly naming Jesus Christ as the “Redeemer” and the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords,” closing with the words “in Christ’s name, amen.”

However, we have seen this before. Shortly after the Manhattan Declaration was published, Governor Mike Huckabee commented that perhaps it could be considered as comparable to Luther’s 95 Theses. And concerning the Divine Destiny event and the Restoring Honor rally, following the sentiment expressed in Pat Gray’s introduction at the Kennedy Center, NaplesNews.com published an article with the title, “The Fifth Great Awakening: The Restoring Honor Rally in Washington, D.C.” (The author, Edward Wimberley is a fairly well-known “educator and Presbyterian minister“):

The Second Great Awakening occurred almost a century later and resulted in the emergence of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), The Seventh Day Adventist Church, The Advent Christian Church as well as the dramatic expansion of Baptists and Methodists throughout the Western States. The Third Great Awakening spanned the 1850’s through the early 1900’s and produced the “Social Gospel Movement,” Christian Science, the Holiness Denominations, and the Nazarenes. The leaders of this era included Mary Baker Eddy, Dwight L. Moody, and evangelist William Ashley “Billy” Sunday.

How is it that the emergence of the Mormon church and the rise of the Social Gospel Movement can be seen as contributing factors in the Great Awakenings? Do these not instead have all the marks of being dark spiritual opposition to the broad work of the Spirit of God at specific times in this country’s history? Both movements have contributed to incredible confusion and the deception of millions of people including an alarming number from among those who would consider themselves evangelicals. That Mormonism is once again contributing to spiritual confusion, while pulling in evangelicals, is evidenced by the following comments from someone who was  at the “Restoring Honor” rally:

I was actually at the 8-28 event in DC… It WAS an evangelical Christian event. Beck made some ecumenical noises up-front and I was prepared to be very disappointed, but almost every single speaker, other than Beck…and all of the major ones, were un-apologetically evangelical Christians. Their words on faith carried far more weight than Beck’s. I heard “Jesus, Lord and Savior” or similar terms through the whole program.

I really don’t understand Beck’s spiritual journey. I think that he would have considered himself a terribly back-slidden Christian 15 years ago when he was a raging alcoholic who’s life was out of control. He turned to Mormonism, found his way out of the bottle and rebuilt his life. He clearly is comfortable with evangelical Christians…he surrounds himself with them.(9)

It was an “evangelical Christian event?”

The Naples News article continues:

In a very real sense, the nation has drifted afar from its religious and patriotic foundations.

However, the spiritual drift of the nation ceased on Saturday October 28, 2010 on the National Mall between the Washington and Lincoln Memorials. On that day, hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life and from virtually every region and ethnic community gathered together to recommit to the task of restoring America’s honor by reaffirming an individual commitment to faith, duty, honor and country.

This profound contemporary spiritual renewal was ushered in by the most unlikely of leaders, a recovering alcoholic, high-school graduate, and college dropout with an unsavory past. Moreover, it was predominantly (though not exclusively) a “Christian” renewal prophetically introduced by a Mormon layman.

The following is from a December 23, 2007 interview with Joel Osteen by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday,

Wallace: And what about Mitt Romney? And I’ve got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

Osteen: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don’t think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.

Wallace: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

Osteen: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.

I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard about it, but from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.

I am deeply concerned that Mormonism may now be on a fast-track to be accepted into mainstream Christianity, and perhaps even Evangelicalism. That this is even conceivable is very troubling. Returning to Jan Markell’s article, she notes the following concerning the teachings of Mormonism:

* God was born and raised on another planet.

* He has a harem of wives.

* They produce spirit-babies that are sent to earth; there they gain bodies and earn sainthood.

* Jesus is the brother of Lucifer.

* Jesus is the chosen/elected savior by a council of gods from other worlds.

* America is the promised land, not Israel. The holy city is Independence, Missouri, not Jerusalem. Jesus’ latter-day agenda is to return to Missouri.

* America’s founding fathers were “spirit babies” who created a “sacred Constitution.”

* The U.S. Constitution is as sacred as the Book of Mormon. In the latter days, it will be under siege and will be saved by Mormons. Thus, we must “reclaim America” to save the Constitution and usher in a genuine age of Mormon leadership. They want to build a Mormon kingdom on earth, similar to modern day Dominionists/Kingdom Now proponents within Christianity. Founder Joseph Smith had a socialistic philosophy and wished to have a society that shared things in common.

Markell’s last point is referring to something I just became aware of late last week when ABI co-founder Jimmy DeYoung alerted me to what is known in Mormonism as “The White Horse Prophecy.” The “white horse” in the prophecy by Joseph Smith is a reference to the first horse of the four horses of the Apocalypse.

An article about The White Horse Prophecy can be found on the pro-Mormon website, FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) at this link. According to the prophecy, someone within the Mormon church is going to appear on the national stage to rescue the Constitution – in conjunction with a group of people that Joseph Smith identified as the “red horse.”

On today’s Glenn Beck Show, he emphatically reiterated that his goal is not to be a religious leader. Yet, a few minutes later, he also remarked that he believes we are now witnessing the 3rd Great Awakening— the first of which, he noted, was largely led by George Whitefield. And more than once (including again today) I have heard him infer or even state that this movement—this new awakening—is something that has started with him and which he is leading.

Even though I question whether or not another Great Awakening is actually underway, that someone with Mormon convictions could suggest that they might be at its forefront should be of deep concern to evangelicals. However, that a Mormon could be enthusiastically endorsed and embraced as such a leader by a significant number of conservative evangelicals seems to say far more about the state of the church in the United States than it does about Mr. Beck.

________________________

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally, accessed 8/31/2010.
2. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600310,00.html, accessed 8/31/2010.
3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600442,00.html, accessed 8/31/2010.
4. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591785,00.html, accessed 8/31/2010.
5. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44012/, accessed 8/31/2010.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#cite_note-32, accessed 8/31/2010.
7. LSD Beliefs, accessed 8/31/2010.
8. http://johnmcternansinsights.blogspot.com/, accessed 8/31/2010.
9. From an email to an acquaintance of mine