The Kingdom of God & The World - Spiritual Maturity

                                                   

There are many professing Christians who have yet to acknowledge by their lifestyle that the Kingdom of God and this World system are completely separate entities and at enmity with one another. As Jesus told his disciples, "This world hates me.They will hate you also."

Know Your Teachers – Beth Moore, Brennan Manning & Others

In this age of having overwhelming amounts of information available at the click of a mouse, it’s easy to be presented quotes of popular personalities without knowing their underlying context. While sounding great on the surface and accepted easily by most, the reality of unseen origins lurks for only the dedicated seeker of Truth to discern.

This is the case for almost all of the currently popular Christian teachers and ministers of today. Interestingly, they all seem to promote practices using traditional Christian terminology and even Bible verses. A closer look, however, finds these ideas and practices cannot be supported by the totality of Scripture. In fact, Scripture specifically warns against them. Yet, these practices continue to be embraced and promoted.

The main area of concern is found within the teaching regarding Spiritual Transformation and Spiritual Formation and their emphasis on Contemplative Spiritually in the form of  contemplative or meditative prayer. 

Popular Southern Baptist Teacher - Beth Moore

 One of the more popular and widely known of these promoters among women is Beth Moore. In her book from 2002, When Godly People Do Ungodly Things, In a section about "Unceasing Prayer" Moore states: "I have picked up on the terminology of Brother Lawrence, who called praying unceasingly practicing God's presence. In fact, practicing God's presence has been my number one goal for the last year" (p. 109). In the DVD, Be Still,  Beth Moore states "If we are not still before Him, we will never truly know to the depths of the marrow of our bones that He is God. There's got to be a stillness."

While there are many other supporting and related statements that could be provided, we will focus on the origins of these statements and practices, which are openly mentioned in her writings and speeches. Probably the person most promoted by Beth Moore is Brennan Manning. Moore builds her case for contemplative practices in her frequent references to Manning in her book, suggesting that his contribution to "our generation of believers may be a gift without parallel" (p. 72).

Renegade Catholic Priest - Brennan Manning

Regarding prayer, Manning believes, “The first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer. Choose a single, sacred word or phrase that captures something of the flavor of your intimate relationship with God. A word such as Jesus, Abba, Peace, God or a phrase such as "Abba, I belong to you." ... Without moving your lips, repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly, and often. When distractions come, ... simply return to listening to your sacred word.... [G]ently return [your mind] to your sacred word. (Brennan Manning)

The Biblically literate student quickly ascertains that this advice flies directly in the face of Jesus’ warning and instruction on prayer in Matthew 6:7, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetition as the heathen do:”

In Brennan Manning's 2003 book, Above All (foreword written by Michael W. Smith), Manning says the following: “The god whose moods alternate between graciousness and fierce anger ...the god who exacts the last drop of blood from his Son so that his just anger, evoked by sin, may be appeased, is not the God revealed by and in Jesus Christ. And if he is not the God of Jesus, he does not exist.” (p. 58-59) 

In case you didn’t catch that, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically, the literal blood atonement by the literal sacrifice of Christ’s literal body for the literal sins of mankind, is specifically denied by Brennan Manning. Unfortunately, he is not alone among the proponents of Contemplative Spirituality in this belief.

Beth Moore also quotes Manning from his book Ragamuffin Gospel calling the book "one of the most remarkable books" (p. 290) she has ever read. But it is this very book that reveals Manning's true affinity with contemplative spirituality. In the back of the book, Manning makes reference to Basil Pennington saying that Pennington's methods will provide us with "a way of praying that leads to a deep living relationship with God." However, Pennington's methods of prayer draw from Eastern religions. In his book, Finding Grace at the Center, Pennington says: “We should not hesitate to take the fruit of the age-old wisdom of the East and "capture" it for Christ. Indeed, those of us who are in ministry should make the necessary effort to acquaint ourselves with as many of these Eastern techniques as possible. Many Christians who take their prayer life seriously have been greatly helped by Yoga, Zen, TM and similar practices.” 

In his book, Abba's Child, Manning says that Beatrice Bruteau is a "trustworthy guide to contemplative consciousness. Bruteau believes that God lives in all creation, stating: "We have realized ourselves as the Self that says only I AM, with no predicate following, not "I am a this" or "I have that quality." Only unlimited, absolute I AM.”

Do you remember the words of Jesus about the latter days saying that many would come in His name saying "I AM"? We are not to be deceived.

As stated earlier, this only begins to deal with the huge errors of belief and practice being currently taught by most ministers today. Unfortunately, their origin is not with God. It would be worth the time and effort for us to continually undertake the command of the Bible for those professing a genuine relationship with God through the Jesus described in Scripture to “examine yourself, whether you be in the faith.” II Corinthians 13:5

American Family Radio, Bryan Fischer & Conservative Media Bias

I was listening to American Family Radio Host Bryan Fischer today while he questioned a guest about the remaining GOP candidates' individual deficiencies as viewed by Evangelical voters. In the question, Fischer cited the non-mainstream Mormonism of Mitt Romney, the past infidelity of Newt Gingrich, the quirky views about Prostitution and drugs of Ron Paul and the Roman Catholic Faith of Rick Santorum. I immediately was flabbergasted at the bias of the question from this supposed proponent of the Truth.

I've said before that AFA's choice for the presidency was Rick Perry and had been from before the beginning of the run by Perry. It went back to at least prior to The Response coordinated by Rick Perry in Houston Texas. Though publicly not allowed to endorse a political candidate because of their 501C3 status with the IRS, it has been obvious who they prefer. And it hasn't been limited to Bryan Fischer, but runs the gambit of radio personalities as well as management and staff.

Since the departure of Perry, the AFA favorite to defeat President Obama has been Newt Gingrich. Romney, his Mormon faith and liberal politics are not thought to be able to mount a viable campaign against the Obama administration. So the most attractive candidate ideologically is Gingrich. This has become more evident with Gingrich's win in South Carolina and the supposed momentum gained from that victory.

The bias I am referring to has to do with the supposed weaknesses of Gingrich and Santorum. As stated, Fischer referred to Gingrich and his past marital failures while the glaring weakness of Santorum was his non-Protestant Roman Catholic Faith.

The bias lies in this fact. Newt Gingrich is also a Roman Catholic. Please tell me how this failed to be mentioned. Tell me also how this is a negative for Santorum but not for Gingrich.

And you thought media bias was only for the liberals!

The Mark Of Cain!

With his admitted non-traditional campaign, Herman Cain has promised to challenge Texas Governor Rick Perry for the evangelical vote to secure his quest of the GOP Presidential nomination.

With Governor Perry and Mitt Romney thought to hold the key to the Republican primaries, the emergence of Herman Cain has caught many by surprise. What has proven to be a rather dull group has taken on a surprising political sheen of interest as the straight talking Cain has proven so far that he can handle the rough and tumble of politics. A political novice, this highly successful businessman has seen his rivals wilt under the heat of pointed questions about particular policy while Cain forcefully answers all questions.

Therein lies his attractiveness. He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to articulate it as well as respond confidently to all enquiries. He's proving to be far more adept at Public Relations than any of his public counterparts, including Governor Perry.

Can you say Grass Roots? Tea, anyone?

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

The following is a post from more than a year ago. I returned to the Jesus Creed site again just to have another look around and found that nothing has changed. My conversations with other emerging types has revealed the same. How about you?

I've been visiting the well known and popular Emerging Blog named Jesus Creed, moderated by Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Other emerging Leaders are Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, D. A. Carson, Leonard Sweet, Doug Pagitt, Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Scott A. Bessenecker, and Dennis M. Doyle.

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it.

As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence. One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?

American Politics & Catholic Policy

Time Magazine contains an article by Nancy Gibbs entitled "The Catholic Conundrum: The Lessons of JFK." Here is the opening paragraph.

• John F. Kennedy's victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 came soaked in symbols and lessons. It was the triumph of vision over experience, rich over poor, East over West, the playboy over the prig. And because a Catholic, for the first time ever, defeated a Protestant, the outcome was said to mark the burial of religious bigotry. Kennedy provided the case study for candidates ever since who have faced some version of the Religion Test. But his was an advanced course in strategy, judgment and rhetoric, and it may be harder for future candidates to pass than they realize.

Though not a lengthy read, this article is, nevertheless, interesting. It provides a glimpse into the modern political realities of Religion in America, especially the overt emergence of Roman Catholics, the latest prototype of which was JFK. His use of modern communications and the Press provided him the platform to present Himself and his views to the Nation in a way which allowed him to overcome his huge Catholic handicap. This "way" of presenting Himself provides us the "interesting" aspect.

I'll state it simply. JFK accomplished the Presidency of the United States by exploiting the ignorance of the American People. The above article partially bears this out by providing some details of his struggle to overcome deep seated Anti-Catholic bias within the religious circles of certain segments of the American populace. And how did he overcome such insurmountable religious bigotry? He used the same tactic any good policitican uses. He spoke in terms that his audience understood without meaning what his audience thought he meant. He used religious terms that His Protestant audience could identify with. This same audience didn't understand that the Catholic meanings of these terms was inherently different. Nor did they understand the Catholic system which governed actions surrounding these different terms.

Nancy Gibbs details a few of the particulars of this message and strategy to woo these Protestant bigots. Surprisingly, it was the same type of message and strategy which had been employed by him since his first run for Congress in 1946. The only difference was in the immensity of the bias to be overcome on a national scale, whereas his Congressional task was to attract fellow Catholics, which he easily did. But both entailed wooing the Religious minded voter. Here's how he did it.

Instead of avoiding the issue in silence, he met it head on and personally determied the issue and language of the dialogue. Instead of the issue being Catholic vs. Protestant, he framed the dilaogue using "tolerance" as the operative word, thereby easing the inherent enmity of the two groups. He took the high middle ground. This strategy came about slowly but two occasions served to provide the impetus, opportunity and necessity to continue.

The first was just prior to the West Virginia primary. "On the Sunday night just before the vote, he paid for a half-hour TV special. The candidate reminded viewers of what a bold break with history it had been when the founders knit religious pluralism into the fabric of the state. And then he looked straight at the camera and observed that when Presidents place their hand on the Bible to swear their oath of office, they are swearing to support the constitutional separation of church and state. Kennedy raised his hand as if from an imaginary Bible. If a President breaks his oath, Kennedy declared, "he is not only committing a crime against the Constitution, for which the Congress can impeach him—and should impeach him—but he is committing a sin against God."

The second occasion was in response to a conservative Protestant Leadership conference held in Washington DC which was basically an anti Kennedy rally. He chose to address the Houston Ministerial Alliance.

• "Kennedy told them he had come to talk about "not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in... I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." And then he made the prescient point, relevant to any member of a religious minority then or in years to come: "While this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed," he warned, "in other years it has been—and may someday be again—a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist... Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart."
• The speech was clean and raw and rational: he made the dispassionate arguments, but he also noted that his vision of a fair-minded America was the one he had fought for in the South Pacific and for which his brother had died in the war in Europe. He reaffirmed his complete independence from any Vatican agenda. But in the most dramatic flourish, he went further, in an extraordinary testimony to just how important that private faith was to him: "If the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." "

The average Protestant hearing these words couldn't help but hold JFK in high regard because they were the words of a man fulfilling his oath, which was sacred. According to Protestant tradition and Scripture interpretation, a person swearing an oath, even if that oath was in violation of a direct command of God, was still held accountable by God to fulfill the terms of the oath. JKF was telling them that he was just such a man of his word.

Not many Protestants, though, are aware of the various ways the Roman Catholic Church allows sin to be committed without being imputed to the account of a person before God. Under these various rules, the end justifies the means. This allows a person to pursue a course which, ultimately, is double minded and ambiguous. Any conclusions drawn by others is subject to which side of the ambiguity they happen to be on. Regardless of the thoughts of others, actions of this type can and are officially absolved by Leaders, with the approval of God. Those who may view these actions as sinful or dishonorable are deemed to be intolerant.

If you don't agree with this view of JFK, especially his supposedly serious attitude regarding his personal oath, I ask you to simply consider the state of his oath of Marriage towards the First Lady while he was in office. Enough said.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last four decades. Leaders continue to exploit the ignorance of the populace, especially among the religious ranks. And its not a Democrat - Republican issue. It's across the political spectrum. A wink, a nod, a smile..........and a smooth lie.......all in the name of keeping an oath. All of this from the honorable world of Politics!

One Continent Under God?

Conspiracy Theorists everywhere must be full of glee. Not that they would express such anti-government sentiments publicly. Who knows who may be watching such outward expressions of inward thoughts? That's how close we are to having a broad smile be considered against the law. But, for now, laughter is still OK.

So, what are these Conspiracy nuts happy about. The New World Order! What else! It is about to officially arive in North America.

That's right! State Department officials in The United States, Mexico and Canada are discussing the details of creating what would be called The North American Union. Unifying the three countries in every aspect is not just being considered, but planned.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this article and others on World Net Daily. What certain groups have been harping about for decades, maybe centuries, is about to come to pass.

In such a scenario, what are the real changes that take place? What happens to the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto of In God We Trust, Old Glory, Patriotism, Military service, Political Offices, The Constitution, Border travel, Immigration between the three countries, Commerce and ..................the most volatile of all..................Religion?

Are all religions merged into one? What happens to the Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Assemblies of God, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Emerging, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Churches of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists? Does this North American Union become "One Continent Under God?"

Gives you something to think about, doesn't it?

Tony Blair & Pope Leo VS Ian Paisley - Double Trouble?

It is being reported by Religioscope that Irish Protestant fireband Ian Paisley has been conducting religious fraternization with Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is Anglican and attends mass with his Roman Catholic wife. This is bound to be a surprise to many since the Presbyterian stalwart is in the midst of political negotiations to create a stable operational government for Northern Ireland.

It will also probable surprise many that, according to "Lord Bew, the professor of Irish politics at Queen's University Belfast who has good connections at the highest levels of government, believes the Blair/Paisley dialogue on religion has transformed their relations - even though they come from significantly different religious traditions."

Bew also states that, ""Blair is brilliant at seducing Paisley," Lord Bew said. "This is the most amazing love affair, the last great Blairite romance. They are even exchanging books on religion. It is fantastic stuff. It is religious; it is romantic. It is brilliant. You have to hand it to him. Once again, when we thought the old maestro was fading, his capacity to seduce, politically speaking, is phenomenal.""

Meanwhile, the other side of this political courtship reveals the ever present influence of the Papacy. Catholic World News reports that Irish President Mary McAleese is meeting with Pope Leo XVI "for a conversation that centered on the “structured dialogue” between religious and government leaders in Ireland." McAleese also met with Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

This amounts to a religious political double team, an overwhelming doubleteam. Maybe Paisley should give up now while He still has his reputation intact. Otherwise, he's playing with fire, fire not meant for him to play with.

But maybe the common roots of Protestant Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are coming to light, in spite of the immovable stand against all things Papal Paisely is known for.

After all, John Calvin was originally a Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church, Church Growth & The Papacy

In this account of the reunification of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, an Austrian Priest gives some insight to the real reason that this unforseen possibility is actually in the process of becoming reality. The World Catholic News reports that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, is optimistic that this reunification will overcome the lone obstacle, the role of the Papacy. Other than that, the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are in accord “on almost every theological issue.”

While many have thought for centuries that the two Churches have distinct theological differences, this quote by the Archbishop is quite revealing. It lets us know that Protestants, as a whole, have the same underlying beliefs as The Roman Catholic Church. After all, Protestants were originally Roman Catholics. They are simply coming back home to Mama, the Mother Church.

By the way, this process is not limited to Orthodox Churches. In fact, according to official Roman Catholic Policy, all Protestants will one day soon be covered by the power of the Pope. It's only a matter of time.

And for those who are not considered Protestants, the same is planned for you and your groups also. The plan is already coming to fruition as we speak. Doctrinal diminuation has occured to the extent that many are truly illiterate when it comes to core Bible Doctrines concerning Jesus Christ and His salvation. Teachings of Mysticism and Spiritualism have pervasively intruded standard teachings of most churches to the extent that these ungodly doctrines and practices are thought to be espoused by Jesus and His Apostles in Scripture.

Apostacy is rampant and many are completely unaware. They are under the delusion that good is evil, right is wrong, black is white, up is down, etc. Power foreign to the Holy Spirit are accepted without so much as a thought that this power could possibly be from anyone other that God. Testing the Spirits according to Scripture is not considered as viable. That would offend certain individuals. Meanwhile shipwrecked lives continue to accumulate on the reef of shallow spirituality.

And the Papacy grows.

American Politics: Land of the Lost

So, you think you understand American and World politics?

Who can ascend to a realm of such rarified air as those espousing, much less possessing, political understanding?

Well, among those professing to intimately know Jesus Christ, most would profess such abilities. Even more, they are presumed to be the only ones truly qualified to hold political office in the United States. If you listen closely, this idea isn't just evident, it has become overtly prominent.

Yet, I wonder how many know what the Bible has to say about the political realm of the World system?

I wonder how many know that the Bible presumes that political offices are authoritative positions reserved for people outside the saving Grace of God? How many understand that God considers all officeholders in need of His salvation? How many know that these politicos are considered unbelievers?

Don't believe me? Well, your disagreement should be taken up with Jesus. When offered political power over all the earth, Jesus refused it.

Imagine that! What Jesus flat-out rejected, His people, at least those calling themselves His people, are continually trying to aquire.

Now, tell me who doesn't understand Politics!

Christianity & The Real Jesus

When it comes to what we believe about the historical figure Jesus, is our image of this controversail figure accurate? Or do we embrace a caricature? Is the Jesus we allow to be presented to us really the One described for us in the Bible?

For many, to consider this question is deemed ridiculous. To some, it approaches blasphemy. Yet, are we not responsible for the substance of our belief? Is it not our duty to make sure that our beliefs are accurate and not mistaken and misdirected?

Paul tells us to make sure that the Jesus we preach is not "another Jesus", thus "another gospel."

So, regardless of the tenets of any religion or Denomination, we are to study the bible to make sure that our words about the Son of God don't paint a picture of Jesus foreign to what the Bible actually says. The only way to do that is to get into the Word of God. Reading books about the subject may sound like a good idea, but how else are you to know whether the books you read are truthful or not except by comparing it to the Word of God?

It's simple for anyone desiring to know the Truth about the historical Jesus. The only accurate portrayal of God in the flesh is the Bible. We need to make sure we are following the genuine Messiah, not a wolf in sheep's clothing!

The Christian Foundation of Europe & Chaos

This article from the Catholic World News laments the fact that The Berlin Declaration, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, fails to mention the Christian foundation of Europe.

While they are attempting to be recognized for this treaty which began the consolidation of Europe into the present European Union, all because of the chaos created by Adolf Hitler, maybe the World should also be reminded of the humble Christian beginnings of the beloved Fuher. After all, a righteous cause does need proper funding.

These details, provided by Tupper Saussy, gives appropriate historical credit and context to all deserving parties, not the least of which is Christianity.

Emerging Conversation: Rifles Not Allowed

I mentioned on an earlier post that I had been involved in the conversation on Jesus Creed, an Emerging Church website moderated by Scot McKnight. I also mentioned that


Emerging is publicly against much of, what they consider to be, the negative aspects of Traditional Christianity. If you listen for awhile, you begin to realize that what they are really upset about is not being allowed to participate in Traditional Christianity. They have been marginalized. Why? Because they are new, innovative, hip, tolerant and outside the Evangelical Box. In other words, they are modern hippies (not always in looks) who don't fit in and don't really want to fit in. They don't want to conform to the standards of worship and ministry tradition handed down within their respective faith families because, many times, those standards require one to look, be and act different from the world.

So, in the spirit of the age, they have rebelled and launched out into the deep on their own in order to create their own autonomous bodies, usually in the most unexpected places. That way they can be close to the ones they are attempting to minister to, which means that they get to create an atmosphere which makes them feel comfortable as well as those they are attempting to reach with the good news of Jesus. And did I mention they get to have fun at the same time? That may not be the most important aspect, but is surely mentioned alot.

As stated before, one of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. By encouraging participation in conversation by as many as possible, all are included to the best extent possible. Inclusiveness within Community is also another major hallmark of Emerging.

One problem with this conversation emerges, though. Addressing particulars within a conversation tends to exclude a certain number of participants because of the various levels of expertise and experience within the body of available conversants. Another problem emerges when there are so many opinions and thoughts about a given particular that the only conclusion among the conversants is that there are many opinions among the various conversants. That's because arriving at objective truth is not the aim of conversation, conversation is the aim of conversation.

So when somone attempts to focus on a particular and refuses to let it go, this is not considered a positive within the immediate conversant community. After all, a person who refuses to let go of a particular point is considered to view himself as right about that point. That is not a positive either, especially if it conflicts with the consensus of the conversant community.

It's rather amusing to watch members of Emerging react to people in the same manner with which they have been treated in the past. You would think that they would be a little more sensitive to someone in a similar plight as their own, that of not being accepted by the group.

But when you bring a rifle to an outing when everyone else has brought shotguns, the disparity is obvious. And so is the discomfort.

Do the Heathen "Trust in God?"

"In God We Trust." The official National Motto of the United States is an anchor which many in this country rely on, at least partially, as proof that America is a Christian nation uniquely founded for the benefit of Christians. And with the constant barrage of legal and moral attacks upon foundations once thought impregnable over the past five decades, more and more people resort to its religious foundation in the hopes of stemming the tide of cultural changes seen during that time.

In light of that special place, many consider it a secondary blessing to the enemies of liberty that they also get to enjoy the benefits of freedom under God. So, if you hate certain things about this country, your freedom under God allows you to voice your concerns publicly, if need be. Many other freedoms similar to this are also enjoyed by those not agreeing with official U.S. Policy.

But have you ever considered the other side of that "Trust in God" coin? The other side? "What other side," you may be asking.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the motto "Trust in God" is primarily for the benefit of those who have specifically chosen to remain outside the eternal blessing of God in a redemptive relationship with Him through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, they have chosen to officially reject God while acknowledging Him, His attributes and creative works. And at the same time, they exercise delegated authority from that same God they eternally reject. And if, during the exercise of that authority, they are molested, they have God's permission to act in retribution seven fold.

If that's the deal with God, would you not "Trust in God," also?

Here's an example from the Bible. God, because of the wickedness of the His People, Israel, was going to bring judgment on them using a powerful pagan nation. Through His Prophet, God says, "have I not ordained them [heathen nation] to execute judgment?" It is significant that God Himself says that He "ordained" this pagan nation to carry out God's orders, to execute God's judgment. He says exactly the same thing in Romans chapter 13.

So, if you knew that God had ordained you to execute certain authority on His behalf, wouldn't you also "trust God" to back you up when exercising such authority, even if you hated that same God? Would this not add a completely new dimension to the notion of Trusting God?

So, what does one have to do to be odained by God into this elite group? Ahh, that's another topic for another post!!!!!

President Bush - Emerging in Latin America

Is it time for a little Latin American Public Relations? A little Backyard Foreign Policy? Is it time to get out of the kitchen?

With the conviction of former Bush aide Scooter Libby, the timing of this trip is convenient. I know, I know!!! It probably has been planned for weeks or months, buuuuuuut................it makes for good conspiratorial conversation, which makes for interesting conversation! You must admit, though, that the thought does come to the forefront of your thinking, since Libby's conviction is not a positive for the Bush Administration.

So, instead of dealing with the devilish details of the Libby the Convicted Criminal, we head off to the warm and charming atmosphere of Hugo Chavez and the myriad of protests planned for Bush while in Latin America. At least there, all they only refer to Bush as an "assasin," which is akin to being Chavez's "devil." But at least Bush knows that he'll not face this type of protest every day at home, so a temporary change of scenery must be welcome.

You never know, though! Maybe he'll meet His Vatican counterpart, the Pope! After all, Latin America is ancient stomping grounds for all things Pontiff!

The Future Of Christianity & Politics

I read a very interesting Opinion Editorial from the Dallas Morning News this week. It slightly deals with the growing political power of the Christian Church in other parts of the world, namely the Third World or the less industrialized nations of the World. It also gives warning to American politicians to not ignore the significance of this growing political power of Christians. It could be to their detriment.

Will this warning go unheeded? I can't really answer that. But I can say that while America fights with herself about the merits and legal reality of Separation of Church and State within the United States, the World merrily continues in its move to more prominently integrate the religious into the political. Or maybe it's the political into the religious? Is there really a difference? If so, does it matter? Isn't the result the same?

The fact is that, regardless of what American politicans do, the merging of the political and religious coincides with the worldwide consolidation of Christianity into one religious community. The proposed return of the Anglican Church into the fold and under the authority of the Roman Pontiff is simply the first step toward a unified Christianity and expanded global power.

Is this the Christianity envisioned by Christ while on this earth? Is this the result of the work initiated by Him and His Apostles?

Or is this somehow nothing more than a well developed counterfeit? Is it possible that people don't realize what is happening? Is there more planned in this unification than most people are aware of?

How many know that the Catholic Church is officially recognized around the world as a "State"? That's right, as in "Nation" and "Country." Just like the United States or Canada or Mexico. And just like other nations, they have Embassies, called Nunciatures, in many nations, with Church officials exercising official Church government authority.

Is this the future?

Christianity, Politics & The Global Gospel

The following link is to an editorial opinion from the Dallas Morning News entitled A Global Gospel. It deals with the subject of the power of Religion in Politics, especially the growing power of Christianity around the world. It specifically warns of the potential pitfalls American politicians might face if they ignore the growing political force of the Christian Church, specifically Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. This excerpt from the final paragraph is telling.

"Politicians, policymakers and other elites sometimes see religion as a hobby for believers. For the devout, though, it's not a garnish to life; it is life. If the candidates prepping for the White House miss how the new Christianity is fundamentally changing the Third World, they could get blindsided on the global stage. So could we all."

Interesting indeed, is the specific mention of the Anglican Church and its current upheaval over the issue of the ordination of Women and Homosexual Priests in light of the recent proposed return of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Leo XVI. This is indeed "new Christianity."

Didn't Solomon say that there's nothing new under the sun?

Your Own Jesus: A Fresh Look at Truth

In this day and age of oneupmanship and 15 seconds of fame, sometimes you come across something or someone who brings a personality and outlook unlike any you've experienced before. When this newness is refreshing and solid, the 15 seconds seem to stretch. When it stretches into months without having lost the inital freshness, you can be sure that you've found something special.

Such is the case with David Beck and his site Catholicist Nation. I've immensely enjoyed his articles since I first was directed to him by Tupper Saussy. His commentary continues to uplift and magnify the only viable option for anyone seeking the Way, substantial Truth or meaningful Life.

If you come to know this Way, Truth & Life, existence is given its true significance. Life on this earth is then lived under the guidance of the only One Who knows the end from the beginning. Every area of life is seen from His Perspective and nothing is the same again.

Davis Beck writes from this perspective and I hope you find it as exhilarating as I do. Visit his site and let him know!

Politics and Religion: A Dual Necessity?

This article by Lisa Miller of MSNBC-Newsweek deals with the religious ignorance of Americans as viewed and experienced during the tenure of Boston University Professor Steve Prothro. He laments this educational vacuum and encourages students to change this sad state of affairs. His reason for promoting religious literacy may surprise you.

"His motivation is more than pedagogical. In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero writes that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts, by not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or the name of Mormonism's holy book. "Given a political environment where religion is increasingly important, it's increasingly important to know something about religion," he says. "The payoff is a more involved [political] conversation.""

A novel idea, indeed! Most people would not connect a proper understanding of and involvement in Secular politics with Religion.

Does this mean that the religion referred to is, by nature, Secular?

If so, is this Secular Religion the same as Civil Religion?

If so, how might this Secular, Civil Religion differ with a redemptive relationship of faith in Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Bible?

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

I've been visiting the well known and popular Emerging Blog named Jesus Creed, moderated by Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Other emerging Leaders are Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, D. A. Carson, Leonard Sweet, Doug Pagitt, Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Scott A. Bessenecker, and Dennis M. Doyle.

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it. As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence.

One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?