Category — Albigenses

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind; be sober and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
As obedient children, do not fashion yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance, but as He who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of living, 1 Peter 1:13-15 NKJV

As I have read and seen the incredibly corrupt responses to our aggressive exposure of the public lies and activities of the pimps, wolves and false prophets in the gay christian movement, I realized that there is a monumental struggle throughout the whole of Christendom for control of the church of Jesus Christ. While there is no doubt in my mind that the false prophets will come to no good end, we must be vigilant and sober in dealing with this seemingly perpetual proliferation of falsehood. To that end, I want to share with you two great blog posts which really capture the struggle we are in and the hope that we embrace.

I am declaring them mandatory reading.

The first is from Cry Loud. If I didn’t know better, I’d tell Cry Loud to require everyone to “sow a seed” to get this information. But integrity and a sincere concern for the flock is at the heart of this clear and straightforward instruction. Which, by the way is good for both pastors and pewmen. The post is entitled What happens when wolves are exposed?

Today’s African American church, actually the American church as a whole, has put on blinders. They are in denial that those they admire the most are false teachers and prophets, often referred to as wolves. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat 7:15) who have infiltrated the Church. As Jude says, they have crept in unawares. The mainline media has facilitated this poison in the church by concentrating on giving exposure to the false and only occasionally giving exposure to the true prophets of God.

Secondly, Seeing God’s Breath (our August Monument Award winner) has penned a powerful post entitled Teaching Falsely or False Teachers?

How is it that thousands of preachers decade after decade disagree with one another with the Bible sitting on their desks? Does anyone read it? Are most indoctrinated? The differing views throughout “Christendom” show evidently that most are not reading and if they are then they are not reading it as the authority for belief and practices. Now, if they are reading the Scriptures as the authority, someone has at least one fallacious assumption attached to their understanding of authority. One thing is apparently true. There are false teachers among the churches,

Please read, take head and be informed. Spread the word and put the false teachers on notice that we intend to fight for the faith once delivered unto the saints.

I was reading on Neil’s 4Simpson’s blog a post entitled The importance of sound doctrine. The post is excellent, if you can understand its importance. If an individual is fed a diet of wrongly divided Word or doctrine, that person will live a life reflective that doctrine. The false prophets and teachers who intentionally feed them such poison, will come to no good end. But in the meantime, we have to guard against, warn and expose such things as the scripture commands and following the example of the Apostles before us. I won’t ask the shallow critics of this blog to read it as I’m sure it would be water off a duck’s back.

However, if you value your salvation, don’t take the teaching of sound doctrine lightly. It literally keeps the church —and you— from sinking into an abyss of perdition.

I also want to include this from Project Probe. A link to it is in the sidebar resources.

Cognisant of the fact that this kind of ministry is by no means a popular one, especially when it involves addressing aberrations and heresies coming from within Church circles, the following points should always be kept in mind:
1. As Christians we are enjoined to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4: 14-15).
2. Endeavouring to speak the truth can make one seem like an enemy (Gal. 4: 16).
3. Divisiveness in the church is not caused by the apologists in the church, as some claim, but rather is caused by those who stray away from sound apostolic/biblical teaching (Rom. 16: 17).
4. While we must all promote unity in the body of Christ, and endeavour to live peaceably with all men (both in and outside the Church) as the apostle Paul encourages us to do in Rom. 12:18, in light of Gal. 4: 16 we must equally be prepared to take a stand for truth even when it means loosing friends and favour.

Wikipedia concludes that imagination “is accepted as the innate ability and process to invent partial or complete personal realms within the mind from elements derived from sense perceptions of the shared world.”

Imagination can be an enjoyable engagement and out of it can come some very wonderful realities. For instance, an individual may imagine what their dream home is like and  work to construct it according to what they’ve envisioned in their minds. The result: a beautiful, architechural work of art that began in an individual’s mind

But imagination also includes a dark side. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Imagination, because of having freedom from external limitations, can often become a source of real pleasure and unnecessary pain. A person of vivid imagination often suffers acutely from the imagined perils besetting friends, relatives, or even strangers such as celebrities. Also crippling fear can be seen as taking an imagined painful future too seriously.

Imagination can also produce some symptoms of real illnesses. In some cases, they can seem so “real” that specific physical manifestations occur such as rashes and bruises appearing on the skin, as though imagination had passed into belief or the events imagined were actually in progress.

So what place does one’s imagination occupy in Christian living or doctrine? Is it valid?  Does the Bible give Christians any guidance on the issue?  Earlier, we reported that the Rev. Nancy Wilson, the presiding moderator of the gay christian church MCC felt it was “ok” to use one’s imagination when reading and interpreting the Bible. Out of her imagination, came (among other wild assumptions) homosexual wise men at Jesus’ birth. Now, we’ve learned that another MCC ordained minister,Kittredge Cherry has published “Jesus in Love”, a book in which she imagines Jesus as a homosexual. Everything and everybody, including the Holy Spirit is reimagined, not spiritually, but sexually. Love, in this context is just a metaphor for sex.

The book’s premise wonders if Jesus knew how it feels to be “queer” and consequently constructs a fantasy world replete with homosexual sex, gender confusion, and sexual “freedom” all from the cavities of the author’s mind. From the website review:

Surprising answers come in Jesus in Love, a novel that re-imagines Christ’s legendary life as an erotic, mystical adventure in first-century Palestine. Jesus has today’s queer sensibilities and sexual sophistication as he lives out the Christian story in this novel of spiritual and sexual awakening.
Readers can relate to the struggles he faces: He feels like his real self is both male and female. He falls in love with people of both sexes. Society doesn’t understand him.

Jesus, the narrator, speaks in an engaging, up-to-date tone as he reveals his intimate relationships with John the beloved disciple (a gay man mourning his lover’s death), Mary Magdalene (a highly intelligent survivor of sexual abuse) and the multi-gendered Holy Spirit. The contemporary tone and vivid descriptions make the myths feel surprisingly real and appealing.

James (Mel) White, founder of Soulforce spins his endorsement of the book into a happy, laughable experience akin to reading Ricky’s Fun Day at the Park.

“In imagining a Jesus who really lived, laughed and loved, Kitt Cherry has broken through the stained glass barrier. Don’t be afraid. This is not a prurient look at the sex life of Jesus, but a classic re-telling of the greatest story ever told, the story of a truly human Jesus and those truly human women and men who lived, laughed and loved with him. Read JESUS IN LOVE and you will feel His Spirit reaching out to you, inviting you to live, laugh and love with him as well.”

Leaders –allegedly Christians– of the MCC and Soulforce believe there is nothing wrong with recreating Jesus into an image like their own imaginations. It is unlikely that Cherry imagined Jesus as Savior or Lord. Neither is it likely that she imagined him as divine and sinless. Her ideology is derived from the feminist-lesbian worldview made popular in the 1993 World Council of Churches women’s conference in Minneapolis. Practicioners draw their bizarre statements from false prophets and hireling theologians who use obscure historical documents to build a case for the existence of a hidden context, then position it as the interpretative key for determining the documents’ meaning.

Executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, Parker Wilkinson, an ordained Presbyterian minister, described the conference as “antithetical to the Christian faith, seismic shifts in theology, implying that since God is a product of one’s imagination to begin with, so He can thus be re-imagined”

Individuals like White, Wilson and Cherry provide ample proof that scripture nor Jesus has no place of authority or even guidance in their lives. Therefore, because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23 AMPV).

If there were any doubts that the gay christian movement has any credible association with true Christianity, read on. In a recent email to Christine at TalkWisdom, we submitted three reasons why the gay christian movement refuses to discuss scripture or use it in defense of their claiming biblical approval of homosexuality. (1)they are afraid to discuss it, (2) they hate what it says about their sexual choices, and (3) they know their false doctrine cannot be supported using scripture. As it turns out, we were right.

We have pointed out numerous times how the cookie cutter style comments of gay christians are devoid of scripture. While we believe that extra-biblical resources are welcome compliments to scriptural enlightenment, the line of acceptance is drawn when any resource conflicts with clear foundational teachings of the Bible. With that being said, and despite our critics charge of “bible worship”, even the average Christian accepts that the Bible is our blueprint, our “magna carta”. Therefore, Christians fully assimilate its language, concepts and principles into our vocabulary and more importantly how we live. But we don’t find this bond with God’s Word when it comes to the gay christian movement. But don’t be surprised, this is no mere coincidence.

Through Karen Keen, an Exodus associate who attended a portion of the ex-ex-gay conference sponsored by Soulforce and Beyondexgay, we learned that the order to refuse scriptural engagement with “conservative Christians” came directly from one of the movement’s top leaders. On her blog Pursue God, Keen writes a bittersweet account of the experience. Among other things was the one workshop she attended.

“After debriefing the “chalk-talk” experience, we are sent off to our first workshop. I decide to attend, “What the Bible Says and Doesn’t Say About Homosexuality” presented by Rev. Nancy Wilson and Rev. Dr. Mel White. Mel White is a passionate and articulate man who makes it clear from the beginning of the workshop that he has absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the biblical passages on homosexuality. Over the years he has suffered a barrage of debates on the issue and he is thoroughly burnt out. He refuses to engage in the discussion any longer. Instead, he passes out a booklet he has written on the subject and tells us to read it. Then, he encourages us to refrain from discussing the Bible with conservative Christians because fundamentalists have no interest in sincere dialogue. Mel also encourages us not to engage in the debate for another reason. By having the conversation, we expose ourselves over and over again to the “lie” that homosexuality is wrong, and when heard repeatedly, “deep down inside you will wonder if they are right.”

James (Mel) White’s remarks appear to point to a rather severe case of truthphobia. Perhaps he fears that what happened to this woman and this man will happen to him, if he hears the truth. The Apostle Paul was on point when he said in 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (NIV): For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Ms Keen continues:

“Mel passes the biblical discussion on to Nancy Wilson [Wilson is at the head moderator of MCC, succeeding founder Troy Perry]. She focuses her presentation on the use of the word “eunuch” in Scripture. She concludes that “eunuch” refers to a gay person. Even the magi who brought gifts to Jesus were gay, she says. At this a young man in the audience raises his hand and comments, “One of the criticisms of pro-gay theology is that we see gay in every passage [of the Bible]. The magi as gay seems like a stretch.” Nancy replies that the magi were gay because, as court officials, they were eunuchs. However, she goes on to admit she sometimes overstates her case. For example, she cannot say one way or another whether Ruth and Naomi ever had a sexual relationship. However, she uses her imagination to see gay people in the Bible. Nancy tells us that since gay people have been ignored in the Bible for 2,000 years, it’s okay to use our imagination to see ourselves in it—even if it means stretching things a bit.”

For the leader of a alleged Christian denomination, Rev. Wilson makes some astonishingly unChristian statements:
(1)All eunuchs or any eunuchs are homosexuals
(2) The magi or three wise men were homosexuals
(3) Due to invisibility, its okay to use one’s “imagination” when reading and interpreting the Bible
What process of theological study or exegetical discipline did Rev. Wilson use to arrive at these uncommon conclusions? Simular to Bishop Yvette Flunder’s wild, wild wilderness allegory, the Jesus MCC’s church’s bogus claims of homosexual relationships in the Bible (which notably contradict their presiding moderator’s statements of nonexistence) and Peterson Toscano’sbizarre biblical transsexual tale, these conclusions are not the result of sound doctrine or even sound reasoning, but Rev. Wilson’s very vain imagination.

If you’ve ever read the book A Strong Delusion: Confronting the gay christian movement by prolific author and Christian apologist Joe Dallas, you know that the gay christian movement is based upon a system of poorly constructed –and false–defensive arguements. Having read the book, you would also know that even the very best of the movement’s defensive tenets are sandcastles on a beach. Upon its publication in 1996,  A Strong Delusion obliterated any doubts to the contrary. 

Mr. Dallas, a former member of the MCC, was the first Christian author we are aware of to take this movement to task and thoroughly refute many of its major belief points.

Thousands of years of church history teach us that doctrinal heresy unique to Christianity rarely remains in an ”as it is” state.  Some do, but others simply rename (the beliefs of the gay christian movement are strongly patterned after the old heresy antinominanism) and reemerge under some denominational cover.   Understanding the need to watch and report on the changes, Joe Dallas has released an updated and expanded version of A Strong Delusion under the title of “The Gay Gospel?: How progay advocates misread the Bible.”

Bob Davies, a former Executive Director of Exodus International says the book is “A powerful resource for those combating pro–gay theology, whether in their family, church or denomination. A former insider, Dallas used to ardently defend the same arguments he now skillfully demolishes.”

Uniquely damaging because of its emphasis and collaboration with sexual immorality, the gay christian movement, with its signature gay gospel is what 2 Corinthians 11:4 identifies as ”another gospel, another spirit, preaching another Jesus.” First, Paul uses the greek word allos which means “another numerically, but of the same kind” to describe the multiple faces of the false Jesus.  Then, he uses the greek word heteros which conotes  difference in a qualitive sense Doctrinally, it is “strange, foreign and altered.” Thus, the gay christian movement utilizes different versions of Jesus to credential a false doctrine and false spirit (of love and acceptance).  

Related post: Would Jesus affirm sin [dot] com

Can the gay christian movement ever hope to reconcile its wayward heterodoxy with Biblical orthodoxy?

While we are tempted to state that there is a titanic battle between what is good and what is evil, we will refrain from making such misleading statements. The truth is that God is supreme and superior in all things. There is no one, no thing, no view, no movement and no lie which can measure up to the astonishing omnipotence of our God and his Christ. Perhaps this is why David asked in Psalms 2: “Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The  kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed?” 

It is vain, when one considers Jesus’ monumental victory at Calvary.

But yet, gay christian movement leaders continue to make vain, outrageous, shock-value  statements in an attempt to justify a method of sexual expression  clearly outlawed in the scriptures.  Judge for yourself:

A gay church in Indianopolis (Jesus MCC) recently spent $20,000 on a billboard project which declared Jesus would not “discriminate”. But before they could they could declare that Jesus would not discrimate, they first had to purchase  a $55,000 ventriloquist model of Jesus to speak for them.

In the propaganda campaign the church asserted falsely that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers.

Considering that is was Naomi who coached Ruth on how to meet and marry Boaz, a lesbian relationship among the two women is highly speculative.  Then, if this was a sexual relationship allegedly sanctioned by God, once the pair arrived back in Isreal from Moab, God ended it. (perhaps a case of the first ex-lesbians?).  The truth is Ruth only followed Naomi because she had a divine destiny to fulfill.  Her engrafting into the lineage of Jesus Christ would not have occured had Ruth been in a lesbian relationship.

However, the very need for this clarification demonstrates the blatant contradictions and coverups among religious homosexuals. A standard argument  (see “A Caution”) against the Bible’s homosexual prohibitions is that the Bible’s writers (particularly Paul) had no knowledge of “monogamous, consenual, loving gay relationships”. Yet,  the Jesus MCC church asserts that the alleged relationship between Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David were just that.

Secondly, the MCC believes that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. Besides having minds which rarely see beyond sexual imagery, the gay christian movement perjures itself repeatedly.

We posit again the implausibility, if not complete impossibility of such a sexual relationship primarily because under Levitical law homosexuality was condemned with punishment of death. David did violate the anti-adultery law with Bathsheba and was severely punished by God himself. Even the first child of the relationship died as a consequence of the sin.  Would God have simply overlooked simular homosexual adultery by David? The insistence of a sexual connection between the two godly men, despite evidence to the contrary, brings to light the Bible’s assessment of the true character of such individuals:

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in their works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient and disqualified for every good work (Titus 1:15-16).

The apostle Paul’s harsh, –but nonetheless inspired–  words paint a vivid portrayal of today’s gay christian movement. The major thought is that one cannot claim to be a disciple of Christ and practice or support [homo]sexual immorality. Furthermore to marry such abomination to the name of Christ reflects a reprobate ideology completely devoid of true Christian virtue. As it is written “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from inquity (2 Tim 2:19).

Finally, Jesus MCC magically makes the ventriloquist Jesus say that he “affirmed a gay couple” in the Bible. In the synoptic referenced, no “gay couple” existed, therefore this is a write-in interpretation.  Not only did the centurion not present himself to Jesus as ”coupled”,  it is spiritual theft to automatically assume that healing equates to affirmation of one’s lifestyle. This is a simple, yet profound encounter of faith causing Jesus to “marvel.” The servant was sick, Jesus healed him and affirmed the man’s faith.  

“Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Isreal” Matthew 8:10

But homosexual religionists ignore this and willfully morph a story of faith into a story of sex.

Dr. Rob Gagnon, in his exhaustive critique of this rather baseless claim, offers multiple, solid reasons why Jesus could not have affirmed any variation of homosexual coupling.