Category Archives: orthopraxy
In the shadows of secularism?
Easter is more about the easter bunny than the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christmas is more about presents from santa than celebrating the supernatural arrival of the Messiah
Thanksgiving seems to be more about what’s for dinner than giving honor to God.
Are we slowly but surely losing our foundations? Some churches have begun competing with halloween by holding “hallelujah nights”. One pastor said “the kids need something to keep their attention”.
Just a few holiday examples, but is it a sign of what’s to come? Many Christian churches incorporate the more secular components of the holidays or “Holy Days” in order to appeal to people who arent religious. However, some believe that this is only helping to hasten the time when our faith will be a footnote of a period of intolerance and exclusion.
Just this week, the American Religious Identification Survey released their findings which revealed continuing declines of people who self identify as “Christian” or “evangelical” while those who claim no religion at all and those who embrace pagan religion, have risen. Pentecostal religion grew by 3.5 percent.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a UK paper that Christianity is at risk of being sidelined in England’s increasingly secular society. Charisma Magazine reported Blair ”said he agreed with church leaders that Christianity is in danger of being viewed as a “personal eccentricity” rather than a significant influence on the nation.”
In short, Christianity is in danger of becoming a something akin to women who still like to wear their hair big like in the 80s.
True and given, God has a remnant that “hasnt bowed the knee to Baal” and his word will never fail. But what of this organization called the Christian church? Is it destined to be swallowed by a one world system?
In an earlier report, we looked at how the harlot church is developing right alongside the true church and at some points threatning to overshadow it. Many false ideologies are slowly merging with biblical concepts and creating a new thought stream throughout the church. Like the holidays mentioned, these concepts sound good, feel good and even look good on paper, but where is it leading us? In recent years, we’ve experienced surges of extentialism, humanism, hybrid ecumenicalism, extreme pacifism, universalism and diaprax. That’s just to name a few. Some of them are old heresies with new names. Though there are many questions, what’s clear is that we’ve got much to contend for as well as against.
Bishop Blake releases UDIHR defense
We are extremely disappointed but perhaps we had little hope to expect much more.
Through his public relations firm, Bishop Charles Blake has released what appears to be a response to our articles here and here sharply criticizing his endorsement of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights and the Faith in Human Rights Statement.
The 22 page document is posted on the denomination’s main website. Read it.
GCM Watch intends to issue a full examination of the response later on this site.
Humanism blackens Blake speech
Bishop Blake’s address to the gathering of world religious leaders December 2008. The following are points of contention we’d like to address:
Attendees addressed as an “august” and “extraordinary” body?
The word august means “Inspiring awe or admiration; majestic”. Are we to accept that the signatories of the Faith in Human Rights Statement who worship and pray to demons and idols and propogate doctrines of devils are majestic and inspire awe? What about them exactly should we admire? The bible tells us to turn away from such people because they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.
Faith Statement declares that “essential to religion is the struggle of human rights”
In what biblical context? The stuggle for human rights maybe essential to man’s humanistic religion, but it is not “essential” or the essense of the gospel. Human rights is not the message of the gospel, neither is a so-called social gospel the focus of the gospel. It is the preaching of the gospel which shows a fallen world that their only hope for redemption is in the acceptance of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. Jesus said unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me (John 14:6) He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber (John 10:1).
“with this proclamation we possibly usher in a new international epock”
An epock designates the beginning of a new and important period in the history of anything. This is more social humanism. Under the spirit of the antichrist, which is already at work, these new beginnings signal a turn away from God to man’s desire to rule himself. No solution irregardless of how noble it may seem is worth partnering with workers of inquity. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; Eph 5:11
“This could be the day that intolerance and bigotry begin to die, the inglorious death these foes deserve”
Who exactly is on the receiving end of this “intolerance and bigotry”? Is it the poor peoples of the earth who have no food? Is it those in the teeming slums of the world who have no money? Or is it those who arrogantly demand that homosexual marriage is a inherent right? Those who are poor, hurting and hungry have no concern for “intolerance and bigotry”. They only want to eat and have clothes to wear.
No matter how the world terms it, its not “intolerance and bigotry” to stand on God’s Word.
“To protect and affirm the human rights and human dignity of all people everywhere”
Inclusion is a loaded word. Does all mean all or is that just to pacify the inclusionists? Does all include those who who adamant support homosexual marriage? Gays believe that the Universal Declaration of International Human includes their right to marry among other things. Are we bound to support their definitions of what constitutes human rights, whatever that might be?
Bishop Blake’s enthusiastic endorsement and association with this ungodly document is shameful and a poor representation of the faith once delivered to the saints. We are to contend for that faith, not to form partnerships or even agree to the work of people who’s motives are diametrically opposed to the Kingdom of God.
We challenge Bishop Blake to come from among them and be separated. We challenge Bishop Blake to be careful that his intent to do good is not attached to evil people. We challenge Bishop Blake to be sober, alert and a true watchman on the wall to prevent the enemy from launching an inside attack on God’s flock.
What do you really know about your faith?
As a precaution against false doctrine and errant theology, every believer should know basic biblical definitions and their application to the Christian life. In other words our orthodoxy should frame our orthopraxy. Don’t get too busy to stop, study and know. What you put into your heart, spirit and mind will help you to discern true from false. More importantly, a good spiritual diet of sound doctrine will cause you to grow. Many, many Christians are stunted in their spiritual growth because they (1) don’t take sound doctrine seriously (2) are being fed milk when they should be eating meat or (3) in ignorance reject sound doctrine.
How seriously do you take 2 Tim 2:15, Proverbs 4:7 and 2 Pet 3:18? If want to start paying more attention to the fundamentals of our faith, here’s a brief quiz to test your knowledge. Try your best to answer without looking up any answers or asking anyone else. To truly gauge if you are up to par, just answer as best you know. These are pretty simple so you should have no problem. If youre fairly confident and want to share your answers go ahead. If you have questions about the questions or answers, please elaborate in the comment section.
1. What’s the penalty for sin?
2. Who is the Holy Spirit?
3. What’s the difference between temptation and testing?
4. What does the word “propitiation” mean?
5. True or false. Jesus said water baptism is a prerequisite for salvation.
6. What’s the difference between condemnation and conviction?
7. Was man created holy?
8. Was Jesus resurrected bodily or as a spirit?
9. Why did Jesus have to die?
10. According to the author, what is the intent of the gospel of John?
Church of England facing gay theology schism
Some adherents in the Church of England are starting to see what will invariably be the big issue to divide Christendom. Like the slave issue of our not so distant past, the acceptance of sexually active homosexuals into the life of the church despite the clear prohibitions of scripture, has forced many to draw clear lines of fellowship. The London Times reported Tuesday that two churches are taking shape: one progay, the other strictly biblical.
The schism over gays that has seen two dioceses vote to “leave” the US Episcopal Church is threatening to split the Church of England.
On October 14 parishes were urged to seek alternative oversight from another bishop if their own diocesan bishop expounded “unbiblical” teaching.
But he [Rev. Rod Thomas] continued: “However, where the teaching and actions of a bishop promote an unbiblical way of thinking, then we simply have to look elsewhere for a bishop. If we fail to do this then our congregations will not see us taking New Testament teaching seriously and the process of accommodation will continue.”
Other major denominations in the US are slowly but surely experiencing the outer bands of this growing crisis of faith and doctrine. Wise ones will note what is happening and begin making preparations to deal with the homosexual issue openly, directly and biblically. Those who live in a state of denial because they are pentecostal or holiness oriented stand to be the most impacted and quite frankly already are. Some already have “closeted” homosexual leaders in place waiting for time and opportunity.
If you think that the coming divisions will produce a majority of those who are “strictly biblical” think again. The emergent, postmodernist thinking so prevalent in many contemporary churches will seek compromise with homosexuals rather than stand sole on scripture. Our blog partner at Red Giant wrote that the minority will invariably be subjected to persecution from those who claim to be more “enlightened and progressive.”
At first, most will not recognize it as persecution, since only a handful of Christians will suffer. These persecuted Christians will be a decided minority, the ones who are already dismissed as “right-wingers,” “fundamentalists,” “creationists,” “haters,” “hijackers of the faith,” and the like. The multitudes will delight when a few of these Christians are successfully forced to renounce their backward beliefs and confess their error to the public.
These Bible-believing Christians will be scapegoats. For years, the media and universities have cast them as the number-one supporters of an unpopular administration — with the implication that, ideologically, they share the blame for its perceived failures and offenses. The irrational rage directed at that administration won’t stop after it’s gone. The blame will only be shifted to those religionists who dared to involve (the wrong) faith in the political process.
These Christians will be outcasts among their own. They will be shunned in polite society by the greater body of nominal Christians. When their voices are silenced, their worldly brethren will not lift a finger in protest. The reason? These particular Christians are harmful. They stand in the way of progress, peace, unity, and change. It is for the greater good that they go away.













Sexual malfeasance and church leadership
I promised Sis greeky, that we would talk about this because it really is one of the huge reasons individuals leave churches in disgust.
Here’s what she wrote:
In advance, I ask your patience because of so many variables this might be somewhat lengthy. And too, this may involve more biblical principle rather that hard biblical evidence so keep that in mind. I think the scriptures allow for us to glean universal wisdom from the Word and then apply it in love to specific situations.
I have always advocated (and at times demanded) responsible transparency in ministry. There definitely should be a balanced approach to dealing with leaders who are subjects of sexual immorality for years if they are truly men of integrity being falsely accused. Lets all agree that the scriptures which outline how to handle accusations against elders are indeed applicable and right.
Two scriptures we should consider here.
Just brief notes on these two passages. The first is about the spirit, not so much the letter of the law. Its characterized by self-reflective compassion. How that is applied seems to segue in the second passage. 1 Tim 5 acknowledges that elders may indeed bs “accused”, but it cannot be justified only by a “he say-she say” scenario. Or in these days we need to include “he-say-he say”. Further, if the accusations prove true, the church is to use open rebuke to suppress the progression of sin within the Body. In this case, you are authorized to preach fear, hell and damnation!
Restoration (of a leader who has sinned) ideally should include: disclosure, discipline and retraining. Restoration does not automatically mean a person should be put back in the position they once held in church. Restoration is primary a concern for the soul and not some manmade position. For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Maintaining image for the purpose of “damage control” is potentially detrimental to the person caught in the sin.
Disclosure means fully repenting in context to the circumstances of the sin. If sin was done openly, repentance should be open. If this was an issue where the sin was private (meaning only the individual was involved) then repentance should be to an appropriate source in confidence. Sometimes the Adam and Eve syndrome takes over and people start blaming other folks for their sins. If so, a spiritually mature person should evoke James 1:14-15 and apply it in order to obtain metanoia or true repentance.
Discipline means there should be some restrictive measures levied against the individual commensurate to the depth and impact of the sin. For instance, if a person got into an arguement in the open and cussed, the discipline required would not be the same if he or she were to molest a child. All sin is the same, but the effects of sins are different. Thus, dealing with it requires mature discernment and applicable biblical wisdom. Discipline is not about humiliating someone, but its intent is to humble them so restoration can take its proper course. Discipline is part of discipleship and is not only to be self administered, but should be accepted when administered by God or whomever he sanctions to carry it out in love.
Retraining means that there should be practical exercises required for the individual to complete before any level of restoration is declared. For instance, one might be required to pay back 100% of monies misused from a church funds. This isnt punitive but to (1) test the integrity and sincerity of the person, (2) to demonstrate real, observable restitution for the record and (3) to engage the person in an activity to teach them so that they learn from their error.
For the record, I do not believe in the practice of “sitting someone down” as a legitimate biblical response to sin in leadership. It has too many loopholes. Unless it is incorporated with the above it is useless.
But lets deal with the ones who aren’t innocent, havent been overtaken in fault. Let’s talk about the ones who are committing serial sins with no repentance and even resist efforts to rectify wrong situations. When a person has power, money and popularity, it severely complicates a biblical resolution. Remember Earl Paulk? Because of his status and position, not to mention cunning deception, he was able to carry on abominations for over 30 years. And because people were told “keep your mouth off the mand of gawd” it afforded Paulk the perfect cover to continue sexually molesting both children and adult women under his authority.
If it is a crime (sex with a minor) involved, the church should not conceal the matter. If it is a moral failure (adultery) the church should exercise its discretion again depending on the circumstances of the sin. For instance if the husband, girlfriend and wife had a fight in church in front of the members, why label it a “private matter”? Already it has damaged those who have witnessed it.
Let’s also consider that a bishop (positionally different than a pastor) according to 1 Tim 3:2, must be “blameless”. The “blameless” part takes effect after he accepts the office. People oftimes claim well they are human too meaning we have to allow for them to err. Well yes and no. The word blameless is taken from the greek anepileptos which means: not arrested, i.e. (by implication) inculpable — blameless, unrebukeable. Also note use of the word “must” which signifies there exists no parallel option to the requirement. In other words, the bishop must live above reproach. If they err, they are no longer qualified to hold the office and should be removed.
I believe that in keeping with integrity, any investigations of widely known acts of malfeasance should be available to members. It pains me for church folk to always accuse people of gossip when leaders reject properly informing people. Generally, there is suppression of the evidence and failure of “the board” to righteously deal with it. I still contend that the case of Bishop JD Husband is a textbook case example of this. I think the issues of information suppression and secrecy is not because of a concern that people would be harmed but because it could possibly affect the flow of money. Sad to say the contemporary church is in bed with money. Consequently, God’s word is relegated to a secondary reference tool.
If you feel like adding something to this, feel free. Its a tough, but much needed discussion in the church.