Monday, December 28, 2009

Emergent Church - Part 3/3

Chapter 7 - Undefining Knowledge - The Epistemology of the EC (PGS 135-156)
  • EPISTEMOLOGY: Theory of Knowledge
  • addresses the following questions:
  • What is knowledge?
  • How is knowledge acquired?
  • EMERGENT CHURCH EPISTEMOLOGY
  • rejection of absolutes and a world of cause and effect
  • believe in a socially constructed world in which our beliefs create the "worlds" in which we live.
  • "Coherentism"
  • BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN EPISTEMOLOGY
  • knowledge of salvation and reconciliation is revealed in the Bible.
  • Scripture is foundational for knowledge of salvation, of God, and of the world in which we live.

Chapter 8 - Undefining the Kingdom of God (pgs 157-178)

  • THE EC "KINGDOM of GOD"
  • equals joining God and building an earthly paradise now
  • logical conclusion when looking at their eschatology
  • all things are coming together in a future paradise
  • repackaged Liberalism through the Social Gospel and Mystical Spirituality
  • people must find a way to make this world a better place while waiting for it to be perfected as they move forward toward a future paradise.
  • THE BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN "KINGDOM of GOD"
  • The king will return to judge the disobedient
  • He is a threat to all who do not obey the laws or commandments
  • reward and blessing for those who believe in Him

Chapter 9 - Emergence Theory: The Philosophical Source of Emergent Theology (pgs 179-181)

  • Jurgen Moltmann plus Ken Wilber = EMERGENT
  • Moltmann; Emergent source of eschatology
  • Wilber; Emergent source of philosophy
  • Wilber's Philosophy - The Mystical Darwin
  • Upward Spiral - everything is evolving into something better
  • Holistic (spiritual and physical) concept of evolution
  • Spiral Dynamics - the world evolves into a physical / spiritual paradise over time.
  • Who is Ken Wilber?
  • neo-Buddhist
  • Philosophy = pagan and Christian concepts into one unified spirituality
  • created his own language that works with his ideas and concepts
  • has his roots in Hegel
  • The EC ... nothing special or unique
  • rejection of Scripture
  • looked at Hegel as its prophet
  • EXAMPLE - The Mormon Church - rejected scripture and looked to Joseph Smith as its prophet.

Emergent Church - Part 2/3

Chapter Four - Undefining Theology (pgs 73-94)
  • DECONSTRUCTION - removing the meaning of words
  • The EC embrace contradictions
  • words are fluid
  • definitions morph due to experiences, they do not hold to any meaning
  • beneficial to have beliefs that are incompatible
  • WHY? Because believing in both sides will evolve or synthesize into a better belief.
  • truth and meaning are experienced rather than known
  • KNOWLEDGE
  • General Revelation: our 5 senses and rational mind
  • utilization of logic to learn
  • economy, industry, and scientific achievements are based upon general revelation.
  • Specific Revelation: revealed only through SCRIPTURE
  • spoken to the world through human mediators (prophets/Jesus Christ)
  • God's plan for salvation and reconciliation only through SPECIFIC REVELATION.
  • MYSTICISM (focus and emphasis)
  • spirituality by experience - truth and meaning are found through experience and not specific revelation (DECONSTRUCTION)
  • Problem: mystical experience(s) always lead to idolatry and damnation - not the God revealed in scripture.
  • Old-Fashioned pagan mysticism repackaged

Chapter Five - Undefining the Bible and Preaching (pgs 95-114)

  • EMERGENT CHURCH PERSPECTIVE
  • rejection of the idea that we should utilize our minds, logic, and reason to understand the scripture
  • scripture does not convey a fixed meaning determined by the biblical, Holy Spirit-inspired authors.
  • The EC seek meaning and revelation through spiritual experiences pursued together, in community with others.
  • BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
  • God has commanded us to study, understand, and believe His words and to obey His commands
  • God holds us accountable to understand the meaning of His words.
  • The means by which the Christian grows in sanctification and holiness is to better understand and believe the word of God.

Chapter Six - Undefining the Means of Grace (pgs 115-134)

  • EMERGENT CHURCH PERSPECTIVE
  • reject boundaries and definitions - freestyle approach - every congregation designs for themselves what measures they take to approach God.
  • Paganism repackaged
  • pursuit of mysticism
  • focus on spiritual experiences in order to come to God and grow spiritually
  • Many means of grace - same types of influences that infected the Catholic Church - eventually leading to the Reformation
  • Buzzword(s) = "Spiritual Disciplines" and "Lost Secrets"
  • BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
  • Jesus Christ, equally God, lived, died, and was raised from the dead
  • His body ascended into heaven
  • sinless man Jesus Christ, paid our debt of sin with His death on the cross.
  • acceptance an belief results in reconciliation with God.
  • Confidently approach God and offer our requests to Him through prayer.
  • All was recorded in a book by real human beings
  • Interpreted as literal history

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Christmas Prayer - "The Valley of Vision"

A dear brother in the Lord passed this prayer along to me ... I felt it timely and appropriate to share it with you. It is a Puritan prayer from the book - "The Valley of Vision" - may it encourage you and all of us this Christmas season.
Blessings -
GutCheck Ministries

A Christmas Prayer
O source of all good,
What shall I render to thee for the gift of gifts
thine own dear Son, begotten, not created,
my redeemer, proxy, surety, substitute,
His self-emptying incomprehensible,
His infinity of love beyond the heart's grasp.
Herein is wonder of wonders;
He came below to raise me above,
was born like me that I might become like Him.
Herein is love;
When I cannot rise to Him He draws near on wings of grace,
to raise me to Himself.
Herein is power;
When Deity and humanity were infinitely apart
He united them indissolube unity, the uncreated and the created.
Herein is wisdom;
When I was undone, with no will to return to Him,
and no intellect to devise recovery,
He came, God-incarnate, to save me to the uttermost,
as man to die my death,
to shed satisfying blood on my behalf,
to work out a perfect righteousness for me.
O God, take me in spirit to the watchful shepherds, and enlarge my mind;
let me hear good tidings of great joy,
and hearing, beleive, rejoice, praise, adore,
my conscience bathed in an ocean of repose,
my eyes uplifted to a reconciled Father;
Place me with ox, ass, camel, goat,
to look with them upon my Redeemer's face,
and in Him account myself delivered from sin;
Let me with Simeon clasp the new-born child to my heart,
embrace Him with undying faith,
exulting that He is mine and I am his.
In him thou hast given me so much that heaven can give no more.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Emergent Church - Part 1/3

The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity - by Bob DeWaay
Chapter One - The Road to Paradise Imagined (pgs 13-30)
  • Acts 17:30, 31 - The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.
  • Acts 17:30, 31 speak(s) of a literal and future judgment - this notion is rejected by the EC.
  • God's words (inspired scripture) are not used as logical boundaries for humanity in the eyes of the EC
  • Bedrock of Belief System = ESCHATOLOGY
  • The EC has a "hopeful and positive view of God's engagement in the world."
  • God is the future, drawing everything to himself
  • God is still creating and we can be "co-creators" of the world with God.
  • Post-Modern Framework (Deconstruct Christianity)
  • No definitions; that creates categories
  • Categories involve Boundaries
  • Boundaries keep people out
  • Theology of "HOPE" versus Theology of "DESPAIR"
  • Francis Schaeffer (theology of despair): people are despaired because they had no hope of knowing the truth about God, about man, and about the universe.
  • Jurgen Moltmann (theology of hope): based upon the philosophies of Georg Hegel - a Marxist Idealist.
  • Hegel Philosophy: deny absolutes, consider that everything evolves, incompatible opposites - such as good and evil, combine for an improved 3rd option - "The Third Way".
  • Moltmann applied philosophies of Hegel to theology and eschatology.
  • Instead of judgment (no consideration of scripture) the entire world was evolving towards paradise - leaving evil behind ... Theology of Hope.
  • Theology of Hope is based upon the idea that history is not in the direction of divine judgment, but is headed toward the "Kingdom of God" on earth with universal participation.
  • Humanity cannot know that is true until the future
  • The Holy Bible is NOT viewed as the inerrant word of God
  • The EC DENIES that we can know what the Holy Bible really means.
  • All of this captures the Post-Modern attitude
  • Emergent / Post-Modern Philosophy
  • denies the objectivity of 1) Historic Knowledge and 2) Present Knowledge
  • but asserts the objectivity of 1) Future Knowledge

Chapter Two - Undefining God's Mission (pgs 31-50)

  • EMERGENT MISSION (tends to undefined and EC leaders are in disagreement)
  • Improve society now
  • They borrow their beliefs/practices from Catholic Liberalism
  • Christianity's mission is to make the world a tangible "paradise now"
  • The term "MISSIONAL" describes the idea that any works that make the world a better place brings humanity toward the ideal future.
  • Missional for the EC is to find a more generous 3rd Way - not liberal, not conservative
  • Anything that makes the world a better place is a worthy mission - the only mission that DOES NOT make sense is the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins so that humanity can avoid a literal, future judgment.
  • The EC is trying to help God's dreams come true
  • The EC embraces the "SOCIAL GOSPEL"
  • The individual/person on the mission determines its meaning - not the Bible
  • Saving planet earth is essential
  • The Cross: there is no clear meaning regarding the cross or the resurrection. Therefore, the "mission" is undefined and must be discovered.
  • SPECIFICALLY DENY: a mission of proclaiming and escape from God's coming wrath - the EC DOES NOT believe in a pending future judgment.
  • BIBLICAL MISSION (gotta be fair and balanced these days)
  • Preach and Teach the Gospel / spread the "Good News" of Jesus Christ
  • Why is it such good news? - because it provides us sinners with a certain escape from the wrath of God

Chapter Three - Undefining Christian Thinking (pgs 51-72)

  • 2 Timothy 3:7 - always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
  • The EC holds to the position that it is absurd to believe that an author's words can convey the thoughts that he intends the reader to understand. Therefore, the reader is free to give whatever meaning he/she desires to the authors words.
  • The emphasis for the EC is on experience(s)
  • "Words don't have meaning ... experiences do"
  • Spiritual experiences in a group setting are what lead to "Christian" thinking
  • The EC EMBRACE MYSTICISM - truth is experienced rather than understood.
  • This belief allows the EC and its followers to have liberation from the restraints of definition(s)
  • The definitions are from flawed, narrow-minded Christian theologians
  • The EC reject propositional truth and embrace religious existentialism - they do not want the conversation to "divide" humanity.
  • The EC REJECT theological methods that make any type of distinction
  • Agreement vs Disagreement
  • Win vs Loss
  • Good vs Bad
  • Orthodoxy vs Heresy

Emergent Church - Introduction

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3,4

I recently completed a comprehensive book by Bob DeWaay focused on "un-masking" the Emergent Church. I was one of the many who have struggled to understand their message, but DeWaay and his book "The Emergent Church - Undefining Christianity" have sharpened the lens in which I view the apostate church of the 21st century. DeWaay has done a great job in teasing out many of its origins, belief systems, and points of interest surrounding this movement. I say all of this because I recently completed teaching a Biblical Worldview course and when I mentioned the Emergent Church ... I was met with many different reactions - confusion, frustration, bewilderment, and even anger.

So, like any good teacher, I went to find a resource that could help the class. DeWaay's book was my "go-to" publication. God has truly equipped Pastor DeWaay regarding this movement/topic and his writings are critical in trying to grasp what the Emergent Church is all about. He has spoken and had conversations with many of their leaders, attended their conferences, and debated them in a public forum. In my opinion, other than the Holy Scriptures, there is no better resource than Bob DeWaay and his ministry. You can search on your own at Critical Issues Commentary or visit the web page of Twin City Fellowship.

I knew that there was no way that the class would read 200 pages of academically intense material in a matter of 12 days . . . but, DeWaay has done something in this book that allows for even the most novice of researchers to begin to get a handle on the Emergent Church. DeWaay has proceeded each chapter with an "abstract" describing and detailing the main points that you are about to read.

What I did for our class was to put the abstracts into outline form. By doing this, it allowed for each participant to have some type of resource in their hands regarding the Emergent Church. What they have done with the information or are doing with it now is between them and our Lord. Anyway, I spoke with Pastor DeWaay to see if he was agreeable to having me post the outline on this site ... he agreed and here we are! I apologize for the long lead-in, but it was necessary. What I will be doing is posting 2 to 3 chapter outlines from his book within each entry. I pray that this will benefit someone and that you will join in the fight to proclaim TRUTH and fight against the heresy that among us all.
Blessings -
GutCheck Ministries













Monday, December 7, 2009

APOLOGETICS 101 - Part 3


Preface from Brannon Howse - "Building a Biblical Worldview: Verse by Verse"

It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention, and that is certainly the reason this book is in print today. Like many that make up this series, it was written out of my own need as a father. The necessity to teach my children Biblical doctrine weighed heavily on me—not in spite of the fact that they were only 4, 7 and 10 when this book was written but because they were so young and in need of instruction from early on. Hopefully, you think it’s normal that a father would be so concerned about teaching Christian truths to children, but you would be shocked to find out how many parents, and even pastors and Sunday school teachers, do not think about teaching children anything but simplistic Bible stories. They ignore a child’s need to know the truth behind the tales. The American church is in a sad state today because most have neglected doctrine in favor of entertaining stories. I recognize from my own upbringing the astonishing shortcomings of my Christian school and church, and I have been committed to laying the foundation for my own children so they will not be false-converts as was I until an adult. To accomplish the goal of training my children, I turned several years ago to a catechism for children. The book was structured so as to ask a theological and doctrinal question. Then children were to memorize a long paragraph with huge words that most adults could not define. I found myself scratching out certain words and substituting others my children could understand. After a few family devotions with this book, I realized my children were not going to learn sound doctrine this way! Since my family and I travel thousands of miles each year to one speaking engagement after another, I have lots of time to think as I sit behind the wheel of our motor coach. So one day I asked myself, “What do I want my kids to learn”? To that simple question I arrived at a simple answer: I want my kids to learn how to think Biblically. To do that, I knew they had to learn doctrine, and the best source for that is the Bible. After all, which would I rather have them commit to memory: a man-made paragraph or the divinely inspired word of God? Later that day, I typed out 52 questions—one for the kids to work on each week of the year—on my laptop. They are the questions for which I want my children to have a ready answer, from memory, from the Word of God. After coming up with my 52 questions, I searched the Scriptures for just the right verse to quickly answer each question. While I was writing this book, my then 10-year-old son was dreaming about the upcoming hunting season. He imagined owning a particular 20-gauge shotgun and joining me and my two labs for quail and pheasant hunting when he turned 11 early in the fall. Although my son had been saving his pennies, he counted out his jar of coins and bills only to discover he had nowhere near the funds needed to buy his gun. I sensed a motivational opportunity, so once I completed this manuscript, I printed it out and placed it in a three-ring binder. I told him that if he could memorize all 52 verses and be ready to answer any of the 52 questions with the appropriate Bible verse, I would buy the shotgun for him. The challenge resonated with him, and within three days he had memorized the first five verses. He also mapped out a plan to memorize all 52 verses in time to go hunting. Over the next few weeks I asked, “Who created the universe,” and my son would quote John 1:3. “Why is there evil in the world?” He quoted 1 John 3:8. Each time I threw out one of the 52 doctrinal and worldview questions, he answered them with a Bible verse. Wow. How cool, I thought. He’s learning doctrine—and Scripture! My boy is now well on his way to memorizing all 52 verses, and I really can’t wait to buy him that shotgun. He’ll make a great hunting partner. And if the Lord tarries and my son has a son, he can pass along that shotgun, together with the story of why his father bought it for him. The gun will be not only a great family heirloom but the physical symbol of a spiritual dynasty in the making. Oh that his shotgun were passed down to 10 generations of Howse sons as a reward for hiding the Word of God in their hearts!
BRANNON HOWSE August 2007

1. What is God's warning about being deceived and cheated?
Colossians 2:8

2. Why did Jesus Christ have to die for our sins?
2 Corinthians 5:21

3. How does a beleiver live a victorious Christian life?
Galatians 2:20

4. Where does every good gift come from?
James 1:17

5. What does satan desire to do to every person?
1 Peter 5:8

6. What does the Bible say about abortion?
Exodus 21:22-23

7. What does the Bible say about gambling?
2 Thessalonians 3:10 / Proverbs 11:18

8. What does the Bible say about active euthanasia?
Matthew 5:21

9. What should Christians do when they have problems or experience anxiety?
Philippians 4:6-7

10. What is the difference between someone who gains wealth over time through hard work and the person who strives to get rich quickly?
Proverbs 28:20

11. What should be the standard for our thought life and entertainment?
Philippians 4:8

12. What did Jesus say was the first and greatest commandment?
Matthew 22:37

13. What did Peter say about Jesus Christ after living with Him for 3 years?
1 Peter 2:22

14. How can a Christian obtain great gain?
1 Timothy 6:6

15. Who are Christians to imitate or look to as their role model?
Ephesians 5:1

16. What seven things does the Lord hate?
Proverbs 6:16-19

17. Why should we not be surprised or deterred when the world makes fun of our worldview and faith in Jesus Christ?
1 Corinthians 1:18

18. How should Christians live?
Philippians 1:27-28

19. Apart from salvation through Jesus Christ, what is the end result of our sin?
Romans 6:23

20. What does God desire for the wicked?
Ezekiel 33:11

21. What are we to do with every thought?
2 Corinthians 10:5



** (Remember, when you are clicking on the hyperlinks, give it a few seconds to load to the correct verse. And, for a more detailed explanation of the questions/answers you see above - check out the book "Building a Biblical Worldview Verse by Verse" - written by Brannon Howse. You can order you own copy by clicking here.) **

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Copenhagen Global Warming Conference: "Is the U.S. about to jump off a cliff?"

We all know, well most biblically-minded Christians know, that a crisis must occur in order to collapse the United States. I know, I know . . . what about the healthcare crisis, the automotive crisis, Afghanistan, or the "stimulus"/bailout packages. There is a card that is about to be played that trumps all of those mentioned above . . . Global Warming. Now, there has been a ton of speculation surrounding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference in December of 2009. One of the more serious issues being discussed is that the United States will effectivley relinquish its sovreignty (or what sovreignty it has left) over to the rest of the world. Just another feather in the cap of the President of the World, Barack Obama. But before we jump to any conclusion(s) about our current president; let us not forget that George W. Bush did much of the heavy lifting regarding the "globalization" of America at the recent G-20.

Below is a very insightful article by Ben Lieberman that provides some vital details on why all Americans should be concerned about the Copenhagen Conference. Also, linked within this post are two clips; the first being from Lord Christopher Monckton. Lord Monckton recently spoke at a conference held on October 14, 2009 in St. Paul, Minnesota. I am sure it is a clip that many of you are familiar with, but in my opinion . . . it is worth a second look. The second clip is one from Mr. Lieberman himself. I strongly encourage all of you to research these items on your own, discern, and prayerfully consider what your response will be . . .
Blessings -
GutCheck Ministries

Clip #1: Lord Christopher Monckton: October 14, 2009
Slide Presentation: Lord Christopher Monckton - October 14, 2009

Clip #2: Lord Christopher Monckton: October 14, 2009 - full presentation 90 minutes

Clip #3: Ben Lieberman

Full Artilce from Ben Liberman - November 17, 2009

What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference
by Ben Lieberman
Special Report #71

Abstract: In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. negotiators should refuse to sign any climate change treaty that does not include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that would harm the U.S. economy or threaten U.S. sovereignty.

The 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be held in Copenhagen in December. It is the most important international conference on global warming since the 1997 Kyoto conference that produced the Kyoto Protocol. As the U.S. and other delegations prepare for this conference, the American people need to know that, in addition to harming the U.S. economically and environmentally, a new global warming treaty would threaten U.S. sovereignty.

Why Is the Copenhagen Conference Important?
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005, is the major global warming treaty currently in force. Under the treaty, the nations of Europe as well as Japan, Canada, and most other developed countries committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- chiefly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels -- which are blamed for global warming. Generally, these nations are supposed to reduce emissions by 5 percent below 1990 baseline levels by 2012. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty. China, India, and other developing nations have ratified it, but are exempted from any obligation to reduce emissions. Notwithstanding questions about the seriousness of global warming, the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has had no effect on global warming.

Because the Kyoto Protocol's provisions will expire in 2012, Kyoto proponents have identified the Copenhagen conference as the critical meeting for extending and expanding the treaty's targets and timetables beyond 2012. Copenhagen is also seen, especially by Europeans, as an opportunity to force the U.S. to join the other developed countries required to reduce emissions. Hopes of achieving this end rose considerably when President Barack Obama took office. The President will be under pressure to keep his promises to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions.

What Will Be Different in Copenhagen?
The representatives of the nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol and who see it as a success that should be extended have long identified Copenhagen as crucial to the future of global warming policy. Their main objective is to expand the emissions reduction targets set in Kyoto. They also seek to make these stringent targets binding, verifiable, and enforceable and to apply them to the U.S. for the first time. They hope to achieve more meaningful participation from the developing world. However, these goals will make it difficult for many individual nations to agree to any treaty in Copenhagen. U.S. negotiators should stand firm in protecting American interests and not sign any treaty just for the sake of signing a treaty.

Is the Kyoto Protocol Worth Extending?
No. Even aside from the growing doubts about the seriousness of the global warming threat -- the Kyoto Protocol or any other putative global warming solution is only a solution to the extent that a genuine problem exists in the first place -- the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[1] Emissions are increasing in several signatory nations. In several more countries, emissions are declining more slowly than emissions in the U.S., which ironically is not a party to Kyoto.[2]

For example, according to U.N. data, the U.S. reduced emissions by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006, while the 27 European signatories increased their emissions by 0.1 percent.[3] Germany's emissions declined by only 1.7 percent, while Canada's emissions rose 21.3 percent.[4] European Environmental Agency data show that emissions increased in Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain in the decade after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[5]

One key reason for compliance difficulties in Europe has been the tremendous cost of reducing emissions, estimated at $67.75 billion to $170.84 billion through 2008.[6] Despite these high costs for their inadequate efforts to reduce emissions, these European nations claim to want to enact much tougher targets in Copenhagen. Further, Kyoto's exemption for developing nations has proven a far greater oversight than originally believed because these emissions, especially from China, have increased far faster than had been anticipated in 1997. For example, the Senate Byrd-Hagel Resolution warned that developing-nation emissions would exceed those of the developed world "as early as 2015."[7] According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, it happened in 2005.[8]

Was the U.S. Correct to Stay out of Kyoto?
Yes. The U.S. was correct to refuse to participate in this demonstrated failure, particularly because it would have damaged the U.S. economy. An analysis by the Energy Information Administration put the cost of U.S. compliance at up to $400 billion annually.[9]
Beyond the high costs, the Kyoto Protocol has no effective enforcement mechanism: Nothing has happened or will happen to the developed nations that are not in compliance, and developing nations have no obligations. However, U.S. law is unique in that a ratified treaty can have the same status as domestic legislation. Thus, unlike the rest of the world, American businesses would have been forced to comply with U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, the U.S. Senate recognized the pitfalls of this approach even before the Kyoto Protocol. The 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, which passed 95-0, warned the Clinton Administration not to sign any treaty that exempted the developing world or would harm the U.S. economy. The resolution clearly stated that the Senate would not ratify any such treaty.[10] The subsequent Kyoto Protocol violated both conditions, which is why the President never submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

The Senate's guidelines remain a policy that the Obama Administration should follow in Copenhagen. Given that emissions from developing nations are increasing far faster than emissions in the developed world and that no nation has found a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without incurring serious economic harm, the Administration should firmly adhere to these guidelines during the negotiations in Copenhagen.

What Are the Economic Concerns?
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol, the building block for Copenhagen, is similar to the purpose of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, which narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, and of the Kerry-Boxer bill being considered in the U.S. Senate. All three would set limits on emissions from fossil fuels -- the coal, oil, and natural gas that provide America with 85 percent of its energy. Such limits would act as a large energy tax, driving up the energy costs of individuals and consumers, forcing them to use less energy. More stringent emissions targets would require even larger increases in fossil energy prices to further discourage their use.
A Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey found that this energy tax would have serious implications throughout the economy. For a household of four, energy costs (electric, natural gas, gasoline expenses) would rise by $436 in 2012 and by $1,241 by 2035, averaging $829 over that period.[11] Higher energy costs would increase the cost of many other products and services. Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.[12] An initial analysis of the Senate bill finds comparable costs.[13]

Beyond the increased costs imposed on individuals and households, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. The Heritage analysis estimates that net job losses would exceed 1 million on average annually through 2035,[14] even after accounting for the overhyped green jobs. Analyses from the Brookings Institution, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and other institutions found roughly comparable effects.[15]
Assuming proponents of a Copenhagen treaty want targets at least as stringent as those in the Waxman-Markey bill -- a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 baseline levels in 2020 up to an 83 percent reduction by 2050 -- U.S. compliance costs would be similarly high.

Would the Environmental Benefits Be Worth It?
No. First, there are growing doubts about whether global warming really is the crisis it was claimed to be heading into the 1997 Kyoto negotiations.[16] For example, global temperatures have leveled off since then.[17] However, putting the scientific doubts aside for a moment, the Kyoto approach seems unlikely to slow global warming effectively. One scientific study estimated that, even if the treaty reached its targeted emissions reductions, it would reduce the earth's future temperature by about 0.07 degree Celsius by 2050 -- an amount too small to make any difference and impossible to verify because natural variability is far greater.[18] Obviously, more stringent targets at Copenhagen would reduce the temperature more, but not by much, especially if developing nations were still exempt from emissions reductions.

Is U.S. Sovereignty at Risk?
Yes. Kyoto has no international enforcement mechanism with any real teeth. To actually reduce emissions, any successor treaty coming out of Copenhagen would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Domestic U.S. enforcement of the treaty, if ratified, would be problematic enough, but any binding international enforcement provisions would create additional serious problems.
Compliance with such a treaty would require massive changes to the U.S. economy, and U.N. bodies would decide many of the details of those changes. For example, one way to comply with Kyoto or subsequent treaties is to purchase so-called offsets to carbon dioxide emissions. Offsets allow regulated entities to pay others to undertake projects that presumably reduce emissions globally, such as paying landowners to plant trees or bankrolling the installation of solar panels in poor countries. In many cases, companies find offsets cheaper than actually reducing their own emissions. However, these projects have been subject to fraud. For example, some offset projects have not actually reduced emissions, while others involved industrial facilities with unnecessarily high initial emissions for the purpose of profiting by lowering them later.[19] Currently, the Clean Development Mechanism under the U.N. decides which offset projects are acceptable. Thus, unelected international bureaucracies would control this critical aspect of a climate treaty, which would have significant implications for the U.S. economy.

The largest sovereignty threat is that a subsequent treaty may create an international enforcement authority to determine whether signatories -- including the U.S. -- are in compliance with the treaty provisions and to deal with perceived violations. For example, a non-U.S.-controlled body could decide whether American companies must shut down coal-fired power plants. The Administration should avoid signing any such treaty because it would seriously infringe on U.S. national sovereignty.

What Do China and Other Developing Nations Want from Copenhagen?
Led by China, the developing world clearly prefers the Kyoto approach, particularly the exemption from emissions reductions.[20] Developing nations recognize the tradeoff between economic development and emissions reductions, and they have chosen economic development. These nations want any agreement in Copenhagen to continue Kyoto beyond 2012. While insisting on continued exemptions, the developing world is demanding that the developed nations undertake stringent new emissions reductions beyond Kyoto and provide massive aid to assist poor countries in voluntarily reducing emissions.

What Will Likely Happen in Copenhagen?
The Copenhagen conference has been billed as the next major global warming deal, with strong new emissions reduction targets that are binding and enforceable. Yet despite the buildup for more than a year, political and economic realities will likely influence its outcome for the better.
The rift between the developed and developing world is still wide. For the most part, developed nations have recognized that the whole process is futile without meaningful involvement by major developing nations, but China, India, and others have refused to agree to such provisions. The prospect for massive aid packages from the developed world is also proving to be a nonstarter among the nations expected to pay the bill. There is also the growing realization that the Kyoto Protocol is a failure and therefore not a good model for Copenhagen. Finally, the obvious harm of imposing such costly measures in the midst of a global recession has also slowed momentum. Thus, Copenhagen presents an opportunity to change the direction of the post-Kyoto debate.

What Should the Administration Do?
The Obama Administration, although far more in favor of a global warming agreement than the Bush Administration, has acknowledged many of these realities, including the fact that domestic legislation is stalled in the Senate and unlikely to be enacted before the Copenhagen conference. U.S. negotiators at preliminary meetings have stated that they expect China and other major developing nations to undertake new obligations and that any agreement will not include massive wealth transfers to poor countries. Thus, the distance between the U.S. and developing world positions is still significant. The U.S. team has also admitted that the Kyoto approach has proven problematic, suggesting that climate change policy may need to focus more on domestic provisions enacted by each nation than Kyoto-style multilateral agreements.

At a minimum, U.S. negotiators should comply with the provisions of the Byrd-Hagel resolution and refuse to sign any climate change treaty that fails to include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that threatens to harm the U.S. economy. They should also refuse to sign any treaty that would threaten U.S. sovereignty.
This will likely mean no new treaty from Copenhagen, but negotiators should not agree to provisions that will harm the U.S. solely for the sake of signing a treaty.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
*** PDF format of article can be found at The Heritage Foundation ***

[1]. Press release, "UNFCC: Rising Industrialized Countries Emissions Underscore Urgent Need for Political Action on Climate Change," U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 16, 2008, at http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/081117_ghg_press_release.pdf (December 11, 2008); U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "International Energy Annual 2006," Table H.1co2, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls(December 11, 2008); Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working," August 2007, at http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf (December 11, 2008).
[2]. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Formats.
[3]. Ibid.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. European Environment Agency, Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2007 and Inventory Report 2009, May 27, 2009, p. 16, Table ES.7, at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-community-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2009/european-community-ghg-inventory-2014-full-report.pdf (November 10, 2009).
[6]. Matthew Sinclair, "The Expensive Failure of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme," TaxPayers' Alliance, October 2009, at http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf (November 10, 2009).
[7]. S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st Sess.
[8]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, pp. 109-117, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html (November 2, 2009).
[9]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and the Economy," October 1998, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html (November 13, 2009).
[10]. S. Res. 98.
[11]. David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell, William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 09-04, p. 2, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. David Kreutzer, "EPA's Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill," The Foundry, October 27, 2009, at http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/27/epa̢۪s-economic-analysis-of-the-boxer-kerry-cap-and-trade-bill (November 10, 2009).
[14]. Kreutzer et al., p. 2.
[15]. Warwick McKibbin, Pete Wilcoxen, and Adele Morris, "Consequences of Cap and Trade," Brookings Institution, June 8, 2009, at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate_change_economy/20090608_climate_change_economy.pdf (July 9, 2009), and David Montgomery et al., "Impact on the Economy of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)," CRA International, May 2009. See also Nicolas Loris, "Cap and Trade: A Comparison of Cost Estimates," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2550, July 20, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2550.cfm.
[16]. See Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heartland Institute, June 2009, at http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf (November 10, 2009).
[17]. See Craig Loehle, "Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data," Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 7 (2009), pp. 1087-1098.
[18]. T. M. L. Wigley, "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 25, No. 13 (1998), pp. 2285-2288.
[19]. Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret."
[20]. David Fogarty, "Senior G77 Members Protest Steps to Change Kyoto Pact," Reuters, October 7, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59623R20091007 (November 10, 2009).



Monday, November 16, 2009

Frankfurt School Migration to the United States



Origins of Cultural Marxism . . . Oops, I mean Political Correctness


The Frankfurt School was a group of German intellectuals (Marxists) that organized in 1923. There main goal was the elimination of Christianity from the culture. The direct result of the elimination of Christianity would be 1) the fall of the traditional family, 2) the influence of the church would be silenced, and 3) capitalistic societies and the free market would be destroyed. In 1933 the Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, came to power in Germany. This event led the members of the Frankfurt school to flee to America. Their infiltration into America was aided by none other than John Dewey.



You might know Dewey better as, "The Father of Modern Education" here in the United States. But, he also co-authored the "Humanist Manifesto I". Dewey was determined to place these German Marxists at leading college(s) and universities throughout the USA. He emphasized placing these people within the institutions of education and media. He was helped in his efforts by a man by the name of Edward R. Murrow ("Good Night and Good Luck" - a recent movie starring George Clooney romanticized the life of this man). Murrow became Assistant Secretary of the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced German Scholars in 1934. He also joined the American Russian Institute (co-founded by John Dewey) and later became a famous broadcaster for CBS.



He gained national fame when he led a witchhunt against U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy was leading the charge and calling for investigations into the media and educational establishments as it related to Communism and the Frankfurt School. Murrow knew that McCarthy was on to something and went on to use his position to destroy the credibility of McCarthy.



Murrow also brought Herbert Marcuse to America. Marcuse was influenced by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. We all know Marcuse by his famous phrase, "Make love not War". This famous phrase along with his writings were the framework of the counter-cultural revolution that occurred during the sixties. As you can see, Political Correctness aka Cultural Marxism, can be traced back all the way to the 1920s. Sadly, these philosophies have not died out over time. If anything they have gained momentum . . . right under the noses of the American people and right in front of the face of the American church. Who knew that by being silent on cultural/philosophical issues, the church itself, would help accomplish one of the Frankfurt School(s) main goals discussed in 1923.

For more information on the Frankfurt School go to the following links . . .

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/05/11/the-frankfurt-school-and-the-war-on-the-west/

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html



Thursday, November 12, 2009

APOLOGETICS 101 - Part 2

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." - 2 Timothy 2:15


** Remember, the verses take a few seconds to load when clicking on the links **


1. What does every person deserve for sin?



2. What is the result of godly sorrow?



3. What roles do the heart and mind play in salvation?



4. What did the disciples do when they went out two by two?



5. What is the fear of the Lord?



6. What does the Bible state about those who do not believe in God?



7. Why is important to think biblically?



8. Where did the scriptures come from, and for what do they prepare us?



9. What three nouns can be ascribed to Jesus?



10. Why is the resurrection of Jesus Christ so important?



(If you are interested in getting all 52 questions with answers and explanations - visit the following link.)

The Path of Repentance - by John Loftness

It is funny how our Father works in our lives . . . I am currently reading a couple of books that, to say the least, are very convicting and humbling. One of the books is entitled "Respectable Sins" authored by Jerry Brideges. In a recent chapter (Chapter 7 / "Ungodliness"), Bridges does a great job in explaining and detailing the concepts of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Something that really stuck out to me was the differentiation between ungodliness and unrighteousness. Ungodliness describes an attitude toward God, while unrighteousness refers to sinful actions in thought, word, or deed. (page 53; "Respectable Sins") Bottomline - we are all Ungodly - ouch!



To that end, the second book that the Father is using to refine me and many other brothers, is authored by Joshua Harris entitled "Sex is not the problem, lust is". In chapter 4, A Custom-Tailored Plan: Where Am I Weakest and What Can I Do? Harris presents a plan/list of seven steps formulated by John Loftness for repentance. The steps are radical, but like Harris and Bridges both underline in their respective books, we must be willing to be radical for the sake of holiness . . . which is the opposite of ungodliness! Below is the list that John Loftness has created. It is my hope and prayer that this plan/list will be a blessing to you as we all strive to throw off ungodliness and by God's grace become more holy.


Blessings -


GutCheck Ministries




The Path of Repentance
by John Loftness


1 - Pray: establish your dependence on God by praying for the Holy Spirit's help in this process.
2 - Identify the Sin: define its practice in biblical terms, define your heart's motive for sin in biblical terms, and define the lie - the false belief - that created this motive and its acts.
3 - Embrace the Gospel: meditate on how your sin offends God; cultivate sorrow, meditate on the fact that God sent Jesus to die in your place to overcome the offense this sin created, pray and admit your sin to God and ask Him to forgive you and to account this sin to Jesus' death on your behalf.
4 - Take Steps to Stop: Collect on paper what the Bible says about your sin, its consequences, your forgiveness in Christ, and the Spirit's power at work in you to change; Purpose to change your thinking and your behavior; Purpose to chage behavior that increases temptation.
5 - Replace Your Sin with Righteousness: "Put on Christ." If you are a Christian, you are joined to Jesus Christ. His Spirit dwells within you. You can think and act as He does!
6 - Seek Fellowship as a Means of Grace: Inform godly friends or a pastor of your sin and the process you are engaging in to change.
7 - Review: Steps 1 through 5 daily, Step 6 for regular accountability.




Thursday, November 5, 2009

APOLOGETICS 101 - Part 1


Can you defend your faith? Are you doing your best to present yourself to God as one approved or are you serving God leftovers? As Biblical Christians, we must influence our culture and not merely reflect it. To influence the culture, Biblical Christians must know what they believe, why they believe it, and defend their belief. Below is the first entry entitled "APOLOGETICS 101". Each entry will consist of 10 questions that all Biblical Christians need to be able to answer. It is my hope and prayer that you will utilize the questions to challenge yourself to become more biblically minded.
As stated in 2 Timothy 4:2; "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching."
FYI . . . (clicking on the verses will take you to bible.logos - wait a few seconds for the specific verses to load)
Blessings -
GutCheck Ministries


1. Who created the universe?
John 1:3

2. Why is there evil in the world?
1 John 3:8

3. For what primary purpose was mankind created?
1 Corinthians 10:31

4. Who is God?
John 4:24

5. Is there more than one God?
Isaiah 45:5-6

6. What is sin?
1 John 3:4

7. Who has sinned?
Romans 3:23

8. What is the purpose of the moral law or the Ten Commandments?
Romans 7:7

9. Can a person be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments or the moral law?
Galatians 2:21

10. Why was Jesus Christ willing to die for us?
Romans 5:8
For a comprehensive explanation of each question/verse visit www.christianworldviewnetwork.com to order "Building a Biblical Worldview Verse by Verse or click here.

Liberal Church Becoming Mainstream



Leftist Church Leaders vs. Free Speech
by Michelle Malkin
The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk-radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.
Over the last week, an outfit called “So We Might See” has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” — specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk-show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions against illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?

The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the National Council of Churches. These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.

Open-borders groups have sought to marginalize, criminalize and demonize those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy on illegal alien amnesty opponents. During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” project to redefine tough policy criticism from the right as “hate.” La Raza President Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to Broadcasting and Cable News.

Now the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House — and they won’t let him forget it.
Their FCC petition calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves.”

Unsurprisingly, far-left billionaire George Soros’ money is backing the So We Might See/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.

Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the So We Might See campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging the congregants to take action on “media reform: “We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that, and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening, and we need to fix it.”
Read full article by clicking the following link:

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Christianity According to John - 10 Hallmarks of a Christian

Recently, I have been thinking about what it means to be a Christian? What does it really mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ? Does my life, my behavior, and speech reflect what I believe in my heart? I know I am not the only one who has ever posed these questions, but for many reasons I could not come to any satisfactory conclusions.

I came across a presentation that I attended 3 years ago that attempted to provide some answers to those questions mentioned above. The presentation included 10 hallmarks or signs of a Christian. The book of focus was I John and the hallmarks/signs submitted were convicting to say the least. Praise God for bringing this presentation back to my attention. My challenge to all of you out there is this;

(1) Review the 10 hallmarks below . . .
(2) Read, Study, and Pray over the scripture verses provided . . .
(3) Go to the Father in prayer and ask Him for wisdom and discernment concerning your own life.

I know I will be on my face in the coming days . . . . .

10 HALLMARKS of a CHRISTIAN
1. They admit they are a sinner (1 John 1:8)
2. They live a life of obedience more than disobedience (1 John 2:3-6, 3:6, 5:2)
3. They do not harbor hatred, but offer compassion (1 John 2:9, 2:11, 3:15, 4:16, 4:20)
4. They do not love the world or the world system (1 John 2:15)
5. They proclaim Christ as the Son of God (1 John 4:15)
6. They long for their return home to the Father (1 John 3:2-3)
7. They desire to serve and help other Christians (1 John 3:17, 3:14)
8. They enjoy being with other believers (1 John 5:1)
9. They reject false teaching (I John 2:22-23)
10. They remain in the truth and persevere in the faith (1 John 2:24)

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Can the Bible be trusted?

Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?
By Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson

During a question and answer session at a recent speaking engagement, a university student asked me, “Why do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?” Now this is a very interesting question; and probably one of the most important questions any Christian could ask themselves. What is so special, so unique about the Bible that Christians believe it is literally the inspired word of God?

In answering this student’s question, I encouraged him to consider the following facts about the Bible:

First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common misconception than many people realize, especially with people who do not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic just to name a few.

Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never knew one another personally.

Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.

Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.

And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Once again, this is a testament to the varied historical and cultural circumstances of God’s people. Read more here . . .

Emergent Church - Pastor Bob Dewaay discusses a recent conference

mp3 Audio

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Code Blue Rally


Why Code Blue?

This is a medical term used to indicate a patient is requiring immediate resuscitation. Numerous studies reveal that the American church is in need of spiritual resuscitation because many Christian teens and adults think no differently than the world. Through Worldview Weekend's Code Blue Rally we seek to train adults and teens to understand the times, acquire a Biblical worldview for all areas of life and contend for the faith. Code blue means that there is no time to waste, an emergency exists, and a pro-active response is necessary in order to save lives.

Ft Wayne, Indiana
Worldview Weekend Rally


Date: Saturday Night, October 24, 2009

Time: 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Location: Hilton Garden Inn Fort Wayne
8615 US 24 West
FT. Wayne, IN 46804



Cost: The Worldview Weekend Rally is free but you must register online and print out a ticket. Click here to register now.

Topics include: How This Happened to America, Where We Are Going and The Biblical Response; How This Can Be The Greatest Hour For the American Church; How to Prepare the Remnant For What is Coming; The Worldviews and People Destroying America From the Grave and How Every Teen and Adult Must Respond To Be Protected; Refuting Evolution; What Happened to the Dinosaurs; The Impact of Evolution on America; Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism; How to Contend For The Faith in the 21st Century; Why Oprah's Pagan Spirituality is Doubling in America Every Eighteen Months and a Christian Response; Why Worldview Training Matters and Students Want it; What The Bible Has to Say About The Coming One-World Religion, One-World Economy and Global Governance.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Respectable Sins - The new "C" word: SIN

Our small group recently finished a discussion regarding the Malignancy of Sin. The phrase, "The Malignancy of Sin" is a chapter heading in a book authored by Jerry Bridges - Respectable Sins. Bridges draws on the terms cancer (the "c" word) and malignancy to really drive home the notion that SIN (the new "c" word) is a spiritual and moral malignancy. Wow, that analogy really hit me hard.

SIN is the spiritual cancer that will ultimately lead to our death. Question - what does the majority of the population do when they get a cold? Maybe go to the local CVS to get some OTC medication, Kleenex, and some 7-UP. If it is something serious, we may go see a doctor and if it is cancer - a doctor is a must! That got me thinking . . . what do a majority of Christians do when we have a spiritual cold? Do we go to the Father or do we wait until we have spiritual cancer? These spiritual cold symptoms are what Bridges refers to as "Respectable Sins".

These respectable sins are anything from anxiety and frustration to pride and worldliness. And, if they go without attention they can metastasize into other areas of life, into our families, and damage our walk with the Father. These respectable sins are just as dangerous and must be brought to feet of our great physician, the Father. Bridges underlines this notion on page 25 when he states,"The acceptable sins are subtle in the sense that they deceive us into thinking they are not so bad, or not thinking of them as sins, or even worse, not even thinking about them at all!" When we get mad or become anxious are we aware that we are grieving the heart of our heavenly Father? Bridges underscores this on page 29, "This means that all of our rebellion, all of our despising of God and His law, all of our grieving His Holy Spirit, all of our presuming on His grace, all of our sin, is done openly in the very presence of God. It's as if we are acting out all of our sin before Him as He sits on His royal throne."

Question - do you believe in the omnipresence of our Lord? If you answered yes, do you live your life like it? Do you think about it when you are anxious or angry? Do we grasp that every sinful thought and action is done in front of God? The following words from David were very convicting; "O Lord, you have searched me and know me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether." (Psalm 139:1-4)

Let us remember, God forgives our sin because of the blood that was shed on the cross by Jesus Christ, but He does not and will not tolerate it. May we put on the armor of God, may we rely on Him for everything, may we go to His Word and not the world for what to do next. Let us be reminded that sin, "respectable" or not, is still sin and will not go un-noticed by the Father. It is my prayer that we can recognize our sin, that we can realize that we are totally depraved. Our depravity can only be erased by Jesus and it is only through Him that we can have access to the Father.
Blessings -
GutCheck Ministries

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

New World Order - On the Horizon?

G-20 Summit: Start of a New World Order?
Tuesday September 29, 2009

Did the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh mark the beginning of a new world economic order? Yes, according to an article in the BBC. The G-20 Summit proposals go far beyond just increasing banks' capital requirements. The G-20 seeks to regulate hedge funds, tax havens and executive pay - something that would have been unthinkable before the economic crisis.

The G-20 proposals are "unprecedented," according to Tim Ryan, chief executive officer of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The industry does not like the proposals, saying increased regulations will hamper the ability of banks to recover from the recession. This is a good point. However, the G-20 has been asking for these regulation for two years. This is the first time the U.S. has been willing to agree.



The Summit established a new Financial Stability Board which establishes common financial regulations for all G-20 countries. The Board will work with the World Bank and the IMF who have been subcontracted to implement many of these policies.

New regulations will:

•Require banks to hold more capital, providing a cushion to prevent further bailouts.
•Tie executive pay to long-term, not short-term, performance.
•Make sure companies that are "too big to fail," like AIG, to develop international contingency plans so their collapse wouldn't threaten the entire global economy.
•Move all derivatives contracts onto exchanges or electronic platforms so they can be better monitored.