Manifestations in the Church

Robert Liichow, a former member of Benny Hinn’s circus, now has an apologetics ministry aimed mainly at the Word of Faith movement, TBN, and that sort of stuff. I previously read one of his earlier books, The Two Roots of Today’s Revival, and found it to be very well researched, so I decided to read another one, Blessing or Judgment? The Origin of Manifestations in the Church.

If you are interested in learning the origins of “holy laughter,” “slain in the spirit,” “spiritual drunkenness, animal noises and “gold teeth” found so prominently in the “revival” movement (Toronto, Brownsville, Lakeland, et al), this book has very good background research and gives an excellent, biblical critique, demonstrating the occult origins of all these manifestations.

An interesting note I have read elsewhere but found reiterated here is the fact that those seeking some of these manifestations are actually told NOT to pray in Jesus’ name: “While on the prayer team, we were instructed NOT to pray in Jesus’ name. We were told NOT to pray for the needs of the people. The only thing we were to do was touch people on their forehead and say, ‘More, Lord!’ and keep repeating that until there was an ‘impartation’ of the spirit being promoted in the meeting…Any deviation from the limited procedure would result in being removed from the prayer team, which did happen to a few individuals.”

That is bizarre! Liichow makes a very good point when he says, “We must not try to make the scriptures fit our experience. Rather, we must take our spiritual experiences to the Bible to see if they fit; if they do not, then we must abandon our non-biblical experiences.”

This is just a small taste of what Liichow has in store - this is what the book is about. Add this one to your apologetics library.

Leave the ELCA!

On June 12^th I wrote that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was apostate. Since that time the church hierarchy has proven my point.

Last week the ELCA held a conference and on Wednesday voted on a “social statement on human sexuality,” which said the ELCA, according to an AP article, “could accommodated diverging views on homosexuality.” Two thirds of the 1,045 delegates voted to pass this statement.

Question for the ELCA: Where do you find biblical authority for diverging views on what God has called an abomination?

Not to be outdone, on Friday they voted to let sexually active gays and lesbians serve as clergy, as long as they are in committed relationships. Previously they could serve only if they remained celibate. The vote passed with 68% approval.

Question for the ELCA: Do any of you who voted for this stuff ever read your Bible? If homosexuality is abhorrent to God, and if God calls homosexual behavior a sin, how can you justify such behavior to the point where those who are practitioners are permitted to be leaders in the Church?!?!?!

Question for the ELCA: Will you next sanction adultery? What about fornication? What about pedophilia? Or perhaps prostitution is acceptable? What sexual immorality do you not condone, and why?

As I have asked about the Episcopal Church, if you are a true Christian can you explain why you would remain a member of this denomination?

“THE PRAYER OF JABEZ” - An Analysis of the Book by Bruce Wilkinson

I'm still seeing this book in the book stores, and can't figure out why it is still so popular except that it tickles the ears. I first heard about this book eight years ago; I had read about it being very poor hermeneutics, but just chalked it up as another fad until Emmaus Bible College was passing it out to their graduates, one of whom was a daughter of a friend.


Emmaus Bible College is a solid, fundamental Bible college, so I was quite surprised at the content of this book when I borrowed it to see for myself what the clamor was about. I then did a review of the book for members of the church I was attending at the time to warn people away from this poor teaching. Here is the review I did then, and I think it is a good idea that we remember this book and the problems with it so as to avoid the other similar stuff from the same author.


In his letter to the Colossians, Paul wrote, “God has hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ. I say this so that no one will mislead you with arguments that merely sound good.” (Col. 2:3-4, GWN) In this analysis I will demonstrate that Mr. Wilkinson’s book is no more than “arguments that merely sound good.”


The prayer of Jabez is found in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10: “Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. His mother had named him Jabez, saying, ‘I gave birth to him in pain.’ Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, ‘Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.’ And God granted his request.” (NIV)


There is nothing more in the Bible about Jabez. None of the prophets of the Old Testament, nor Jesus or the apostles ever mention this prayer. For 2000 years this verse has not been mentioned as having any significance, yet Mr. Wilkinson claims if we say this prayer daily (like a New Age mantra), “God’s great plan for you will surround you and sweep you forward into the profoundly important and satisfying life He has waiting..” (P.17)


What do we really know from this passage?
1. Jabez sounds like the Hebrew word for pain (this is from any commentary). His mother “gave birth to him in pain.” That is the origin of his name.
2. Since he is noted as “more honorable than his brothers,” we can infer he was a righteous man and had an established relationship with God.
3. Based on this obvious previous relationship, we are told of a particular prayer that God granted. We are not told that this was Jabez’s only prayer, nor would that be a logical assumption. The plain teachings of Scripture would tell us that Jabez must have had a previous intimate relationship with God that would lead to this prayer, since a relationship with God is required of anyone receiving blessing from Him.
4. This was a prayer by Jabez and no one else.


Without any Scriptural support, Mr. Wilkinson makes the following claims about this passage:


1. It is “a daring prayer that God always answers.” (Preface). Do we have any evidence that anyone else ever prayed this prayer before Wilkinson wrote this book? Do we have evidence that everyone who prays this gets answered?


2. It is “the key to a life of extraordinary favor with God.” (Preface). Where does Scripture say another person’s prayer is a key to our life of favor with God?


3. “The Jabez prayer distills God’s powerful will for your future.” (p.12) Again, where is the Biblical evidence?


4. “It reveals that your Father longs to give you so much more than you may have ever thought to ask for.” (p.17) The Bible says God gave him his request, not “so much more than...[Jabez] thought to ask for.”


5. “Jabez was blessed simply because he refused to let any obstacle, person, or opinion loom larger than God’s nature. And God’s nature is to bless.” (p.29). Where does Scripture say this about Jabez?


6. When Jabez asked for increased territory, according to Wilkinson he was asking for “more influence, more responsibility, and more opportunity to make a mark for the God of Israel.” (p.30) No place in the passage is this stated or even hinted at. This is complete eisegesis (reading into a passage what isn’t there). Then Wilkinson goes on to say that our use of this prayer as a rote petition will be a request for ministry opportunities. Does this prayer even remotely make this request? This is making it mean whatever you want it to mean.


7. “Thereafter his life was spared from the grief and pain that evil brings.” (p.74) Scripture doesn’t say this, so it must be a new revelation by God to Mr. Wilkinson. Scripture says that God granted Jabez’s prayer, part of which was asking to be kept free from harm so he would be free from pain. This does not say he didn’t suffer grief and pain from evil. All we can assume is that God kept him from harm, but this doesn’t necessarily correlate to eliminating grief caused by evil, or even emotional distress from others’ actions against him. Is it not possible to be protected from harm that brings physical pain and still suffer grief and emotional pain from the evil in the world?


8. Jabez was a “man who had no future.” (p.12) I challenge anyone to find this claim in the cited passage! We have no idea what kind of future Jabez would have had.


9. Mr. Wilkinson speculates about what caused pain for his mother (other than childbirth?), and that, since Jabez knew of God’s miracles, he figured he should be able to just ask the most from God and expect to receive it. (pp.20-21). We do not know from the passage what Jabez was thinking, so how can Wilkinson say this?


Mr. Wilkinson says he has prayed this prayer every morning for over 30 years, and that it has brought him great blessings and miracles, although he has given no evidence for any miracle, and blessings he claims can be very subjective. The premise of the book is that, by praying this prayer regularly:


1. “...thousands of believers...are seeing miracles happen on a regular basis.” (Preface). Yet he gives no evidence of real miracles that happened.


2. “Let me tell you of a guaranteed by-product of sincerely seeking His blessing: Your life will become marked by miracles. How do I know? Because He promises it, and I’ve seen it happen in my own.” (p.24) To begin with, a miracle is something that happens outside of natural causes, and Wilkinson fails to give any example of this taking place. He also says it is a guarantee, which means that God has no choice in the matter. He does not show from Scripture where God promises us miracles and life changes by praying this prayer!


3. “Through a simple, believing prayer, you can change your future. You can change what happens one minute from now.” (p.29) Out of context I can say this is a true statement, if one is talking about the prayer of a sinner coming to Christ. However, since the prayer Wilkinson is talking about is the prayer of Jabez, he can muster no Scriptural evidence for this claim.


On p.27 Wilkinson cites Matt.7:7 and James 4:2, and then interprets them as follows: “Even though there is no limit to God’s goodness, if you didn’t ask Him for a blessing yesterday, you didn’t get all that you were supposed to have.” There is no Scriptural support for this claim, and it limits God by our actions. This also takes these passages beyond any meaning of the original writer’s intentions.


On p.47 he states that, “As God’s chosen, blessed sons and daughters, we are expected to attempt something large enough that failure is guaranteed... unless God steps in.” He then continues, “It is God’s plan for His most-honored servants.” Again, there is no evidence from Scripture to support these claims, and it begs the question of testing God.


Although Mr. Wilkinson’s teaching about seeking increased opportunities for ministry is a noble one, we cannot justify twisting of Scripture to support it, and his unbiblical claims warrant our discernment. Mr. Wilkinson has taken an obscure prayer and has made it into a superstitious charm, a mantra to be said every morning to ensure God’s blessings. Since the book propagates error and has “arguments that merely sound good,” it should be avoided by Christians.

Let Us Emulate Paul's Teaching

So many of our modern “pastors” in the seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven, Word-of-Faith, and even Emergent churches do a lot of preaching from various psychological theories instead of Scripture. They want to entertain or soft-soap the message so as not to offend. Then there are those like Mark Driscoll who seem to be trying to shock people with crude, offensive and even blasphemous language. Of course many of these are very arrogant in their whole approach, especially if you dare question their teaching; “touch not the Lord’s anointed!”

This week I began reading 1 Corinthians for my morning studies, and I came across this passage, which I think EVERY pastor should review:

“When I came to you, brothers, announcing the testimony of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith might not be based on men’s wisdom but on God’s power." 1 Cor. 2:1-5, HCSB.

In the course of my Bible reading, I have been using William MacDonald’s “Believer’s Bible Commentary.” MacDonald has some good stuff to say about this passage:

2:1 The apostle now reminds the saints of his ministry among them and how he sought to glorify God and not himself. He came to them proclaiming the testimony of God, not with excellence of speech or of wisdom. He was not at all interested in showing himself off as an orator or philosopher. This shows that the Apostle Paul recognized the difference between ministry that is soulish and that which is spiritual. By soulish ministry, we mean that which amuses, entertains, or generally appeals to man’s emotions. Spiritual ministry, on the other hand, presents the truth of God’s word in such a way as to glorify Christ and to reach the heart and conscience of the hearers.

2:2 The content of Paul’s message was Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Jesus Christ refers to His Person, while Him crucified refers to His work. The Person and work of the Lord Jesus form the substance of the Christian evangel.

2:3 Paul further emphasizes that his personal demeanor was neither impressive nor attractive. He was with the Corinthians in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. The treasure of the gospel was contained in an earthen vessel that the excellence of the power might be of God and not of Paul. He himself was an example of how God uses weak things to confound the mighty.

2:4 Neither Paul’s speech nor his preaching were in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Some suggest that his speech refers to the material he presented and his preaching to the manner of its presentation. Others define his speech as his witness to individuals and his preaching as his messages to groups. According to the standards of this world, the apostle might never have won an oratorical contest. In spite of this, the Spirit of God used the message to produce conviction of sin and conversion to God.

2:5 Paul knew that there was the utmost danger that his hearers might be interested in himself or in his own personality rather than in the living Lord. Conscious of his own inability to bless or to save, he determined that he would lead men to trust in God alone rather than in the wisdom of men. All who proclaim the gospel message or teach the word of God should make this their constant aim.

Can you imagine the church today if all of our pastors emulated Paul in their preaching? What a difference it would make!

King James Version Only?

I have studied the whole issue of the “King James Only” controversy for several years now, as well as studying the issue of biblical translational philosophy (formal vs. dynamic). I have a whole shelf of books on the subjects in my personal library.

Now, I am not going to entertain debates or arguments of any sort in relation to the merits of which Bible version is better, etc. I want only to make a few points about the “KJV Only” issue because of the cultish nature of some KJV only believers.

1. The KJV is NOT the inspired Word of God. It is man’s translation, and quite a fallible one at that, with many errors. And if you want to argue for KJV only, then which version are you claiming?

2. Most other English versions are quite acceptable for teaching the Christian faith. People do indeed come to Christ through their usage. (Yes, there are abominable so-called “translations,” such as the New World Translation, the Joseph Smith Translation, the Clear Word Bible, The Message, et al)

3. Christians who use other versions are not of the devil and are not new age conspiracists.

4. Since the KJV itself is not inspired, it is redundant to call any other version a “Non Inspired Version” (as I have heard the NIV referred to).

5. There is no conspiracy to bring in “new age” versions of the Bible. (Unless you want to say the conspiracy is one of Satan, who wants to distort the Word of God.) This includes other conspiracies which supposedly involve the Catholic Church, the Illuminati and other organizations that probably don’t exist either.

6. Having a Christian assembly based on everyone accepting only the KJV as the Word of God is cultish. Period.

7. 1611 English makes the KJV an excellent tool for false teachers, and all sorts of cults and aberrational teachings are based on misunderstanding 400 year-old English!

With the abysmally poor reading skills of the average person on the street, it is very difficult to reach people using Elizabethan English. As problematic as the NIV is, I have found it to be a much better version for reaching non-believers, although my Bible of preference for passing out tends to be the NKJV or ESV. However, I do not neglect to explain that the NIV is often interpretive more than translative (if that’s a word!) We can use any English translation if we understand its limitations, and not be propagating “new age” versions.

So for all you KJV Onlyers, lighten up! There are a lot more serious issues to be addressed, such as cultic and other false teachings. It isn’t usually the particular English version which leads to false teachings, it is the misuse of the Bible in general.

Episcopals Can't Understand Scripture! Follow Up

On June 10th I noted that the Episcopal Church was preparing "a paper on same-sex relationships in the life of the church." Well, the deal is now done.

The following is from TimesOnLine today
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6716407.ece) [1/6/12- link is gone]

Bishops in the US dealt a death blow to hopes for unity in the worldwide Anglican Church when they approved in principle services for same-sex partnerships. The decision will finally split the Communion between Bible-based conservative evangelicals and liberal modernisers.

The bishops at the Episcopal General Convention voted by 104 to 30 to “collect and develop theological resources and liturgies” for blessing same-sex relationships, to be considered at the next convention in 2012.

The resolution notes the growing number of states that allow gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and gives bishops in those regions discretion to provide a “generous pastoral response” to couples in local parishes. It was passed on Wednesday, hours after the Episcopal Church voted on Tuesday to allow the consecration of gay bishops. The motion passed by 99 to 45 among the bishops and by 72 per cent to 28 per cent among church deputies, made up of clergy and laity.

As I have stated previously, the Episcopal Church is nothing short of apostate and should be abandoned by all true Christians in that denomination.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be a Humanist

I read a book about 15 years ago, titled, “The Philosophy of Humanism,” by Corliss Lamont. It is considered “the standard text on the subject.” I got to thinking about this book recently and pulled it down to look over some things I had highlighted in it.

Let me share some things I came across, and you’ll notice these guys need a lot more faith in their religion than do Christians.

“There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy: First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes man is an evolutionary product of the Nature of which he is part; that his mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of his brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality he can have no conscious survival after death.”

Notice “Nature” is capitalized! Nature is their god, and evolution is the power of their god. Sort of reminds me of Romans 1:25. Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze me how these guys make assertions about the mind - something that is immaterial and spiritual - when no one has ever observed it!

Further in the book Lamont makes this bold assertion: “I believe that the facts of science offer overwhelming evidence in support of the Humanist thesis of the inseparable coexistence of body and personality. To begin with, biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution probably stretching over at least three billions years….” I would really like to see these scientific “facts” that Lamont speaks of!

Lamont makes a lot of these sorts of assertions throughout the book, never once providing evidence for his beliefs, rather it is just because he says so that you are supposed to accept his ideas. Especially in his chapter titled, “This Life is All and Enough.” Well, he also does a lot of that in chapter IV, “Humanism’s Theory of the Universe,” which you can well imagine is 100% evolutionist silliness. Here’s his first bold assertion in this chapter:

“Humanism believes that Nature itself constitutes the sum total of reality…and that supernatural entities simply do not exist. This nonreality of the supernatural means, on the human level, that men do not possess supernatural and immortal souls; and, on the level of the universe as a whole, that our cosmos does not possess a supernatural and eternal God.”

Later Lamont says, “the scientific concept of evolution…effectively negates the old religious idea of a divine creation of the whole universe.” The interesting thing about this is that all the atheistic evolutionists see the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity, but too many Christians think they can merge the two together.

“Matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic.” Wow, this sounds like attributes of God, doesn‘t it? So where does matter get all this power and thought process?

Oh, and is there such thing as “Truth” to the humanist? “A careful analysis of both the natural and the social sciences shows, in the first place, that we do not attain something that is to be called ‘absolute’ truth, but rather what John Dewey cautiously describes as ‘warranted assertibility’” So, I wonder, is THAT absolutely true? Does that mean nothing Lamont wrote can be true?

Of course there is no good or bad either: “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by the consequences for the individual and society.” So society determines what actions are good or bad? This lets the Nazis off the hook, since as a society they decided exterminating Jews was good.

Ah, but it gets better: “The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. He bows down to no alleged supreme moral authority either past or present. … But we can say…some ends justify some means. In getting at the ethical significance of a means-end situation, it is always necessary to be specific and inquire, ‘Does this particular end or set of ends justify this particular means or group of means?’”

Religious Humanism has Nature for a god and evolution for their god’s power. (Or is Matter their god since it already has the power in and of itself?) It has no truth, no innate good or evil, and no moral standard other than what the individual believes is right or wrong. Do your really want one of these guys as your next-door neighbor or the leader of your country?

I’d suggest a re-reading of Romans 1:18-32. And remember Psalm 14:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’”

God's View of Polygamy

The idea for this post came about for two reasons: 1) The Mormons still have D&C 132 in their Scripture and it says every man must have more than one wife for exaltation. 2) When discussing same-sex marriage I often point out that redefining marriage would include legalizing polygamy, and sometimes the response is, "What's wrong with that?"

While the Old Testament tells of many persons who have more than one wife, the Bible gives no evidence that God has ever sanctioned this practice. God’s view of marriage was established at the very beginning when He instituted the relationship (all Scripture is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible):

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said, "This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called woman, for she was taken from man." This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:21-24

Notice that God gave Adam only one wife, with the intent that two become one, not three or four, etc.

The Bible’s first mention of polygamy is in reference to Cain’s son Lamech in Gen. 4:19. Cain was the sinful man who was marked, and his sons learned his wickedness. From that point on it became cultural for some of fallen man to become polygamous. But notice that when God saved Noah and his wife, and their sons and their wives, they were all monogamous; if God felt the need for plural wives to propagate the earth, He would have given them more before sending them aboard the ark.

As sinful man began to multiply many men of means became polygamous (the average man didn’t, because it took wealth to support more than one wife). However, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt and God’s laws were brought forth, one thing God made a point of was that, when Israel wanted an earthly king he was to be of higher character than the average man. Of him God said, He must not acquire many wives for himself so that his heart won't go astray. Deut. 17:17.

In the Proverbs we have a couple passages to consider. In the first the context is keeping away from women who are not one’s wife.

...take pleasure in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful fawn - let her breasts satisfy you; be lost in her love forever. Prov. 5:18b-19. Notice that the writer did not say “wives of your youth,” the implication being that there is only one. And it is that one wife who is to satisfy the man, that he be “ravished with her love.” (KJV)

The next passage is among many general proverbs:

A man who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD. Prov. 18:22 Again notice that the proverb does not say “who finds wives finds a good thing,” the implication again being that a good thing is one wife.

Ecclesiastes has one passage that can shed some light also. Chapter 9, verse 9 says, Enjoy life with the wife you love all the days of your fleeting life.... Again the word is “wife” and not “wives.”

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both approach the marital relationship from the viewpoint of one wife.

In the New Testament Jesus discussed marriage and how the Jews messed up the original plan. He gave the following teaching:

"Haven't you read," He replied, "that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female, and He also said: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." Matt. 19:4-6  Notice that Jesus refers right back to Genesis to demonstrate the one man/one woman desire of God.

We can next look at what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:2: But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. Notice that Paul did not say “wives” or “husbands”; the meaning is clear that each man is to have but one wife.

When Paul was laying down qualifications for Elders and Deacons, part of the qualification of their character was that they only had one wife (harking back to God’s command for the king to have but one wife):
1 Tim. 3:2 An overseer, therefore must be above reproach, the husband of one wife...
1 Tim. 3:12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife...
Tit. 1:5b-6 ...appoint elders in every town, someone who is blameless, the husband of one wife...

So God’s law has always been one wife per man, but He permitted polygamy as he permits divorce; neither is the original intent for marriage. The depiction of plural marriages in the Bible always show marital troubles, which is expected to happen because women are not wired to share their man!

UPDATE 9/29/16:

The following is a footnote on p.109 of the book, The Way of a Man with a Maid, by Robin Phillips.  I thought it was a good summation of what my article says. 

While polygamy is not forbidden in the Old Testament, the implication can be drawn that monogamy was still God’s ideal from verses such as Ps. 28; Prov. 12:4; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; Is. 62:5.  “…because God created just one woman for Adam, the pattern of monogamy is clearly set and displayed to us.  The polygamy found in the Old Testament among the saints of God does not alter this.  Polygamy was instituted by man, and not by God.  The first record of a polygamous union was Lamech (Gen 4:19), with no hint of divine approval.  But most important, polygamy does not fit with the creation ordinance of marriage or with the picture given in the New Testament of Christ and the church.”  Douglas Wilson, Reforming Marriage (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1995), pp. 16-17.

ELCA - Another Apostate Denomination

George Tiller, serial murderer of children, especially known for his use of partial-birth method of extermination of children, was a member in good standing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Question: How could the leadership of any Christian church allow an abortionist to be a member in good standing? How could they biblically allow him to take communion or fellowship in general? Well, I believe it is because of statements posted on the ELCA web site http://www.elca.org/

A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born…. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. … Because of the Christian presumption to preserve and protect life, this church, in most circumstances, encourages women with unintended pregnancies to continue the pregnancy. … This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion. ...

An abortion is morally responsible in those cases in which continuation of a pregnancy presents a clear threat to the physical life of the woman. …A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse. This is especially true in cases of rape and incest. This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God's purposes.

Notice that, although they are ostensibly for reducing the numbers of abortion, they don’t really see it as an absolute moral evil and, in fact, can find instances where abortion is right and proper. So having an abortionist in their assembly isn’t problematic at all.

The ELCA has been quite liberal for decades. While not as far to the left as the Episcopal Church, they are nevertheless violating the Bible in many ways. For one thing, the ELCA allows women pastors. Whether you agree or not that women should not be pastors is irrelevant; what I think has been demonstrated empirically is that churches who allow women in leadership always go liberal in their teachings and practice.

My file on the ELCA is not as thick as on other apostate denominations, but let me share with you what I do have, so you can see the problems with this organization, especially in the realm of homosexuality. (Yes, they are another denomination with a love affair with homosexuality.)

Fundamentalist Baptist Information Service, 5/23/03 reported on four ELCA assemblies:
(1) Gloria Dei Lutheran Church In St. Paul, MN voted to allow “pastors” (goat-herds) to bless same-sex unions. (2) The Lutheran Church of Christ the Redeemer in Minneapolis ordained a lesbian as a pastor. Five years earlier she had been a co-pastor of another (3) Lutheran church with her husband, but declared her homosexuality and divorced him. Her lover is the church musician for (4) Central Lutheran Church in Minneapolis.

Fundamentalist Baptist Information Service, 8/22/03 reported that the ELCA’s youth organization “meeting in Atlanta in July, also voted to support ‘the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate individuals in committed relationships of all sexual orientations.”

AgapePress Christian News Service 3/8/04 reported that the Lutheran Social Services, overseen by the ELCA, was promoting homosexual adoption.

AgapePress Christian News Service 4/19/04 listed three ELCA congregations who appointed open homosexuals as their pastors: (1) Central City Lutheran Mission, San Bernardino, CA; (2) Hollywood Lutheran Church, Hollywood, CA; (3) Bethany Lutheran Church, Minneapolis, MN. The pastor of the latter church was again in Agape Press on 7/27/04 when they reported on his ordination.

The Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette (9/4/04) reported on a 2-part study being done by the ELCA. The first part dealt “broadly with the ELCA’s statement on human sexuality in general.” The second part, which was still in the process at press time, “deals with whether to ordain people in committed gay and lesbian relationships and whether to bless the unions of gay couples. The current policies of the ELCA hold that gays or lesbians in a same-gender sexual relationship are precluded from ordination but that celibate, self-identified homosexuals may be and may remain ordained.” I don’t understand why a study was needed - the Bible is very clear about homosexual behavior being an abomination before God.

Another report from Religion News, 4/6/05, about the 2-part study gave this information:
The task force recommended the ELCA “Continue under current standards that expect unmarried ministers to abstain from sexual relations - defining marriage as being between a man and a woman - but, respecting the consciences of those who find these standards in conflict with the mission of the church, the ELCA may choose to refrain from disciplining gay and lesbian ministers in ‘committed relationships’ and from disciplining those who call or approve partnered gay or lesbian people for ministry.” I wonder if they would expect the same for adulterers in “committed relationships,” or brother/sister committed sexual relationships, etc? Or is it just homosexuals they are encouraging? Anyway, the Metropolitan Chicago Synod asked that the standards include, “It shall be the policy of this church that there be no policy barrier to rostered service for otherwise qualified persons in same-gender covenanted relationships that are mutual, chaste and faithful.” The Southeast Michigan Synod recommended the adoption of an opinion that “would have the church remove references to homosexuality from its standards for ministers.”

AgapePress Christian News Service 8/19/05 reported that the ELCA approved the development of a gender-neutral hymnal, and that it was already in the works. The “Lutheran Book of Worship” is going to eliminate all “Father” and male terminology in reference to God. “The hymnal overhaul will include other gender-neutralizing and diversity-affirming changes to traditional Lutheran worship lyrics and liturgies as well.” The idea is to have options for prayers that refer to God and Jesus as “holy eternal majesty” and “holy incarnate Word” instead of “father” and “son.” Male terms in songs will be replaced with “terms that include both men and women.” They will, in some cases, have two versions of the song - the old one and the mutilated one. The hymnal had already been in the works for five years at the time of the report, and includes songs from all over the world, and mostly contemporary songs.

Then there is the Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which is about as feminist as you can get. I’ll let you decide for yourself whether this assembly practices true Christianity: www.herchurch.org.

Yahoo News 8/11/07 reported that the ELCA “passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in ‘faithful committed same-gender relationships.’”

So, the ELCA has decided that same-sex “committed” relationships are now equal to heterosexual marriages. It has been building for a long time across the nation. Ten years ago the ELCA removed gay pastors and now they say to refrain from disciplining them. Does that mean God’s Word has changed?

Promotion of the feminist agenda, sanctioning of abortion and homosexuality, gender-neutralizing worship, gender-neutralizing God and Jesus, promoting homosexual adoption. The ELCA is apostate and should be abandoned by all true Christians.

Episcopals Can't Understand Scripture!

The Christian Post reports that a panel of Episcopal theologians are working on preparing "a paper on same-sex relationships in the life of the church." This group of "theologians" "very intentionally represents a robust range of views on the subject and includes gays and lesbian persons."

Wow - I am so happy to hear that a panel studying "same-sex relationships in the life of the church" includes same-sex advocates. This should be a really unbiased examination of what God's Word has to say, dontcha think?

According to church representative, Henry N. Parsley, Jr., the project is "designed to articulate theologically a full range of views on the matter of same-sex relationships in the church life and to foster better understanding and respectful discernment among us." Can you imagine them having a similar study on adulterous relationships within the church?

I don't understand this love affair the Episcopal Church has with same-sex relationships; don't they ever read the Bible to see what it has to say? The Bible is very, very clear in condemning same-sex relations, so what do they expect to discover in their study?

The study is not about discerning what the Bible says, because we all know what's there. This study is for one purpose only: the justification of a wicked behavior and the Episcopal Church's sanction of it.

Again I ask, are there no real Christians in this denomination? And if there are, why are you still there?!?!