April 26th, 2011 by Eric Gilmour


[Link to Video]

Posted in News, The Kingdom of God Tagged with: , , ,

April 14th, 2010 by M. French

Respected Journalist Exposes the Scandals of the Charismatic Renewal–and Offers Hope

Contact: Brett Benson, 952-829-2529

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., April 14 /Christian Newswire/ — Financial scandal. Faulty theology. Moral failure. The last few years have shown that the Church and her leaders are not immune to scandal and corruption. The real problem, however, is that no one is holding them accountable. Until now.

Charismatic insider and contributing editor to Charisma magazine, J. Lee Grady has been a voice crying out against the abuse of the gifts of the Spirit in his weekly, award-winning column “Fire in My Bones.” Though an avid proponent of the charismatic experience, he has observed trends that both distress and anger him. And now he is overturning the money tables.

“Charismatic churches in America today are laden down with tons of baggage that needs to be thrown overboard,” says Grady.

In his new book “The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale” (Chosen/Baker Publishing Group), Grady exposes and confronts the scandals and problems plaguing charismatic and Pentecostal churches today–including abuse, showmanship, manipulation, and infatuation with prosperity. With extraordinary insight and godly discernment he shows how these problems have led to a watered-down spirituality.

“We have turned the holy fire of God into a circus sideshow,” he says. “But when the music stops, the TV cameras are turned off and the money is counted, what do we have?”

Yet his message is not one of condemnation and finger-pointing. Instead Grady challenges all who call themselves Spirit-empowered Christians to return to their biblical roots. He offers hope, help, and a passion for recapturing the authenticity, power, and integrity of true spirituality.

“There is surely fresh fire available to us today,” he says. “If we would reject our misguided mysticism and smug elitism, and renounce our bizarre infatuation with money and success, I believe our churches would catch fire with holy zeal.”

“The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale” includes strategies for developing healthy leaders as well as helpful guidelines for accountability structures. Grady also shares numerous examples of previous revivals in history and insights from his own ministry trips to Africa, Asia and Latin America. Compelled by his great love for God and His Church, Grady gives a straightforward and ultimately affirming message that is a must-read for leaders, insiders, and seekers alike.

Praise for “The Holy Spirit is Not For Sale”

“I could not put this book down. It is compulsive reading. This book could be a turning point for the charismatic movement.” — Dr. R. T. Kendall, former minister, Westminster Chapel (London); bestselling author, “Total Forgiveness” (from the foreword)

“No more discerning voice speaks with such clarity and compassion as Lee Grady’s. Today’s Church needs not only to hear but to heed the wisdom set forth of this book.” — Jack Hayford, chancellor, The King’s College & Seminary; founding pastor, The Church On The Way

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
J. Lee Grady is an author, award-winning journalist, and ordained minister. He serves as a contributing editor of Charisma magazine, one of America’s most widely distributed evangelical Christian publications, and as editor of Experience, the magazine of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. His “Fire in My Bones” column is distributed to thousands around the world. The author of three books, Lee is also the founder of The Mordecai Project, a ministry aimed at confronting the abuse of women around the world. His preaching ministry has taken him to 24 nations. He has been interviewed by numerous media outlets, including “TIME”, “The New York Times”, and “Christianity Today.” He and his family live near Orlando, Florida.

The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale: Rekindling the Power of God in an Age of Compromise
by J. Lee Grady
ISBN: 978-0-8007-9487-3
Price: $14.99

Posted in News, The Kingdom of God Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

August 21st, 2009 by Marc Thomas

The 56th thesis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “The Gay Science” (nothing to do with homosexuality of any kind) reads,

“When I think of the craving to do something, which continually tickles and spurs those millions of young Europeans who cannot endure their boredom and themselves, then I realise that they must have a craving to suffer and to find their suffering in a probable reason for action, for deeds. Neediness is needed.”

In a recent conversation, I was asked for my thoughts on what the main motivation for a cultural revolution amongst the young generation would be if it were to come, I explained that the driving force would be monotony.

Previously, generations have been marked by a passion to see a tearing down of restrictive cultural barriers. For example, the first modern revolution, The French Revolution, was caused by the tyrannical reign of the monarchy and the Catholic Church in France who imposed high taxes and unjust laws on the people. Cultural movements between then and the 1920s were fueled by the perceived need for less restrictive boundaries on moral issues (see the paintings and writing produced in America and Europe in those years.) In America, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of a revolution based upon this second ideal – his opus magnum being ‘The Great Gatsby,’ a novel about a generation gone to the dogs because of their rebellion. The 1960s produced the post-beatnik movement famous for cultural icons such as Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsberg, The Beatles, Andy Warhol etc. The 60s revolution was a sexual and political one, rooted in civil disobedience and the civil rights movement.

We could continue in this strain.

Since the beginning of the French Revolution that we have just discussed, there has been a breakdown of what we could call the ‘social norm.’ That is to say, culture based upon morality.

I was born in the late 80s. My generation is a product of the lawless lifestyle of our ancestors. We no longer have taboos. If we desire to marry someone from the same-sex, it is legal in many places. If we want to sleep around, we are permitted to do so ‘as long as no-one gets hurt.’ But we have very little further to go on the road of ‘emancipation’ from moral values.

Let us consider a theoretical future revolution.

There is no point in denying the parallel course of artistic culture and revolutionary culture – where there is revolution, there is art of some form produced that is characteristic of revolution. So instead, let us briefly consider some possible courses our future revolution:

a) We go further in breaking down the ‘social norm’

If this were to be the case, then looking at the course of previous revolutions, and taking note of their sexual nature, we may surmise that the next revolutionary movements will aim for complete freedom of the right to marriage – homosexual, bestial, familial, paedophilic.

b) We go back towards purity

In the event that a revolutionary movement arises that is focused on a spiritual and moral restoration, we should see to it that a ‘Kingdom moral code’ is instituted as opposed to the authoritarian one that we saw previous to the French Revolution, where people lived in fear of free thought because of Church reprisals rather than living in a reverent fear of God.

In its current state, our society is primed for a change as a product of the boredom that Nietzsche described. We need a fascination – our generation is very much in need of a passion that surpasses the revolutionary spirit that was present in previous generations because our task is so much greater. Our goal is to go against the very nature of fallen man (which other revolutions did not seek), and to pursue the Heart of God for the establishment of His kingdom in the hearts of this Generation while He tarries.

We pray that our revolution would be based upon things which ‘cannot be shaken,’ so that it is never undone or equalled.

Let us close with a quote by the Christian revolutionary Rudi Dutschke,

Jesus is risen. The decisive revolution in world history has happened – a revolution of all-conquering love. If people would fully receive this revealed love into their own existence, into the reality of the ‘now’, then the logic of insanity could no longer continue.”

Posted in Revolution & Justice Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 11th, 2009 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org

As our great country accelerates its slide into economic and moral Hell, be careful whom you blame. The present boldness of liberals and timidity of conservatives are only the secondary causes. Much of the blame can be placed at the foot of the church.

When I say the church, I don’t mean an institution like the Roman Catholic church, but the entire body of believers—those from all denominations who believe that the Bible is true, that people are sinners, that God sent the perfect God-man, Jesus Christ, to redeem us from our sins, and that we are charged with spreading that message and reforming society.

Believers are God’s ambassadors here on earth, called to be salt and light in the world and to the world. When we follow our calling, individuals are transformed and societies with them. Our country is failing because too many believers have abandoned this calling.

They began abandoning it in earnest in the 1920’s. That’s when an anti-intellectual movement called fundamentalism led believers to separate from society rather than reform it, and to bifurcate life into two separate spheres—the sacred and secular. Reason was given up for emotionalism, and only activities that directly saved souls were deemed sacred. Everything else was considered secular. Careers in clergy and missions were glorified at the expense of everything else. That led too many believers to leave public education, the media, law, and politics in the hands of the unbelievers. Is it any wonder why those areas of our culture now seem so Godless? Take the influence of God out, and that’s what you get.

Secularizing public education has been the key to our nation’s moral demise. Once public education went secular, the rest of society eventually did, especially when the products of that system became our leaders. As Abraham Lincoln once observed, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.”

The philosophy of the schoolroom is atheistic. The question of God’s existence—the most important question regarding how we should live—is not studied or debated in our public schools. Atheism is just assumed to be true and with it moral relativism. That’s a major reason why immorality dominates our schools and why our kids know more about political correctness than truth. It’s also why we have a new generation of voters more enamored with “hope and change” than defending our changeless rights from an overreaching government. G. K. Chesterton’s observation about Russia has come true here, “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

How did this happen? In the early 1960’s, the Supreme Court, consisting of newly trained secularists, banned devotional Bible reading in our schools (apparently, for the 180 years before that, people just didn’t understand the Constitution!). That decision, and several others, has stifled virtually any mention of God or the Bible in our public schools. In effect, the most influential book in the history of the world is ignored in our educational system. What kind of a quality education is that? It’s certainly not what the folks who settled this land had in mind for public education. In fact, the first public school in the new world began as a result of the “Old Deluder Satan Law.” That 1647 Massachusetts law established the school to teach kids how to read the Bible so that old deluder Satan could not deceive them.

Likewise, most of our first universities were established to teach and propagate a complete Christian worldview. Harvard’s charter read, “Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning.”

The founders of Harvard knew that all truth is God’s truth. There is no bifurcation between the sacred and the secular. According to the Bible, every vocation, every discipline, and every person is sacred. Nothing is secular. In sharp contrast, those running our country now say that everything is secular. That’s a long way from our founding.

“So what?” you say. “Who cares about morality and God?”

That’s exactly the problem: Who does care? When the church separates from society, it takes its moral influence with it. But respect for the moral principles upon which out nation was founded—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—is essential to its survival. Our founders knew this.

Following the Constitutional convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government he and his fellow founding fathers created for the nation. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin knew that freedom must always be defended; that the unalienable rights for which our founding fathers pledged “their lives, fortunes and sacred honor,” were never secure unless an informed electorate held their representatives accountable to uphold those moral rights.

Recognizing that only a religious and moral people will maintain a good government, George Washington declared in his farewell address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” His successor, John Adams, wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In other words, even the best Constitution cannot prevent immoral people or politicians from destroying a nation. That’s why the church cannot abandon its calling. But it has.

So if you’re a believer who is upset that life is not being protected; that marriage is being subverted; that judges routinely usurp your will; that our immigration laws are being ignored; that radical laws are passed but never read; that mentioning God in school (unless he’s Allah) results in lawsuits; that school curriculums promote political correctness and sexual deviance as students fail at basic academics; that unimaginable debt is being piled on your children while leftist organizations like Planned Parenthood and ACORN receive your tax dollars; and that your religion and free speech rights are about to be eroded by “hate” crimes legislation that can punish you for quoting the Bible; then go look in the mirror and take your share of the blame because we have not obeyed our calling.

Then start over. Reengage at every level of society. Treat every job and every person as sacred. Be a beacon for Christ and truth in whatever you do and wherever you are. There is hope if you act. After all, we believe in redemption.

Posted in Culture Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 19th, 2009 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org

My friend David has a knack for cutting through the smokescreens people throw up when they’re trying to avoid making commitments, be they commitments to God or to other people. Last week, with one comment, he blew away all the smoke that a young agnostic was hiding behind. It was a demonstration of tremendous insight, and it required some courage to say.

For several weeks David was teaching through a series on Christian apologetics, which involves providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. In addition to the biblical mandate to provide such evidence, David thought it would be wise to do so because 75 percent of Christian youth stop attending church after age 18. Many of them abandon the church because they’re bombarded by secularism in college and they’ve never been taught any of the sound evidence that supports Christianity.

Last week, after David finished a presentation refuting the “new atheists”—Dawkins, Hitchens and the like—a young man approached him and said, “I once was a Christian, but now I’m an agnostic, and I don’t think you should be doing what you’re doing.”

“What do you mean?” David asked.

“I don’t think you should be giving arguments against atheists,” the young man said. “Jesus told us to love, and it’s not loving what you’re doing.”

David said, “No, that’s not right. Jesus came with both love and tuth. Love without truth is a swampy, borderless mess. Truth is necessary. In fact, it’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.”

David was absolutely right. In fact, if you look at Matthew chapter 23, Jesus was more like a drill sergeant than he was like Mister Rogers.

But the young man would have none of it. Without acknowledging David’s point, he immediately brought up another objection to Christianity. David succinctly answered that one too, but again the kid seemed uninterested. He fired a couple of more objections at David, who began to suspect something else was up—something I’ve noticed as well.

I’ve found that the machine-gun-objection approach is common among many skeptics and liberals. They throw objection after objection at believers and conservatives but never pause long enough to listen to the answers. It doesn’t matter that you’ve just answered their question with an undeniable fact—they’ve already left that topic and are rattling off another objection on another topic as if you hadn’t said a word. They don’t really seem interested in finding answers but in finding reasons to make themselves feel better about what they want to believe.

After all, a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.

David recognized that’s exactly what was happening in his conversation. So after the kid fired off another objection, David decided to end the charade and cut right to the heart. He said, “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?”

All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.

This young man wasn’t the first atheist or agnostic to admit that his desire to follow his own agenda was keeping him out of the Kingdom. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul revealed this tendency we humans have to “suppress the truth” about God in order to follow our own desires. In other words, unbelief is more motivated by the heart than the head. Some prominent atheists have admitted this.

Atheist Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley, famously said many years ago that the reason he and many of his contemporaries “accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn‘t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”

Professor Thomas Nagel of NYU more recently wrote, “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.”

Certainly the new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have problems with cosmic authority. Hitchens refuses to live under the “tyranny of a divine dictatorship.” Dawkins calls the God of the Bible a “malevolent bully” (among other things) and admits that he is “hostile to religion.”

It’s not that Hitchens and Dawkins offer any serious examination and rebuttal of the evidence for God. They misunderstand and dismiss hundreds of pages of metaphysical argumentation from Aristotle, Aquinas and others and fail to answer the modern arguments from the beginning and design of the universe. (Dawkins explanation for the extreme design of the universe is “luck.”)

Instead, as any honest reader of their books will see, Hitchens and Dawkins are outraged at the very thought of God. Even their titles scream out contempt (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The God Delusion). They don’t seem to realize that their moral outrage presupposes an objective moral standard that exists only if God exists. Objective morality—as well as the immaterial laws of reason and science—cannot exist in the materialist universe they attempt to defend.

In effect, they have to borrow from a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. They have to sit in God’s lap to slap his face.

While both men are very good writers, Hitchens and Dawkins are short on evidence and long on attitude. As I mentioned in our debate, you can sum up Christopher’s attitude in one sentence: “There is no God, and I hate him.”

Despite this, God’s attitude as evidenced by the sacrifice of Christ is: There are atheists, and I love them.

Posted in Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,