Diane Langberg: Understanding Abuse of Power in the Church

 

Why the Azusa Street Revival Ended

In September of 2009, I had the privilege to travel to Los Angeles, California, and visit some of the original sites where the historic Azusa Street Revival transpired. As I shared some of my personal experiences online through Facebook and other forms of social media, one of my friends asked me to reflect on why the Azusa Street Revival ended.
 

The question of why religious revivals end is one that comes up often and usually elicits a number of different responses from people. Obviously the gradual breakdown of something that God has been in the middle of can be a mystery. So as I share my reflections, I cannot claim to have complete insight into these things.

In the case of the waning of the Azusa Street Revival, there was a number of things that hindered it. I would like share a few of them below.

Losing the Mailing List

One of the biggest setbacks of the Azusa Street Revival came with the sudden loss of their extensive mailing list in 1909. After some disagreement, Florence Crawford, the strong-willed secretary of the Apostolic Faith Mission abruptly left town with the extensive roster of subscribers. Without this, the mission's newspaper could no longer be circulated. As a direct result, the vast crowds stopped coming to the services. With absolutely no media to broadcast the testimonies or provide information about the ongoing meetings, many were convinced that the revival had ended. Without new visitors, the subsequent meetings began to lose much of the impact and urgency that they once had. With fewer people to pray for, many of the other problems that had been lying under the surface finally began to emerge. Soon conflict and disagreement became more pronounced in the once tranquil congregation. Sadly, nothing would ever be the same again at the Apostolic Faith Mission.

Cantankerous, Independent People

In time, many ridiculous conflicts arose at the Mission. Several of the participants began to have disagreements over various things. For example, since neckties were little more than frivolous adornment, should they be worn by sanctified men? This debate invited even more arguments. Members also fought over whether constructing a storm shelter at the Mission demonstrated a lack of faith or not. Of course, one of the more absurd conflicts was over William Seymour's marriage to Jennie Evans Moore in 1908 (This is something that may have contributed to Florence Crawford and Clara Lum leaving the Mission the following year). As foolish as this this conflict was, it shouldn't be that surprising. Early Pentecostal and Holiness people were very cantankerous and independent. It was often hard for them to agree with others for any length of time. Many would break rank over the smallest  differences of opinion. There is little doubt that rambunctious, obstinate people were bulk of the membership of the Apostolic Faith Mission on 312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California. This contributed even further to the waning of the revival.

Competing Churches

There was something else that may have contributed to the breakdown of the revival. Some of the leaders who attended the services were convinced that they could do a much better job of perpetuating the revival than William Seymour and his team. By the second and third year of the revival, several competing missions popped up around Los Angeles; attempting to take the attention away from the Apostolic Faith Mission. Interestingly, one of which was a congregation launched by the infamous Charles F. Parham, the Pentecostal leader who had first influenced Seymour with the Pentecostal message in Houston, Texas. When Parham visited the meetings, he didn't like what he saw and began to voice his opposition. It wasn't long before he attempted to start a competing work nearby. Many of preachers would visit the revival services for a week or two and then launch out in their own work. A few succeeded in their efforts, but, like Parham, most failed. These ongoing expressions of opposition and conflict confused the people and made it difficult for the work to continue.

Doctrinal Wars

To make matters worse, a tense theological war over the appropriation and experience of sanctification erupted on Azusa Street in 1911. Coming from a Wesleyan-Holiness background, Pastor William Seymour and his associates believed that sanctification, or a "moral cleansing," was a second, instantaneous work of grace. This was the standard view of all holiness leaders at this time. Yet others arose, William Durham to be specific, who taught that sanctification was more of a gradual process. While Seymour was away, Durham preached his understanding of the "finished work of Christ" at the Apostolic Faith Mission. When Seymour returned, he was aghast and felt compelled to lock Durham out of the church. This argument created a great schism among the ranks of the congregation that only intensified when Durham proceeded to start a new church nearby. A significant number of Seymour's congregation joined Durham and a gaping hole was felt in the already troubled congregation. This was truly a terrible wound that it really never recovered from.

So, What Was It?

So, what is it that truly caused the gradual waning of the Azusa Street Revival? Well, as I have already shared, there was likely a number of different things that contributed to its breakdown.

We have seen how the mailing list was stolen and how this impeded the revival's promotion. Also, there was the terrible problems of disharmony and schism. Of course, the intense theological battles contributed to opposing factions and a general loss of trust among leaders. These attitudes and expressions all contributed to this great revival's cessation.

I guess things first began to wane in the fall of 1909. Just a couple of years later, the revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission was pretty much gone. While there is no denying that the flames of revival quickly spread around the world, impacting untold thousands, it had certainly ended in Los Angeles by 1912.

While it is difficult to perfectly pin down the cause of the Azusa Street Revival's waning, I believe we can make some valid observations that apply to us today. Modern-day revivalists need to work to avoid schisms and intense personal conflict. However difficult it might be, we should learn to major on the majors and minor on the minors. If we could only figure out how to stay together in spite of our differences, our ministerial impact will be intensified.

Yet, as I finish this historic exploration, I think there is one important lesson that the revival at Azusa Street provides for us. I believe that it helps us to understand that revivals seldom end because of the trouble without. No, revivals end because of the trouble within.

J.D. King is the director of the World Revival Network and associate pastor of World Revival Church.

Since God Hates the Shedding of Innocent Blood, Can a Christian Vote for Hillary?

by Dr Michael Brown



There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote for Hillary in good conscience?

In Jeremiah 19, God explained why the people of Judah were about to go into exile: It was because they worshiped idols and because they "filled this place [speaking of Jerusalem] with the blood of the innocent, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into My mind" (Jer. 19:4-5).

Because of these heinous sins, Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple of Yahweh burned to the ground, with tens of thousands going into exile.

Does God hate the shedding of innocent blood any less today, especially when it is the blood of children? Listen again to Jeremiah: "They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My heart" (Jer. 7:31).

What, exactly, did this entail? Listen to this description from the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, who explained that the high places of Topheth refer to the god "Molech, which was [made] of copper, and they would heat it up from underneath it with its hands spread out and heated. And they would place the child on his hands, and he would be burnt and moan, and the priests would beat drums so that the father should not hear his son's voice and take pity." What a horror!

Now stop for a moment and look at these images of aborted babies and ask yourself how the Lord must feel about the shedding of this innocent blood—the blood of innocent babies in the womb.

Can you, as a follower of Jesus, cast your vote for a candidate who supports this bloodshed? Can you vote for Hillary Clinton, one of the best friends Planned Parenthood has ever had?

Just look at the stark contrast between the RNC and DNC platforms on abortion.

As reported by LifeNews.com, "The proposed Democratic Party platform this year is more extreme than it has ever been, calling for taxpayer funding of abortion and a repeal of the Hyde Amendment. The Democratic Party platform already supports legalized abortion on demand for any reason up until birth.

"'We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman's access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment,' it reads."

In complete contrast, the RNC platform on abortion begins with: "Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

The platform supports "a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." It opposes "using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage."

It calls for appointing judges who will uphold these values, reaffirms its opposition to partial birth abortion, and salutes "the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation."

Again, the difference between the two platforms could not be more extreme. It is literally the difference between death and life.

Let's also remember that Hillary Clinton is hardly a pacifist who would avoid the shedding of blood in war (in contrast with allegedly war-mongering Republicans). And even so, there is a world of difference between going to war to defeat terrorism and killing a baby in the womb.

Some have argued that it doesn't matter where a candidate stands on abortion since the laws never really change. After all, we're told, after 20 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, Roe v. Wade was still not overturned.

That's true, but one reason is that we also had 16 years of Clinton and Obama. What would have happened if we had 36 years of presidents in the mold of Reagan? What if the progress made under a pro-life president wasn't undone by a pro-abortion president? What if all presidential appointees to the Supreme Court were pro-life during the last 36 years? The answers are self-evident.

And let's not minimize the progress that has been made in different states, including requiring women to view an ultrasound of their baby before aborting. Thank God for every life saved.

The bottom line is this: Can you look at pictures of aborted babies—such as baby Malachi—and read verses about God's hatred of killing children and then vote for a candidate who aggressively defends a woman's "right" to this bloodshed, even into the ninth month?

It's one thing to be uncertain about voting for Trump (or other candidates). It's another thing to vote for a radical, pro-abortion candidate like Hillary Clinton.

I, for one, do not see how you can look Jesus in the eye, look abortion in the eye, and vote for Hillary.

Only God is your judge, and you and I will give ultimate account to Him. But if you're a regular "pro-choice" voter, I urge you to reconsider your ways.

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is The Grace Controversy. Connect with him on Facebook or Twitter.

Jentezen Franklin: Donald Trump Rededicated His Life to Christ

Free Chapel's Jentezen Franklin says Republican nominee Donald Trump rededicated his life to Christ 10 years ago, according to a report.

Franklin's comments come a few weeks after the Pentecostal preacher joined Trump's Faith Advisory Committee.

"He did say 'I don't wear my religion on a sleeve and I'm not, by any means, a saint,'" Franklin told the Gainesville Times. "But (Trump said), 'What America needs now is not a preacher in the oval office—it needs a leader.'"

Franklin is just the latest evangelical to tout Trump's faith, joining the ranks of men like Dr. James Dobson and women like televangelist Paula White, also known as the "Trump Whisperer."

"He doesn't know our Christianese," White said. "Someone might take a sound bite and say, 'Oh, see? He's not saved,' or, 'He doesn't love God.' That's the furthest thing from the truth."

Franklin says the billionaire businessman told an audience last month he rededicated his life to Christ when he was 60. That was a decade ago.

His words echo the sentiments expressed by many, including Focus on the Family's Dobson.

"I believe God can change the hearts and minds of people and I celebrate when they support principles of righteousness," Dobson says. http://www.charismanews.com/politics/58832-jentezen-franklin-donald-trump-rededicated-his-life-to-christ

Megachurch pastors said to form new political party

The pastors are reportedly focusing on right-wing issues to sway next year’s general and presidential elections

By Cho Yeon-hyun, Religion Correspondent

A right-wing Christian party is reportedly being formed ahead of next year’s general and presidential elections with some of the country’s leading megachurch pastors, including Yoido Full Gospel Church senior pastor David Yonggi Cho and Kumnan Methodist Church pastor Kim Hong-do. The anti-Communist, pro-U.S. Citizens’ Campaign for Setting Right Church and Country, with Rev. Choe Byeong-du as chairman, plans to hold a Christian leaders’ forum from Aug. 29 to 31 at the Yangsoori Training Center in Namyangju, Gyeonggi, where it is inviting leaders from some 3,000 churches. Following around 90 lecture meetings around the country, the organization recently held three Christian leader forums at the Seoul Walkerhill Hotel.

New Puritan Spiritual Training Center Director Rev. Jeon Gwang-hun, who spearheaded the forum effort, predicted that the event would serve as a preliminary meeting for the launch of a new Protestant Christian party.

“There is a growing consensus that the church needs to address the serious situation of social collapse, since it cannot be left to politicians alone to handle,” Jeon said. “While the goal of this forum is the ten topic discussions, I expect it will ultimately lead to a debate over a Christian party.”

Jeon said that he would put himself forward if veteran figures such as Cho and Kim undertake preliminary efforts on behalf of those seeking to establish a Christian party “in order to save a country that faces crisis due to leftist North Korea puppets and anti-Christian forces.”

Cho’s associates confirmed that he would be attending the event, while Kim’s said they were unable to give a confirmation.

Jeon also said an official press conference would be held some time next week in connection with the party’s establishment.

Jeon previously established a Christian party at the time of the 2008 general elections, earning 450 thousand votes and failing to win a National Assembly proportional representation seat by a margin of around 50 thousand. At recent gatherings, he has been calling for a new Christian party with a stronger commitment to eradication of “pro-North Korea leftists” and antagonism against other religions.

According to a publicity poster that was distributed for the forum by the organization and features the faces of Cho, Kim, and Rev. Kim Sam-hwan, the event will see the gathering of pastors from 3,000 leading churches in South Korea and feature discussions on ten topics. They include “the repudiation of country by pro-North Korea leftists and Communist unification,” “the Korean sukuk law and abnormal propagation of Islam,” “human rights issues in North Korea.”

The topics also include laws regarding homosexuality, attacks on the church by Internet media, church corruption and secularization, the Korean Teachers’ and Education Workers’ Union (KTU, Jeon Gyo Jo), and distorted representations of Christianity in textbooks.

Political megachurches

By Jang Bong-kun

Church leaders holding large crucifixes reading “megachurch” snatch a lunch tray from a child who is eating lunch at school desk, saying, “Being poor is a sin! Free meals are sinful!”

They wear sashes reading “No free lunches” and “Soliciting voter participation.”

The Election Commission of Seoul on Friday embarked on an intensive clamp down on illegal campaigning by religious organizations calling on believers to vote in a referendum led by Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon to against free school lunches for elementary and middle school students. The commission, in particular, sent reportedly an official document to nine Protestant megachurches including President Lee’s Somang Church, Kumnan Church, Kwanglim Church and Yoido Full Gospel Church. Conservative megachurch leaders have denounced liberals and progressives as “Reds.”

The commission also plans to dispatch the control officers to large churches and temples.

The commission’s measures came after the Seoul Chapter of ruling Grand National Party (GNP) discussed a plan to use religious aggregations for campaign in a breakfast meeting on Thursday where GNP Chairman Hong Joon-pyo, Lee Jong-koo GNP Seoul Chapter Chairman and Mayor Oh attended.

In addition, the commission reported Choi Jin-man, chairman of Kiturami Group and Taegu Broadcasting Company, to prosecutors for giving employees of the group directives to vote in the referendum.

Is This the Biggest Deception in the Last 100 Years? by OS HILLMAN

"The greatest lie of the last 100 years is the redefining of what separation of church and state means," said an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom organization. I agree with that statement. It is amazing how many think that separation of church and state means keeping God out of government and the public discourse. That is simply false.

Many people think the separation of church and state is part of the First Amendment, but it is not. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Many seem to forget the second part of that statement—"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What the founders did not want was any one denomination of the Christian religion to run the nation. They wanted to stay away from what they had left in England, where the King was the head of the Church. However, the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court were quite clear that Judeo-Christian principles made up the established religion of America, and WAS to be involved in the way government would function. This is evident in the Supreme Court decision of 1796, and many other writings."

Following is a copy of a letter from Thomas Jefferson that further explained his reasoning behind the separation of church and state reference.

Thomas Jefferson's Famous Letter
On Jan. 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut. In 1801 the Danbury Baptist Church heard a rumor that the Congregationalist Denomination was going to be made the National Denomination. This disturbed them as it well should. Jefferson answered in his letter:

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

"Gentlemen,

"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Many have wrongfully tried to build a case that Jefferson's intent was a wall of separation between God, religion and government, which was not his intent. In fact, church services were regularly held in the capitol building and Jefferson attended those services.

David Barton explains the history of these church services: "Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War.

"The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793, but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on Dec. 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.

"The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the vice president but after he had just been elected president.

"Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:

"City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph."

In God We Trust

I don't know about you, but I get tired of hearing people say they cannot pray or make a public statement about their faith because of the separation of church and state. There is no other issue that has been more hijacked than that statement. Our founders never intended for God not to be a part of our nation's founding and operation.

Alarmed by the concerted effort to remove God from every vestige of government and to silence the voice of millions, the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation is at the center of a growing network of national, state and local leaders who are working together to restore, upgrade and popularize America's founding spirit and the principles related to faith and morality that shaped this Great Republic. CPCF is mobilizing leaders and citizens who are committed to promoting prayer, preserving our Judeo-Christian heritage and protecting religious freedom for all.

Our nation's national motto is "In God We Trust." The United States Congress passed in 1956 H.J. Resolution 396, adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto. However, the seeds of the nation moving toward the adoption of this motto began much earlier and was a result of the Christian influence from the Civil War. "In God We Trust" first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. In 1865 gold and silver coins also had the inscription added to them.

The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation has just launched a new initiative, which allows Christians to be proactive in affirming our national motto of our nation—"In God We Trust." This statement can be displayed in public places without fear of any reprisal from the anti-God camp.

The U.S. Congress passed Resolution 13 with an overwhelming 396/9 vote in November 2011, reaffirming our national motto and encouraging its public display. Elected leaders and citizens have taken action to display "In God We Trust" in government buildings, courtrooms, schools and businesses.

One of the ways Christians can support this campaign is by ordering "In God We Trust" decals to display on cars, businesses, schools, restaurants, retail businesses—virtually any public place. Click here to learn more.

School kids can make posters. Businesses can freely display the decals. Let's be proactive by affirming our motto as a nation. It becomes a great conversation piece to educate people on what was really meant by the separation of church and state. If anyone argues with you, show them the resolution of the U.S. Congress!

Please join me in participating in this exciting campaign. Let us support this campaign to affirm our nation's motto, "In God We Trust." Who knows, by proclaiming it, perhaps it will become true again.

Os Hillman is president of Marketplace Leaders and author of Change Agent and the TGIF Today God Is First free daily email devotional.

Why It's OK to Let the Bible Guide Your Politics by CONNOR HEADRICK/FRC

We're told that morality shouldn't be legislated, but in truth, morality is the entire foundation of all law. (Flickr/Prayitno)

Navigating the complex waters of public policy with a skeptical audience can be challenging for even the most thoughtful of Christians. Taking a stand on a pressing moral issue, such as abortion or homosexuality, and backing it up with Scripture often brings accusations of bigotry or intolerance.

Because the conversation may turn away from political issues to theological issues once the Bible or God is brought into the equation, it can be easy to simply try to circumvent the debate over Christianity by sticking to secular, empirical arguments, rather than moral Christian arguments.

By doing this, we rightly acknowledge that there is immense value in meeting an individual on common ground and reasoning together, from the state of reality around us, to discover truth. However, as we reason, we must constantly remember that empirical data is worthless if not supported by a framework of moral convictions.

Speed limits are baseless without the underlying moral principle that human life should be protected. Human trafficking and other forms of exploitation are insignificant unless we begin with the understanding that all humans possess a God-given right to liberty. Even murder is morally acceptable without the moral foundation that human life is precious and valuable. Every law is based upon someone's standard of morality.

When we as Christians refuse to turn to God and revealed truth as the source of right and wrong, in ethics as well as in codified law, we obliterate the moral foundation on which our conservative arguments stand. Without that foundation, why does it matter if children grow up in unstable families? Who is to say whether one civil right is more important than another?

Of all the men and women in the Bible who operated in a political context, Daniel stands as one of the most powerful examples of a man who was unashamed to stand on God's truth. In Daniel 2, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the wise men of Babylon to be slaughtered because they were unable to reveal and interpret the dream which had troubled his spirit. Daniel, whose life was endangered by this decree, did not protest on the grounds of the practical consequences the king would suffer from losing all of his wise men. Instead, he went and made an appointment to speak with the king and interpret his dream.

An incredible aspect of this passage is this: when Daniel made the appointment with the king to interpret the dream, Daniel has no idea what the dream meant. Daniel 2:17-18 says, "Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, and told them to seek mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery so that Daniel and his companions might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon."

Daniel exhibited an incredible amount of faith and reliance upon God in trusting that the Lord would reveal the dream to him. And when the moment came for Daniel to stand before the king, confident in what God had revealed, Daniel took neither the glory nor the credit. Instead, he said, "No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery that the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days" (Daniel 2:27-28b). In the boldness that comes with proclaiming the Word of God, Daniel revealed to the king the demise of Nebuchadnezzar's own kingdom and unashamedly asserted that one day, "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed..." (Daniel 2:44).

In response, Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and answered, "'Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery'" (Daniel 2:47). Though he could have scoffed at Daniel's interpretation by pointing to empirical data, such as the fact that the Babylonian Empire had just crushed Judah militarily, and the fact that the articles of the Jewish temple now rested in the Babylonian treasury, he responded in awe and reverence to Daniel's uncompromising stand upon the truth.

Daniel did not reject appeals to common evidence and observation. For example, when he asked to receive a diet of water and vegetables and be evaluated against the other servants, he appealed to his overseer to judge based on who appeared healthiest. But Daniel knew the foundation upon which he stood, and he was unashamed to speak the name of God forthrightly.

So let us not deceive ourselves with the idea that our arguments can be amoral or irreligious. When it comes to the matter of the moral standard upon which laws are built, our arguments cannot ignore the Moral Lawgiver. Let us not constrain ourselves with the false dichotomy that either we must play the role of a conservative who appeals to statistics and evidence, or we must stand on a foundation of biblical morals and principles.

As conservative Christians, we can — and must — do both. Let us not be afraid to hold fast to God and the principles he has revealed in his Word. Only then will we have a truly firm foundation on which to stand.

OBAMA or A MORMON??

NOTE: Of course there is much comment starting to arise in Christian
circles about the upcoming US election. It very much looks like it
will be down to electing either a devout Mormon or Obama as president.
We would be interested in hearing your comments. But first, some
controversial points to ponder from two of our readers related to this:-

OBAMA or A MORMON??
-Frank 'Appolus'.

It will be interesting to see how the Evangelical community responds
to Governor Romney. The vast majority of Evangelicals consider
Mormonism to be a cult and heretical... Will they vote for, not only
a cult member, but one of high standing within the cult? It seems
clear to me that God is creating a set of circumstances to expose
what truly lies in the hearts of those who call themselves Christians.
For decades now the notion has been put forward, as a reason for
being involved in politics, that we need more Christian men on Capitol
Hill, we need a Christian man in the White-House. Nowhere was this
more clearly seen and heard than when President Bush was running
and re-running for office. Now, where will all those arguments go?
Will we be deafened by the silence of those whose true loyalty may
lie in other places rather than in the Lord? Will we hear perhaps
that "Mormonism is not really that bad, it may not even be a cult
(shush, no using the "cult" word for the next 6 months, it will make
people very uncomfortable)....

THE MANIPULATING of THE CHRISTIAN "POWER BLOK"
-by 'Davo'. (USA).

There is a recent history lesson in all this. I am old enough to recall
the inception of the "Moral Majority" in the late 70´s and the rise of
the religious right.

The religious right and it´s rise, as I recall, was focused on the issue
of abortion. President Jimmy Carter professed to be a Christian and
claimed a personal objection to abortion but was determined to
uphold Roe v Wade as the law of the land. The opposition to abortion
and Jimmy Carter by association and the dreaded Equal Rights
Amendment were the two prominent issues that I remember that
helped advance the so-called "Moral Majority" of that time. Ronald
Reagan became the darling of the moral majority crowd and then
there was the idea for a National Prayer Amendment to allow prayer
back into schools which became another hook for getting more
and more Christians on board to getting Reagan elected.

Well, the prayer amendment initially flopped and to pursue it was
too costly from a political standpoint for Reagen so it was dropped.
The appointment of supreme court justices by both Reagan and
Bush Sr., who weren´t as conservative as promised, derailed the
overturning of the abortion ruling. They did stop the ERA, barely.
I forget the dreadful evil that this amendment was supposed to
have caused.

With all the religious political bluster that began in those days what
has actually been accomplished in relation to it´s initial goals and
all the promised expectations? Have they stopped abortion? No.
Did they get prayer back in schools? No. Have they thwarted the
homosexual agenda? No. What about evolution being taught in
schools? Did they keep the ten commandments in school? Are
they stopping the assault on marriage and family today?

If God is with us why can´t we win these battles? If this is God
and His leading, why has there been no fruit? Why all the failure?

As I look at things today in this country I have concluded that it
hasn´t made anything better but has likely made it worse. It has
prejudiced many, many people against the gospel. Christianity has
been reduced in many people´s minds as to fighting for religious
control of this world as opposed to fighting for the eternal souls
of those who are lost and dying in this world. You end up
fighting the ones you are supposedly trying to reach.

The simplicity and purity of devotion to Jesus Christ which consists
of following Him and keeping His word which He tells us over and
over is the way and practice of true faith. Jesus Christ came into
the world to save sinners, He didn´t come into the world to fix the
world and set public policy. It´s actually a form of worldliness.

It´s a deception and a delusion and completely unwarranted by
Scripture. Imagine that, religious leaders deceiving their followers
and leading them astray. There´s a biblical theme for you. It is a
false agenda that thwarts the true gospel and it´s purpose. It uses
carnal weapons to fight a futile battle against spiritual enemies.
Some people are waking up to that fact.

-Please comment on this topic at the website below-
http://www.johnthebaptisttv.com/

GEORGE FOX - Too RADICAL!!

Andrew Strom:- A reader wrote to me recently about the radical
ministry of George Fox from centuries ago. Here was a man who
feared nothing, who walked the earth in leather clothes, who was
so against the organized religion of his day that he called church
buildings "steeple houses" and frightened off many a "hireling" in
the charge thereof - before preaching to the congregation himself!!
There has rarely been an anointed Reformer or Revivalist as radical
as George Fox.

As reader 'Tom' wrote to me:

"I have read a number of items on revival, but to my knowledge, no
one has referenced George Fox who lived in the 1600s in England
during a tumultuous time. He spent times in jail for his outspoken
faith and because he challenged the clergy of the day. His teaching
was the most practical and uncompromising I have encountered
on the matter of holiness and regeneration.

An interesting thing about him and perhaps the reason he goes
unnoticed, is that his ministry mirrors that of the book of Acts,
except that his foes are not Judaism but apostate Christianity.
In other words, his time is contemporary in many ways with ours.
Because of this, many may avoid him since he was entirely
separated from organized religion!"

GEORGE FOX - the HOLY RADICAL
-by David Smithers.

In the year of 1647, a large man with piercing eyes named George
Fox started preaching throughout the towns and villages of England.
He prayed and fasted often, traveling with no other companion but
his Bible. He proclaimed a gospel of purity, power and repentance.

When George Fox began preaching, many churches were dead
and bound in man-made traditions and formalism. When the Church
drifts into formalism, the world drifts into further ungodliness. The
methods and appearance of George Fox to some, seemed quite
offensive and extreme. It is sometimes necessary for God's
prophets to be unconventional in order to thoroughly awaken the
indifferent and hard hearted.

Soon after George Fox began to preach, he had a remarkable
spiritual experience that lasted fourteen days. A certain Mr. Brown,
while on his death bed prophesied many great things concerning
Fox. "When this man was buried," says Fox, "a great work of the
Lord fell on me." During this mighty baptism of the Spirit, Fox
received a remarkable gift of discernment. "He seemed to be able
to read the character of men by looking at them." Miraculous
healings also accompanied his ministry. Through prayer and the
laying on of hands, the sick were often healed and devils were
cast out to the glory of Christ. When George Fox preached men
would shake and tremble. "The name Quaker was given to Fox
and his followers because of the quaking of the men who came
to scoff but stayed to pray." This remarkable power seemed to
accompany the preaching of Fox wherever he went.

Fox preached that Jesus Christ is the author of a faith which
purifies and gives victory over sin. He fervently exhorted men to
pursue complete holiness rather than empty religious ceremonies.
As a result, he was often beaten, stoned and driven out of town.
It is estimated that perhaps no other man since the time of the
Reformation was persecuted and imprisoned as often as George
Fox. He usually went about the country on foot, dressed in his
famous suit of leather clothes, which it is believed he made
himself. He often slept outside under a tree or in some haystack.
Fox also often pointed out that what was commonly called the
Church was only a building. He boldly declared that only the
fervent believers of Christ were the living stones of the true Church.

"Above all George Fox excelled in prayer." It was his habit to wait
in silence for the movement of the Holy Spirit and then begin to
pray, causing whole congregations to be shaken and humbled
under the hand of God Almighty. "As he prayed the power of God
came down in such a marvelous manner the very building seemed
to rock." Through the ministry of George Fox, a glimmer of Apostolic
power was revealed to seventeenth century England. He was a man
of the Spirit in an age that emphasized theological and scriptural
accuracy at the expense of the power of the Holy Ghost. He always
stressed the importance of a Spirit filled life and refused to let dead
orthodoxy be a veil for the works of the flesh.

If we as believers are content with a gospel that merely comforts
our conscience and perseveres our traditions, then we are also
content to forsake the gospel of Christ and the Apostles. God
help us to truly seek the kind of praying and preaching that will
once again make men tremble in the presence of Jesus Christ.

-Please comment on this topic at the following website-

http://www.johnthebaptisttv.com/

-Original Source-

http://www.watchword.org/

We are at a turning point

Hi,

when I saw this picture of Obama (see below). God spoke to me and gave me the following message. It concerns us all. Please share this message with your friends, church and family.

God blss You

Pastor Joh.W.Matutis

www.nnk-Berlin.de (see the english menu)
www.preach-in.de/content/category/5/17/42


WE ARE AT THE "TURNING POINT"

When the United States of America (hereinafter called the U.S.) declares bankruptcy and “goes down the drain” one should not be wondering at such a scenario.

Attached is one of the newest photos (see attached) where Obama is being blessed by a Hindu priest in the White House. That is not going to get unpunished.

At the occasion of the July 2007 inauguration session for the ensuing series of sessions of the U.S. Senate a Hindu priest blessed and sanctified the U.S. nation and the world economics in the name of Hindu gods. Right after this occasion the world economic crisis began.

At that time a Hindu priest read from the book of the ancient Hindu Vedes and called upon the spirits of the earth, the seas and the winds. One of the Christian faithfuls attending cried: “Oh God, forgive us these abominations!” Immediately, ushers seized the caller and forcibly carried him out of the auditorium.

Calmly, the Hindu priest restarted the ceremony from the very beginning and finished the ceremony and sanctification.

What happened then?

According to a press release of July 14, 2007 giant hornets and wasps captured the U.S. Congressional building. Some 16 swarms of these insects (up to 2 inches in size) seized the building.

God said in the bible (2. Mose 23, 27-29): “ I will send my fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people …..and I will send hornets before you….and the beasts of the field will become too numerous for you to cope with them…

That was the punishment for the peoples, i.e. the Hivites, the Canaanites and the Hittites that have worshiped idols. They worshiped as their main deity the god of the earth, the god of the winds and the god of the fire. Exactly the same gods that the Hindu priest called upon during the U.S. Senate session on July 13, 2007.

Since then, the U. S. is haunted by hurricanes and tornados, its woods and forests are burning (see fires in California) and lo and behold exactly commencing on July 14, 2007 oil prices shot up from a low $65 to a magical $147 per barrel.

Referring to Isa. 30, 25-26, God says “…when the towers fall (on 9-11-01) the day of reckoning is come. A lot has happened since than that pertains to the U.S. and the whole world and what is prophesized in the bible on “the Antichrist and its totalitarian reign”. The U.S. has more and more become a totalitarian surveillance regime with limitations on immigration and travel, much like it was prevalent in the days of the Soviet Union or the ex GDR. Nowadays, you must pay a fee of $10 to travel to the U.S., leaving the question whether this is better than in the GDR times?

The prophet Ezekiel admonishes 2500 years ago on behalf of God ( see Ezekiel 7): “I am calling upon you the most merciless peoples that they may seize your most beautiful houses. I will make an end with the arrogant behavior of its inhabitants and everything they treasure most will I destroy. Panic and fear will I sent upon them. Everyone will try to save their very life but they will not find the hiding places.”

Disaster upon disaster will come upon them…one horrific message chases another. In vain will they seek comfort with the prophet of God. No priest will have an answer for them, neither do any elders nor wise men. Even the king will become horrified and will render lamentations of the dead. The country men will be paralyzed of horror. I demand reckoning from them of their evil doings. I will judge them without mercy, because they have judged others. Then they will know that I am the LORD…”

And then He continues: “The day of judgment has arrived. Without ceasing, disaster strikes. Violence and arrogance prevailed bringing forth injustice after injustice. But of them that bet on violence and injustice, no one will remain, even if they are without number playing boss. Their might and glory will end…Their given time will soon be over. Soon, the day of judgment for the U.S. is come.

It’s every man for himself.

Here at home a mass vaccination project is unfolding (see image 2 below), soon it may just look like that. Why should the military get a different type of vaccination than pregnant women (!) or everybody else? Just look at this picture and think about it once more.

Perhaps these are the wolves, God showed me in that End-Time-Vision, recently (read it at my home page under “Somethings”). (or www.preach-in.de/content/category/5/17/42 / and see "End-Time-Vision")

I know, this is not just a simple flu-vaccination, there is a lot more to it as you may think. As a servant of God, I have got the task to warn my fellow men about the impending judgments of God, in order to help them find refuge and also not to trust these deceiving promises.

I am not getting anything out of this for my own benefit whether you believe me or not. As a preacher I am only doing my job and preach what I am conceiving from the Lord, whether this fits you or not.

Spiritual minded people understand the messages of God, though they may sound foolish and comical to the ungodly. Just think about Noah, Lot and others (see also Mathew 27,37-39 / Luke 17,26-34, etc.)

True Children of God are in his hand – they do not have to be afraid of pestilence and other calamities (see Ps. 91).

I am pointing out “TRUE children of God”. Are you already a TRUE child of God? Are you certain about that? Do you have this certainty from the Holy Ghost? (see Rom. 8,14-16).

Is the Holy Spirit guiding you?

I continue to pray for you.
Be blessed.

Pastor Joh. W. Matutis
www.nnk-berlin.de

When the Church's Enemy is the Church

E. Glenn Wagner (FutureLead)

Ever feel like spiritual terrorists are ambushing your church? Jesus told us that the work of authentic ministry would be resisted. He said "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18). The implication is that, although the gates of Hades will not ultimately prevail, they will always be trying to overcome Christ's church.

But the longer I'm in ministry, the more I'm beginning to think that "the gates of Hades" aren't our biggest problem. After all, Jesus said they would fail. To be honest, I see more kingdom resistance coming from within the church than from without. This wouldn't be the first time God's people resisted him. Stephen made it clear that Israel, God's Old Testament people, "always resisted the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:50). God's chosen people we're actually obstacles to him. They were the gates against whom God had to prevail. The church can be the same thing, if we're not careful.

I'm beginning to think that if Jesus was teaching today, he might say something like, "I will build my church, and the gates of the church will not prevail against." Or, "I will build my church, and the gates of the pastors will not prevail against it." Or, "I will build my church, and the gates of the Elders and deacons will not prevail against it."

Maybe we've been giving Satan and hell too much credit for resisting the work of the church. Maybe, just maybe, the gates that are currently prevailing are us! Through our refusal to change, adapt, live by faith, listen to and follow the voice of God, and risk all for the sake of Christ we could be God's greatest obstacles in building his church. Leaders, we need to be sure that we're not resisting the move of God in our midst. We need to be certain that we've not allowed Satan and hell to go on vacation by doing their job of resisting God for them.

We need to look at every area of our churches to be sure they're designed to welcome God not resist him. Think of your leadership, worship, small groups, spiritual development, evangelism, and structure and ask yourself, "In this area of our church, are we in any way resisting God and doing Satan's work for him?"

We need to return again and again to the pattern laid out in James 4:7. We're to "Submit to God," and "resist the devil." Let's be sure we're not submitting to the devil and resisting God.

By the way, I realize that when Stephen told Israel they were resisting God, they became, "furious and gnashed their teeth" (Acts 7:54). Then they proceeded to stone him. If I've evoked the same feeling in you, please send your stones to the editor, he'll add them to his growing collection.

E. Glenn Wagner is the founder and president of FutureLead (www.futurelead.org), an organization committed to equipping people to live and lead with purpose, passion and power. He's the author of numerous books including, God: An Honest Conversation for the Undecided (Waterbrook Press) and his latest book, Fire In Your Bones (Life Bridge). To schedule Glenn to speak or for more information, please contact info@futurelead.org.

Movement of the Moderates

Source: NECF by Rev Eu Hong Seng

MALAYSIA continues to face some of her darkest moments as a nation. Over the past months, the lack of political will to mitigate racial and religious intolerance has naturally given rise to ideologues, extremists, and radicals. All these are no different in essence from the keris-wavers and cow-head trampling demonstrators we saw a few years ago.

How one can rant and rave and threaten bloodshed and yet walk the streets a free man, whilst those who merely wear yellow T-shirts can be arrested, is most incomprehensible and unfortunate.

Last week's Bersih2.0 rally is a culmination of frustrations of the nation's citizenry, and I suspect this marks the beginning of a movement of the moderates.

There is some truth in the government's reasoning that rallying "is not our culture." But when tens of thousands of ordinary peace-loving people persist to take to the streets, besides the many thousands more who could not go due to the blockades and gridlock in the capital city, then it is incumbent on all of us to do some soul-searching.

The arguments for the legitimacy or otherwise of the Bersih2.0 rally reminds me of the famous "Lady Justice". This iconic figure wears a blindfold over her eyes while lifting a sword in one hand and carrying a pair of scales on the other. Symbolically, she represents fair and equal administration of the law - without prejudice, avarice, corruption, fear or favor.

If our leaders had likewise worn a blindfold ¹ and were asked to objectively judge the calls of concerned citizens and assess their conduct at the rally, their response would not have been so immature.

In many parts of the world, any group or government espousing to "clean the electoral roll," "stop corruption," "use indelible ink" - would have been praised as being proactive, decent, fair-minded, honest, rational. Strangely in Malaysia, when some people ask for these very same practices, they are "demonized", simply because they are "not government". What we witnessed on 9 July 2011 was the epitome of crude partisan politics.

Personally, I think the demands of Bersih2.0 - for electoral reforms and the right to have a peaceful march - were not only reasonable, but impartial as well. Bersih2.0 was not pro-opposition but pro-democracy.

The people of Malaysia are maturing in democracy and we can no longer tolerate unfair practices, corruption, vote-buying and otherwise. Being "blindfolded" like Lady Justice also means we are color blind, i.e. it does not matter if you wear red T-shirts or have green banners, nor does it matter if you are yellow, black or brown-skinned.

A right is a right. A wrong is a wrong regardless of whether it is committed by the government or the opposition or whomsoever.

I know the Church in this nation to be a peace-loving people. But more importantly, we are a people of the Book and our Book teaches us principles and values, rights and wrongs.

We remember Christ's mandate to love our neighbors as ourselves and not conduct ourselves in an un-Christian manner. At all times, we want to be conciliatory and be agents of peace to ensure harmony.

We must resist the temptation to say and do things that are escalatory and antagonistic. When highly confrontational tactics begin to replace more co-operative approaches, conflicts escalate and more extreme personalities maneuver to become leaders of the conflict groups.

And when this polarization degenerates till so much that is said and done makes no sense, we then need to remind ourselves that Lady Justice, though blindfolded, is "not gagged." This is where the silent majority and the Church must speak up. Scriptures mandate us to open our mouth.²

Moderates must speak up to check the damage intended by hard-liners and ensure that democracy is not hijacked.

We do not subscribe to "political subversion" but the Church has the responsibility to stand up against the fanatics and hypocrites bent on corrupting the moral fiber of our people and destroying our democratic nation.

There is nobody to save Malaysia except Malaysians. It is time for the moderates to speak up, be heard and play their role in this nation.

Rev Eu Hong Seng
NECF Malaysia, Chairman


This article is written to guide members of NECF in their prayers and in their journey as responsible non-partisan Christian citizens.

---

¹ Remember, the blindfold on Lady Justice represents objectivity, not blindness i.e. she is blindfolded, not blind. Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg

² Proverbs 31:8 - Open your mouth for the speechless, .... 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy. NKJV

Bersih rally: People on the street speak

By goodtimes.my 

Still talking ... The July 9 Bersih rally is still a hot conversation topic. EPA photo The government, opposition parties, Bersih and its supporters, and independent special-interest groups have all said their piece – and are continuing to do so – about the Bersih rally held last Saturday, July 9. But what do ordinary people on the street have to say? GoodTimes.my conducted a simple street poll in four specific areas in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya to get a feel of what people are thinking and talking about on this issue. The team split and approached whoever would speak to them in PJ State, Sunway Pyramid, Giant Mall in Kelana Jaya and the SOGO area. We asked three questions and the responses of the people are below. PJ STATE 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? Wan Azli ... Bersih rally is the Opposition’s activity. “It should be allowed but it should be held at a venue, maybe Stadium Shah Alam. Not Stadium Merdeka because that is an icon. For me, I see Bersih as an Opposition’s activity.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani, 33, customer service officer “I was there. They should have given the people the stadium or better still, the whole KL. This is a novel cause for clean and fair elections.” - Sam Tee, 56, retiree “Yes, definitely. We call ourselves a country that gives freedom of speech. It was supposed to be a peaceful rally; people should have been allowed to gather in a peaceful manner.” - Vidya Madhavan, 29, senior copy editor “Yes, because we are a democratic country. The rally was very peaceful at first but the government made it worse.” - Bavani, 32, assistant manager “The government should let them hold the rally because they (the rally organisers) are right. It seems the government do not listen to them and the Elections Commission only listens to one side, not the rakyat.” - Diana Marof, 45, homemaker 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “They should have registered themselves. Malaysia is a democratic country. If you are legal and the police stop you, then you can sue them. But now it is difficult for them to apply for registration because they have done something illegal and affected businesses. A lot of my colleagues at the call centre could not go to work because of that. We had only about 10 workers at work instead of over 100 and the next day, customers called and scolded us with the ‘F’ word.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani “It should not have been declared illegal. (Bersih chairperson) Ambiga (Sreenevasan) said it’s a coalition of 62 (registered) NGOs.” - Sam Tee Vidya ... the government should not be so defensive. “They should never have been declared illegal. They just want the government to hear them out, that’s the least the government can do. They were not there to create a ruckus.” - Vidya Madhavan “No, because they were not saying anything against the government. My question is, 'Why are they illegal?' ” - Bavani “No, because the government should listen to the rakyat’s views also. I am not pro-government nor pro-opposition.” - Diana Marof 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “I could see on the TV and Youtube that police handled the rally professionally. If it were under Hosni Mubarak, the police would have shot them already. The police had the right to arrest people in an illegal assembly like this but they didn’t. Our police already did what was best.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani “Give people the right. No shop was burned, no car was smashed. The police were the only aggressive ones, though there was no body contact. I saw the (rally) marshals with red armband cleaning up the street. The police must have been disappointed there were no violence and no rubbish lying around. Even God “bersihkan” (cleaned) the chemicals on us by sending the rain.” - Sam Tee “Give them permission and a location to hold the rally. Tell them to stick to the venue and don’t go out. Keep it contained. And the government should not be so defensive; it really shows they are insecure. The government should give them a chance to speak and be there to listen to them.” - Vidya Madhavan “Just give them (rally organiser) the permission to do it.” - Bavani Diana ... government didn't handle the matter properly. “The government and opposition parties should co-operate and not listen to one side of the story only. Then hear the rakyat’s views. The way the government handled the matter is not right – they say they can use the stadium but refuse to give the permit. They say have it outside KL, but what’s the point? The rakyat already gave assurance that it will be a peaceful gathering. The police said they found weapons and Molotov cocktails but I don’t think it’s the work of Pakatan Rakyat. From what I read in the newspapers and on the Internet, it looks like the government is trying to do whatever they can to make themselves look positive.” - Diana Marof SUNWAY PYRAMID 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? “The government should not have interfered at all because it only worsened the situation. In fact, at least four of the eight lists in the (Bersih) memorandum should have been implemented instead of ignored.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi, 24, property sales consultant “The Bersih demonstration should be prohibited because it disrupted public order as well as our businesses. Protest rallies and demonstrations might be a good idea in bringing up justice in this country but to me, this (Bersih) rally was not the way.” Pak Hassan, 46, taxi driver       Nazarul … the rally has tarnished the image of our country. “I think the Bersih rally should have stopped because we live in a peaceful country. Bersih has affected our business, and given us a lot of hassle, especially the roadblocks.” Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf, 21, telemarketing executive “If we really are a democratic country, Bersih should have been allowed to hold its rally without interference. It will be letting truth and justice prevail in this country.” – Junos M.K, 29, teacher “The Bersih rally should have been allowed because it had a good intention – to call for free and fair election for all parties as well as free access to all media.” – Chandrabass, 34, senior executive 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “Absolutely not because according to our country constitution, we as the rakyat (citizen) have a right to assemble. This is a democratic country and thus, they (government) should have given us a chance to march peacefully.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi “It should be labelled as legal as long as public properties were free from vandalism and there was no disruption of peace, comfort and safety to the public.” - Pak Hassan   “Yes, because the Bersih rally has tarnished the image of our country.” - Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf “It depends. It’s illegal because the rally was against the ruling. However, obviously the authority has abused that power to control the citizens. Thus, it makes no difference whether it‘s legal or not. When people get educated, the question of illegal does not matter anymore. Their demand is merely to have a free, fair and clean election and that was why someone has to champion that cause.” – Junos M.K Chandrabass ... everyone has a right to get his voice heard. “No it shouldn’t. Bersih was formed with good intentions and the government should have legalised it instead. This is a democratic country and I believe everyone has a right to get his voice heard.” – Chandrabass 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “The Bersih committee members should have just given the memorandum to the King without going through the peaceful rally which eventually led to the chaotic situation. Compromising between government and opposition is the best solution to prevent the Bersih demonstration.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi “Don’t demonstrate. Just live peacefully.” – Pak Hassan “I think they (the Bersih committee members) should have just taken up the offer by Selangor MB (Khalid Ibrahim) to use of Shah Alam Stadium.” – Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf “Frankly speaking, there is no proper and best way to handle Bersih. We cannot control how people respond to justice because when people get treated unfairly, they will surely react – you (the government) cannot shut people forever. There was a proper method to handle it initially but what happened in Bersih was beyond that ideal way and it had certainly passed the point of diplomacy in solving the problem.” – Junos M.K “The government should have allowed Bersih to hold its rally in the stadium without any interference from the police. But look what happened instead? When they blocked us from gathering at Stadium Merdeka, we were left with no choice but to go to the streets instead.” – Chandrabass GIANT MALL, KELANA JAYA 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without any hindrance? “Yes because they did it for justice and it was just a democratic process. The people just wanted to have their rights upheld.” - Vincent, 32, businessman “Yes. We are a democratic country, not communists, so I don’t understand why the government made such a big deal of it. All Bersih was asking for is clean and fair elections.” - Pei Yin, 27, NGO worker “Yes, absolutely because it is about the freedom of speech. We’re now in the 21st century, so excuses like ‘it’s not part of the Malaysian culture’ are no longer valid. We are changing and becoming more global.” - Jasmine, 43, customer service manager Hidayat ... we pay taxes. We pay the government's salaries. “Yes. It was just a call for improvement within the (electoral) system. The people just wanted to be heard. Another reason is that we pay taxes – we pay the government’s salaries. Therefore it is our right to voice our opinions.” - Hidayat, 28, banker “Of course. They weren’t given any other avenue to voice their opinions.” - Francis Tan, 58, retiree 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “No. I think the reason the government was so against this is that after the 2008 elections, they made a great loss.” - Pei Yin “No. We have the right to express our opinions and should be given a choice on how we want to do so. It wasn’t right for the government to suppress the public’s opinions or to instil fear in people.” - Jasmine “Bersih was declared illegal even before the rally took place. The government was going on a preemptive that it would turn violent and that was not right. In other countries, when the people want to protest, the government give them a space to do so and the police will be there, not to stop them, but to protect the people and control the crowd, and the people would be allowed to protest. It’s their right.” - Zaidi, 28, bankder “No. The people who attended the rally brought mineral water bottles and towels for their own use. It wasn’t as if they brought bazookas or parangs – so what’s the harm? They say it would harm the businesses in that area, when in fact, the businesses made more profit than usual during the rally!” - Hidayat Zafran … it is our basic human right to voice our opinion. “No. It is our basic human right to be able to voice our opinions. It confused the people too, one minute they (the government) say it’s ok, the next they say no.” - Zafran, 25, off-shore engineer 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “The police didn’t have to be so violent as the rally was a peaceful one.” - Pei Yin “A lot of tension could have been avoided if the government allowed it in the first place.” - Jasmine “The government shouldn’t have played the race card. When people ask me, ‘What race are you?’, I tell them, ‘I’m Malaysian and my ethnicity is Malay’.” - Zaidi “The government should have provided a place and space for people to voice their opinions, and they in turn must be transparent to the queries of the public. I think the government is too proud – they think they hold all the power, but they forget that the power is actually in the hands of the people.” - Hidayat “The government could have provided a place for them, like, in other countries where people are allowed to protest if they want to. That should be the way.” - Zafran SOGO, KUALA LUMPUR 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? “No, because it caused such a big chaos.” - Hamidah Zuriat, 60, pensioner “Yes, because we’re a democracy. People cannot voice their problems because they weren’t given a stadium to do so. So, they have to do it somewhere. Why was the PM allowed to walk on the same road (as Bersih participants did) the day after the rally without any hindrance? It’s not fair. There’s no democracy, in a way.” - Jason Choo, 21, sales executive “If Bersih wants to have a rally, they can but let it be in a peaceful way at a place that does not disturb the public. That day I couldn’t collect my wedding dress because the road was closed. It is troublesome for others.” - Azlin, 30, clerk (Note: Azlin got married on the same weekend as the Bersih rally) “The government should allow Bersih to have the rally and get feedback. They should not be afraid of it but monitor the situation. You (the government) can set up restrictions but not like the roadblocks. That’s too much restriction.”- Sakinah Alfath Alias, 22, student Ganesan … they can hold a rally but not in a public area. “I think the government should stop (Bersih) because it affects a lot of things. Security-wise, business-wise. Foreigners coming in are afraid. They (Bersih) can hold a rally, but in a closed-door stadium, not in a public area where people are affected. That is very bad for the country.” - Ganesan Rajamanickam, 57, senior administrative assistant 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “I think they are illegal because they are not a registered body under the Registrar of Societies. They’re only an NGO.” - Ganesan Rajamanickam “No, I don’t think so because Bersih is very harmless. It’s not actually against the government or anything. There are people who have the same political views and they want to see all the supporters in the stadium. But I don’t think that’s harmful.” - Khairina Narawi, 22, student “I don’t think so because the people from the NGOs gathered to make known their propaganda. The government should not be afraid.” - Sakinah Alfath Alias "The Bersih rally may not have been good in some aspects. It had its advantages because it allowed people to speak up. We may not know about all these political issues but in my opinion, you shouldn’t say it’s illegal.” - Azlin “Yes, they should because it’s a nuisance to the country. They are not patriotic.” - Hamidah Zuriat 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “Maybe the government should have a department where people can complain. Of course, then again, things like this always fall on deaf ears. So perhaps the press can put up a hotline or people can just blog about their views.” - Jason Choo Khairina … if the government is good, the rally will not affect the government. “Just let them do whatever they want because if the government is good, the rally will not affect the government.” - Khairina Narawi “My best suggestion would be that if you want to have a rally, do it at a venue that does not disturb the public. Do it at a stadium where you can assemble the people and at the same time have the media present.” - Azlin “Maybe they can talk, bring all the people in and talk. That day (July 9) created a lot of problems. We had to take the day off and our salaries were cut. As long as the rally does not cause problems, go ahead.” - Sivamalithy, 25, promoter “Maybe the government and opposition need to compromise. They need to sit at a round table and talk about it. Malaysian citizens want to live in harmony so the government should be a bit more accommodating. Not a lot, just a little. Allow them (Opposition) to do their propaganda.” - Sakinah Source:  GoodTimes

Van Impe ministry abandons TBN in clash over Islam

Network turned back episode that challenged leaders over 'apostasy'

By Bob Unruh | WorldNetDaily

A Christian ministry's decision to expose as "false teachers" several celebrity ministers it believes are corrupting biblical teachings has prompted a rift, with Jack Van Impe Ministries dropping plans to work in the future with Trinity Broadcasting Network, where it has broadcast for more than two decades.

"I Will Not Be Silenced! I will not allow anyone to tell me what I can and cannot preach," Van Impe said in a statement when TBN would not allow his program to air.

"When I see heretical teaching leading to apostasy, I will speak out," he said. "The Bible says 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' (II Timothy 3:16). The Apostle Paul also gives instructions in Titus 1:9-11, 13 'Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers … Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake…Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.'"

Van Impe said he immediately called his media agents and told them, "I no longer wanted to air my program on Trinity Broadcasting Network; we will take the tremendous amount of money that we were spending there to obtain new stations that will allow us to continue to reach every square mile of America with the truths of the Bible without this network."

The dispute arose over the issue of advocating for "Chrislam" and other efforts that are designed to find "common ground" between Christians and Muslims. TBN declined to air one of Van Impe's programs that contained sharp criticisms of leaders such as Rick Warren of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame and Robert Schuller.

In a statement from Van Impe Ministries today, Executive Director Ken Vancil said his organization rejected an effort by TBN to reinstate the programming and would work to develop alternative broadcast outlets where they were needed.

"We would not be able to minister effectively if we had to look over our shoulder wondering if a program was going to be censored because of mentioning a name," Vancil said. "While there is hurt over this incident, we hold no animosity towards TBN. Dr. Van Impe has often expressed his appreciate to Paul and Jan (Crouch, of TBN) and all that they have accomplished."

But he confirmed that Paul Crouch Sr. "cautioned" him as recently as Monday "regarding Dr. Van Impe's naming of names and publicly rebuking ministers and their teachings."

The dispute erupted just last week, when Van Impe's ministry planned to air sharp criticism of Christians who say they want to "reach out" by incorporating beliefs or practices of Islam into their Christian organizations.

The program specifically mentioned Warren and Schuller, prompting TBN to prevent the broadcast.

"We received a call from Matt Crouch of TBN informing us that they would not run that program. … The reason he gave was that we specifically mentioned Rick Warren and Robert Schuller and that it is TBN's policy that broadcasters are not allowed to rebuke other ministries," Van Impe said.

"This is a rather hypocritical statement in light of the fact that they have never said anything in the past when we have rebuked others such as Bishop Spong, Bishop Pike, and in the past few months Harold Camping and Rob Bell," he continued. "They also stated that they would not run any future program where we offered our DVD Reclaiming & Restoring Biblical Christianity as a premium for a donation to our ministry. A DVD that exposes false teachers and the heresies that they proclaim."

TBN did not respond to WND's request for comment on the dispute.

Vancil said after TBN's decision not to air the program that there was no future between the two groups.

"This was not an easy decision; we have had a relationship with TBN for 23 years. … But at this point we feel it is time to part ways," he said. "We have been able to over the years develop an independent network of broadcast stations all across America as well as broadcasting on TBN and Daystar. Our media agents have worked diligently and determined that we need to add 14 stations to be able to continue fully covering every mile of America.

"Praise God I am pleased to announce that negotiations have progressed in these 14 markets and that contracts will be presented to the Van Impes for approval in a matter of days," he said.

In the program that was cut, which remains available on the Jack Van Impe Ministries website, the ministry launches its campaign regarding "apostate ministers."

Van Impe explains that the Bible prophesies a one-world government and a one-world religion during the end times, and his concern focuses on the move among some Christian organizations to adopt some Islamic thought and incorporate elements of Islam into their worship.

"We've got too many of these mush-mouth preachers. All they're doing is two stories and a movie review," he said. But the Bible actually outlines that its messages also are to "reprove and rebuke" Christians for failing to live for God.

According to the broadcast, "Chrislam is a term that may be used more often among apostate churches."

Such Islamic and evangelical Christian leaders, the report explained, are working to find a way to promote "common beliefs the two religions supposedly share."

Specifically cited were Warren and Schuller.

During a subsequent broadcast, also available on the ministry's website, the advance of "Chrislam" thoughts and practices into Christian churches was described as a "tsunami of compromise."

"This compromise is going to permeate Christianity," Van Impe said. "I'm calling for the old-time religion to be restored.

"God called me to preach. And I will not stand down for any man, for any church, for any Christian organization," he said.

The report noted that there are some Christian missionaries overseas who have "eliminated 91 verses in God's Holy Word because they wanted to please Islam and the Muslims."

Those references identify Jesus as the Son of God.

Other developments include moves by some Christian churches to remove clear Christian emblems such as crosses.

He said what churches need today is that "old time religion" and less "self-esteem psycho-babble."

Criticized on the program were recommendations attributed to Warren that churches change music to a contemporary rock style, eliminate hymnbooks and the choir, eliminate the Sunday evening or Wednesday prayer services, remove the word "church" and refer to it as a "campus," and reduce the use of the words "unsaved," "lost," "hell" and "heaven."

Other ministries have voiced criticism similar to Van Impe's.

Joe Schimmel, senior pastor of Blessed Hope Chapel in Southern California and chief of the Good Fight Ministries, openly has questioned whether church leaders are affirming Allah.

Schimmel, who is best known for "They Sold Their Souls for Rock n Roll," which exposes satanic influences behind much of yesterday and today's popular music and how it negatively influences youth, suggested in a WND column, "Could it be that we are witnessing the formation of the prophesied one-world religion under the Antichrist? (Revelation 13:1-18) "

He cited Brian McLaren of the emerging church movement, who planned for an Islamic Ramadan celebration. And he mentioned Warren's agreement to address the Islamic Society of North America, which "the Department of Justice categorized two years ago as a co-conspirator in financing a foreign terrorist group!"

Another church leader, Tony Campolo, "a proponent of the so-called 'evangelical left' claimed that 'even if' Muslims 'don't convert, they are God's people,'" Schimmel wrote.

"Even more chilling is the fact that over 300 prominent Christian leaders signed a letter issued by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture claiming that world peace is dependent on Muslims and Christians recognizing 'Allah' and 'Yahweh' as the same God. This letter, titled 'Loving God and Neighbor Together,' was written in response to a signed document by 138 Muslim leaders titled 'A Common Word Between Us and You.' McLaren, Warren, Robert Schuller and Bill Hybels were just several of the signatories to this outright betrayal of Christ!" he said.

TBN previously had a conflict over its intolerance for criticism of Islam. It was in 2006 when Hal Lindsey, WND columnist and one of the world's most popular non-fiction authors, clashed with the network because TBN wanted him to soften his views on Muslims. Lindsey refused.

Read more: Van Impe ministry abandons TBN in clash over Islam