Furthermore, the Bible characters were not immune from a stringent examination of their lives so Graham should not be an exception. If so, then that smacks of being unsavory, unnecessary, and unscriptural hero worship.

I have noticed over the decades that my critics refuse to deal with the core issue; instead, they accuse Graham critics of being jealous or haters, or legalists, or not following Matthew 18.

Billy Graham was my brother in Christ who made some ministerial decisions that I thought very unwise. However, they were very successful on the surface. I have always had great appreciation for him as a person—husband and father. Graham was a conspicuous example of discretion and commitment in a day when some televangelists and megachurch pastors have been caught with their pants down–then flying to exclusive pleasure spots in their multimillion dollar jets.

During his long life, Graham was never involved in a financial or moral scandal! He built and supervised a massive global organization of citywide crusades, a radio and television empire, books, newspaper columns, and movie productions. He was responsible for raising and spending about $100 million annually which would justify a million-dollar salary yet he always received a very modest salary and benefits. No one ever accused Billy Graham of being greedy.

Graham-haters make much of his net worth of $25 million as being excessive; however, when you realize his long life that is not unusual. With a nominal and conservative retirement program started at age 21, he could easily be worth more than that amount. Howard Stern has a net worth of $500 million and Rush Limbaugh is worth $300 million. By any standard, other than financial, Graham was worth far more than both men combined.

Daniel Borochoff, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group the American Institute of Philanthropy, declared of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, “He’s been looked upon as the gold standard.” No one can legitimately criticize Graham relating to money.

Graham’s personal morality is impeccable and his refusal to be alone with a female, not related to him, is one I have followed all my life. That rule kept him (and me) from a hint of scandal.

Any man who lives about a hundred years, often away from home, with access to large amounts of money without a hint of hanky-panky is to be commended not condemned.

As a friendly critic, I was delighted when the powers-that-be decided to have his body lie in state in the rotunda of the capitol. I took it as an honor to all Christian leaders and a casual endorsement of the Gospel. I was pleasantly surprised when President Trump said, “Billy Graham was 15 years old at the time. Just a few months later he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. That choice didn’t just change Billy’s life, it changed our lives. It changed our country and it changed, in fact, the entire world.” Wow, that is astounding. I hope Trump follows Graham’s example.

Billy Graham’s funeral made an incredible, indelible, and lasting impact on the world! I was surprised, shocked, and satisfied at the clear presentation of the Gospel in song, testimonies, and sermon. President Trump offered the National Cathedral for the funeral but the Grahams opted for a huge tent! Good for them. His funeral at the National Cathedral would have been spiritually grotesque.

The Graham funeral was one of the most spectacular events on television! He was buried on his mountain property after an amazing service in a huge tent. The singing of Bill Gaither was superb, the personal testimonies from Graham’s children were moving, and the message by Franklin Graham was right on target. And all paid for by the liberal media! No doubt atheists’ knees jerked all over America—left ones, of course.

Fox News carried the complete funeral while CNN spent less than 3 minutes on it; however, a few years ago, CNN did run the complete funeral of another Graham—Kay Graham, the late publisher of The New York Times. MSNBC decided 26 seconds was sufficient for Billy Graham! CNN and MSNBC devoted a whole day of coverage to the funeral of Muhammad Ali! Boy, they have their priorities in order!

Graham got his start in a large tent in Los Angles in 1949 when over 350,000 people came to the “Canvas Cathedral” during eight exciting weeks. Some of the Hollywood crowd trusted Christ and according to the media, about 3,000 people trusted Christ or “hit the sawdust trail.” Thousands of hearers listened intently as Graham preached nightly while thousands more listened outside the tent and others in their parked cars.

Stuart Hamblen was a skirt chasing, boozing, fighting, cowboy radio star in Los Angeles. He heard of the Billy Graham stir around L.A. and wanted him to be a guest on his show. He attended the tent meeting one night and he thought Graham called him a fake during his message! Hamblen stomped out and two nights later, he appeared at Graham’s hotel door at 4:00 a.m. drunk as a skunk! Hamblen trusted Christ as Savior and his life was changed immediately. He stopped his wild, hedonist living and soon the Hollywood crowd began to shun him, a typical reaction. Hamblen was fired from his popular radio show because he refused to accept a beer commercial.

Wow, a man of principle! That doesn’t happen very often.

John, one of Stuart’s old Hollywood drinking buddies, asked him one day if “getting religion” was worth all the bad repercussions and Stuart told him it was. John said, “But Stuart you sure liked your booze, don’t you miss it?” He told him that he did not miss it and John said, “I don’t understand how you could give it up so easily.” Stuart replied, “It’s no secret what God can do.” His friend replied, “That’s a catchy phrase. You should write a song about it.” He did. Stuart went home, sat down at the piano and finished the song in 17 minutes. His new gospel song, “It is no secret what God can do” was the first song to cross over from Gospel to country to pop ballad reaching number one on all three charts!

His drinking buddy was John Wayne with whom he appeared in some of Wayne’s movies where Hamblen had minor roles. It is noteworthy that one of the six songs chosen by Graham for his funeral was written by Hamblen.

Other stars impacted by Graham’s meeting included the beautiful, brassy, and boisterous Jane Russell, Dennis Morgan, Virginia Mayo, Porter Hall, Connie Haines, Michael O’Shea, Roy Rogers, and Dale Evans.

When Graham decided to cast his lot with the modernist branch of Christianity thereby rejecting his fundamentalist roots, he received universal support from the media. Very seldom did the press offer even mild criticism; however, the fundamentalist media universally considered his decision a sellout.

The Charlotte Observer, usually very supportive of Graham, observed in 1971 that even some of Graham’s fellow Southern Baptists believed that he was “too close to the powerful and too fond of the things of the world, [and] have likened him to the prophets of old who told the kings of Israel what they wanted to hear.” That would be one of my major disagreements with him.

The major complaint Bible-oriented Christians had with Graham is that he pretended unbelieving ministers were believers to get their cooperation in his crusades. That was wrong and Christ healing a leper illustrates the principle that obedience to Him has priority over telling the Gospel story, even the essential and true story!

In Mark 1:40-45, Christ healed a leper and told him not to broadcast that amazing news lest it hinder His work! That was strange. Why not testify of a personal miracle? According to Old Testament law, when a person contracted leprosy he was to be separated from society. The outcast lived alone in desert places. But now he was free of leprosy but he could not immediately re-enter society.

Such a leprosy-free person had to go the priest for examination before reentering society. This forced the priest to certify Christ’s power even as he opposed Him! Note the difference between Christ’s power and that of the priests: The priests were authorized to pronounce a man clean, but Jesus had the power to make him clean!

Christ told him to see the priest and be examined, then make an offering; however, because he blazed the matter abroad, the crowds hindered Christ from doing His work. Christ could no longer enter cities because of the crowds! His fame hindered rather than helped His ministry! Obviously, having big, excited crowds is not proof of God’s will. Christ’s main purpose was not to heal every leper in Israel but to reveal Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus could no longer openly enter into the city, and was forced to live in desert places. It is interesting that Christ and the leper exchanged living conditions: the leper could now live among the people but Christ lived in “desert places” because of the former leper’s disobedience.

Dr. Billy Graham influenced millions of people but, like every other believer, his main obligation was not preaching but obedience and in that I believe he failed. The healed leper, like Graham, could boast of huge crowds but Christ wanted his obedience not crowds and the leper’s crowds interfered with Christ’s work! The leper sincerely thought he was doing right by drawing great crowds to Christ and was among the first to preach the good news about Jesus but he disobeyed Christ in doing so—just as Billy Graham did.

However, a disobedient Graham may have had an even greater impact at his death than in his life proving that a sovereign God will finally work things out to own satisfaction!

Most sensible people believe that there are two sides to every controversy; however, those same sensible people will not consider the possibility that Graham had faults, failures, and foibles! I am the only one who has provided the historical reality of the life, ministry, and death of Dr. Billy Graham but most people prefer the fable to facts.

Truth still matters and while it will set you free, it often stings!

Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. An eBook edition is also available.

Billy’s cooperation, complicity, and compromise with infidel pastors is the core of his sinful failure that brought enormous harm to the cause of Christ at the same time he was trying to reach people for Christ! Inadvertently, he was the source of confusion as he discouraged faithful workers, disrupted the churches, and distorted the Word of God that he was attempting to proclaim!

The uninformed or those who have conformed to the thinking of this world’s philosophy get very queasy when names are called or people are identified as needing to make personal corrections in their lives. However, John the Baptist sure called names even telling the Jews that their religious leaders were “a generation of vipers” in Matt. 3:7. Now that wasn’t the way to win friends and influence Jewish leaders. He told the world that King Herod was living in adultery, and it cost John his head! I hope I will not be “honored” in the same way because of my honest and true criticism of Graham. But when you get a wishy-washy Evangelical angry (he only expresses anger at Fundamentalists) he often reaches for his hatchet.

Paul warned in Rom. 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” He often named names! While he often praised individuals (more than 25 in one chapter), he told two ladies to stop fussing (Phil. 4:2) and pointed out an adulterous affair in the Corinthian church. He told of Hymenaeus and Philetus’ profane and vain babblings. To Timothy he revealed that Alexander the coppersmith did him much evil; He also reported that Demas was a quitter who returned to the world. He warned of Hymenaeus and Alexander’s blasphemy and of Phygellus and Hermogenes’ apostasy. Yes, Paul was a “name caller.”

Even Christ called people “serpents,” “blind guides,” and “hypocrites” in Matt. 23:23-34. According to John 2:15, He even made a whip and chased the money changers from the Temple. Note that it was premeditated in that He “made” the whip. It would take many whips to chase out the money changers today especially the television evangelists who plead like beggars and live like kings as they lie, embellish, and coerce money from the elderly, the naïve, the weak-minded, and the stupid. Sincere Christians are commanded to expose the charlatans as these Christians “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Paul commanded us to “mark” believers who believe contrary to his “doctrine” and “avoid” them (Rom. 16:17). He told us rebuke sharply those who were not sound in the faith, not to be mean, but that they “may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Moreover, he said that such Christians were to be reproved (Eph. 5:11) and sincere Christians were told to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (II Thes. 3:6). He told us to “reprove, rebuke, exhort” those who need the same (II Tim. 4:2). Few Christians obey that teaching and even attack those who try to faithfully obey!

The Apostle John, the apostle of love, used very strong language in II John 10 and 11. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Graham obviously chose not to follow John’s admonition thinking he could do wrong thereby helping him do right.

I realize that in criticizing such a popular and impressive man, I will expose myself to relentless criticism. That is only reasonable. I expect to be held to the same standard. There is no question that I have failed. However, I can honestly declare that I have never been bought, not by family, friends, foes, or fellowship. I have tried to be consistent with criticism whether of friend or foe.

There is a segment of Christians who think it is wrong to be negative, not understanding that most of the Ten Commandments are negative. They often use Matt. 7:1 as a response to any who criticize others as they tell us it is always wrong to judge others. Of course, they show how immature and uninformed they are when they use that passage against honest critics. Christians are supposed to make judgments every day about right and wrong. Christians are to judge but to judge righteously without being “holier than thou.” We are not to be hasty, harsh, or haughty in our judgment.

After looking at the facts and following Graham’s ministry from its beginning I am compelled to say that he compromised the Word of God to accomplish the task he felt called to do. It is an in- arguable fact that Graham changed 180 degrees in the early 1950s from the fire breathing evangelist who called sin by its name, lambasted Communists, and called out the radical Modernists in the National (then Federal) and World Council of Churches. Then he invited Roman Catholics into his bed. Those are facts that no informed, honest person can deny. However, if you think that plan, practice, and policy is biblical, then you can convince yourself that you have won the discussion. But, if you think Bible commands are important and all of us, without exception, are required to obey then you will be willing to look honestly at Graham’s life and admit that he made major mistakes as he was trying to do good.

Be that as it may, we must never do wrong in the attempt to do right. No exceptions!

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

They also refused to do a review of my book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! Can’t imagine why.

The same paper permitted a local Muslim to accuse Cal Thomas of bigotry comparing him to Jew-haters in Nazi Germany! What chutzpa! A Muslim “spokesperson” accusing a highly respected and talented Christian journalist of bigotry! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! I wrote in defense of Cal but the editors refused to publish it.

Later, they ran a cartoon showing an “Evangelical Zealot” standing on the chest of a hapless and helpless Muslim as the “zealot” crams “Fundamentalist Christian Dogma” down his throat? For those who did not understand the cartoon, the heading informed readers the gist of it was “Converting the Muslims.” Again, I came to the defense of Truth but the editors refused to make a correction.

I called the editors and publishers and challenged them pointing out historical truth but they refused to budge. One editor did admit that the cartoon was a mistake but evidently, they didn’t have enough paper and ink to permit me to write a correction! It was a matter of courage or lack thereof.

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website dealing with creation and evolution since there had been much coverage dealing with the subject in various journals. Evolutionists had been hammered and major university professors had begun to ask embarrassing questions making evolutionists uneasy. Consequently, major journals cranked out hysterical propaganda pieces to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates who bow before the idol of evolutionary science.

Galloping to the rescue of beleaguered evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do, it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trotted out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “Fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggested that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the evolutionary myth.

Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media moguls wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people! Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.

But the censorship continued.

I wrote the editor of Pulpit Helps, a major Christian publication with which most preachers are familiar. My concern was with a review done by the editor about a book of sermons by Martin Luther King, Jr. I enclosed a column that dealt with King that they could publish providing some fairness and balance. They refused to publish my column. The correspondence was very revealing and by no means unusual:

To the Editor:

I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree about King. I have fought for that privilege (to disagree) in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for 35 years.

However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that Pulpit Helps would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.

You mentioned that you were in high school when King was killed so you have grown up in an atmosphere where King has been idolized and almost beyond scrutiny especially in the public schools and the media.

You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you have “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you praised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited; maybe only to the book you were reviewing!

You also wrote, “Neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more balanced, fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted. Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as do Whites. Blacks should not have been subjected to back of the bus status and colored water fountains. However, private businesses are something else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course, that is another issue.

You said, “Since the piece in Pulpit Helps was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely, Pulpit Helps is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.

You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!

Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if he did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point, you are defending King and disobeying John! King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at Pulpit Helps do believe it.

You did not deal with King’s many adulterous affairs as he admitted to Parade magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous.

Do you think the fact that King was murdered wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period, that fact somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?

Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly, and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.

Another question: Bill Clinton writes a classic bestseller. Not one paragraph in it that any honest, fair, and informed person disagrees with. Would your review be totally positive without mentioning that he had been a moral leper, had been impeached by the House, had lied under oath, and had sold or given valuable information to the Chinese Communists, etc.?

Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather than on the merits of the case? Does truth matter anymore?

You refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized from others without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.

You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that such action would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.

King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review. I am disappointed in Pulpit Helps not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from personal immorality.

Sincerely,

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Christ said that He was the Truth so how can anyone, claiming to know Him, be careless with the truth?

Censorship is alive and well in America.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Graham and Falwell made it a practice to never be alone with a woman who was not a relative. In that respect, they were right on target. No doubt, they practiced that for the same reason I have always done so: because none of us are 100% reliable until we are dead and because of the appearance of wrongdoing. We are not to give any person a reason to suspect or accuse us of evil. Failing to reach perfection is no excuse for not being blameless. Of course, being blameless is not the same as being perfect.

John Bunyan was one of the most courageous and principled men in history. In the 17th century, he told the king of England that he did not have the authority to stop him from preaching the Gospel! For that conviction, he spent over 12 years in prison. The Bunyan family lived from the support of fellow church members while John was in prison. John earned additional funds from the sale of shoe laces he made in prison.

Bunyan’s eldest daughter Mary was blind and she came to visit him in prison and pled with him “Come home daddy. Momma’s sick and we need you.” Mary would reach for her father’s eyes and wipe away his tears and whenever Mary left his cell and walked down the corridor feeling her way along the damp walls, John said that it was as if someone was pulling the flesh from his bones. Mary died while John was in prison. He could have gone home at any time if he promised to stop preaching but John told the judge that he would preach until the moss grew on his eyelids. That is character, courage, and convictions.

But John was wrong in dealing with women.

After John’s release from prison, he became pastor of the dissident church in Bedford with such unusual success that the church started other meetings in surrounding villages. One was in Gamlinghay and on Feb. 13, 1674, the church had a preaching meeting scheduled where Bunyan was to preach. A young lady named Agnes Beaumont had recently joined the Bedford church and wanted to attend the meeting in Gamlinghay.

Her father disliked Bunyan although Agnes’ brother belonged to his church. The only way Agnes could attend the meeting was to get a ride on someone’s horse, quiet common in that day; however, it was not acceptable for young ladies to ride with married men. John rode by her home in Epworth and her brother asked him if Agnes could ride with him to the meeting. John quickly refused twice then acquiesced and rode off with the 20-year-old lady behind him!

Even a modern television evangelist would not be so stupid. Well, not sure about that.

It was daylight and Agnes’ brother and wife road along with them but it was scandalous. The coup de grâce was two nights later when Agnes’ father died and she was accused of poisoning him by the family lawyer whose advances she had rejected earlier. It was charged that Agnes and John were sexually involved and John had provided the poison to kill her father. At the coroner’s inquest, the case was dismissed since it was obviously contrived by the attorney and a priest who had seen John and Agnes at the edge of town with her arms around John’s waist!

Agnes wrote that John spoke to her of biblical things during their ride to the next village but that did not make it right. John was wrong, careless for his reputation and for a single lady. It was a lapse in judgment by a good, great, even godly man.

God warns us about “the appearance of evil.” This is especially true of pastors. No pastor should ever be alone with an unrelated woman unless his office can be observed from the hall. He should never visit in the home of a lady without others present. The Bible tells Christian workers to go “two by two” when they visit.

There is a movement in America that has been gaining popularity in recent years whose only objective is to promote opposite sex friendship. I have a friend in a major Midwest city who has written a book promoting this dangerous and unbiblical teaching. I don’t question his or others’ motives but I sure question their wisdom and judgment. He could probably be identified as a “recovering Fundamentalist” but I suggest he and some others in the movement are loosey-goosey Evangelicals or simply professing Christians from mainline churches.

People in the Opposite Sex Relationship (OSR) movement often have meals with the opposite sex and even take road trips with them, utilizing separate motel rooms. The one verse dealing with the appearance of evil would prohibit that practice. Honesty, sincerity, purity, friendship, and all other virtues are not relevant. It is an open door for sexual immorality, breaking up families, and especially an open door for evil accusations.

I have many female friends that are important to my life; however, there is a difference in important and essential. I delight in talking with them but I would never consider having lunch alone with them or going on a road trip with them! First of all, why should I? Why would I want to exclude my wife? A wife or husband should provide all the emotional support that is needed and any other support is good but incidental.

No, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell were right in their relationships with women and John Bunyan was wrong. Jesus said in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Countless sincere pastors are not wise and are making the same mistake that Bunyan made providing an open door for destruction of their ministry.

If I had done what Bunyan did, my wife would have guaranteed my early arrival at the Celestial City after a dinner of freshly picked mushrooms–picked by her!

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

You do not think Dallas Willard “strays into universalism” with his teaching but he does. Some Universalists believe even Satan will be rehabilitated while others believe that all humans, who have not been atheists, will be saved even if they have never heard of Christ. Of course that is universalism.

You mentioned that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, and Kenneth Copeland “are all great examples of heretics in the past 200 years whose teachings can lead their followers toward damnation.” However, the teaching of Willard, Schuller, Graham and others can have the very same effect. Moreover, what about your earlier statement, “Perhaps God might save those who have not heard Christ simply through general revelation.” Why should your list of religious leaders not be saved especially if they were sincere—even sincerely wrong? If God would extend His grace to heathen, then surely He would do so to those sincere “Christian” leaders.

Your next statement is astounding when you said, “I would venture to say that a person could drink a pint of beer everyday with dinner, smoke a pack a week, play poker with his buddies every Friday, go swing dancing with his girlfriend every Saturday, listen to heavy metal rock music, cover his body with tattoos and piercings, grow his hair down to his waist and dye it purple, grow out a beard to his chest, play video games with non-Christian friends, literarily use the F-word, wind-down after work each day to an hour of television, and still have a thriving relationship with the Almighty Triune God of the Bible. The big question is whether he is living a life of complete subjugation [Surely you did not mean to use this word. Maybe you meant ‘subjection.’] to God—by serving God and serving his neighbor. While I do not advocate these activities, I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant. The question is because everything is permissible, how is what I am doing with my life glorifying to Christ?”

How in the world can you even suggest that such a person could be living “a life of complete subjection to God”? And how could such a person be “glorifying to Christ”? On the one hand, you wrote, “I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant,” but then you stated, “everything is permissible.” It is astounding that you would consider acceptable for a Christian anything not specifically forbidden by Scripture. (Does the New Covenant forbid cannibalism?) Then your “everything is permissible” statement is contradictory. Moreover, what did Paul mean when he told the Romans (and us) not to be conformed to this world? If the above hypothetical “Christian” was not conformed to this world, then what must one do to qualify as doing so? Additionally, I cannot ignore the teaching of the Old Testament in this discussion.

God demands that His work be done in a godly way. Remember when God killed Uzzah in II Sam. 6:6-7 when he tried to do a good thing in the wrong way by reaching out to steady the cart that was carrying the ark of the Lord. I would have killed the oxen for being so clumsy but God punished Uzzah for his “error” (or rashness).

What do you think it means when Paul said in II Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”? If a man is a new creature, how can he live like an old creature?

Moreover, getting tattoos and piercings are unscriptural as per Lev. 19:28: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Is that “legalism” or is it as compelling (although not as serious) as “Thou shalt not kill”?

Furthermore, is Paul’s statement in I Cor. 11:14 still germane? “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Is it legalism to expect men to obey that teaching?

Regarding music, you said, “Many of the tunes to the beloved hymns we sing (including our national anthem!) were originally from drinking songs set with Christian lyrics.” Then you listed songs that were not “drinking songs.” Surely you do not equate Beethoven’s music with drinking songs! Moreover, you did not mention any “drinking songs.” It is alleged by many that Luther and Wesley took saloon melodies and put Christian words to them but that is not true. It is believed that this misconception developed because some of the tunes used by Luther were in German “Bar form” which means a three-part stanza–not a location where the songs were performed. Luther did take some of the old Roman Catholic tunes and put Scriptural words to them. That did not make the Pope a happy camper! But Luther didn’t care and neither do I.

You wrote, “I do not find any indication of God’s musical preference in Holy Writ,” but just before Calvary, Christ and the Disciples sang a “hymn” according to Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26. Paul told the Ephesians in 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” He also encouraged the church at Colosse (Col. 3:16) to teach and admonish each other with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” There is no doubt that the early church sang the Psalms; in fact, the Psalms were the hymnbook of the early church.

You suggested, “In many circumstances, antiquated musical styles can become a hindrance to those who desire the freedom to worship God. God provided such wonderful diversity in the Church just as he created such wonderful diversity in the world; it brings us to our knees and makes us realize that this worship is not about us.” This seems to be your justification for the use of any style of music in church services. Christians should not see how close they can get to worldliness without offending God, but how far away from worldliness they can get without unnecessarily offending men.

You opined, “It seems as though many Protestants who are against contemporary church music use some of the same reasons that the Catholics did during the Protestant Reformation.” The Catholics were offended because Luther’s new lyrics were offensive to Catholics. Of course, Catholics were offensive because the new lyrics ridiculed and opposed their false doctrine. However, some Christians today are offended by some of the new music, not because it is new, but because it is loud, raucous, unscriptural, shallow, vapid, etc. If the lyrics are so loud or garbled that no message is perceived then it is useless and out of place. If the band or orchestra is so loud that it breaks streetlights in front of the church, it is too loud and disgraceful. Furthermore, it also damages the hearing.

Bach, whom you praised earlier was right on the music issue. While serving as cantor at Thomas Church of Leipzig, Bach taught Luther’s Small Catechism. Bach stated: “The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.” That was an example of taking the correct position.

I agree with the prophet Amos when he wrote in Amos 5:23, “Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.” (An instrument that preceded the guitar that was plucked.)

Also, much of the opposition to contemporary church music is not really about the music but all the change that goes with it, including doctrinal positions, ministry approach (entertainment vs. evangelization), attitude toward God, etc.

Then you got into deep weeds when you said, “I would not write off historical practices wholesale by the mere fact that Catholic mystics practiced it.” Of course not. Catholic mystics ate, took a bath (occasionally) and worked in their gardens. However, when the monks did things that are supposed to be religious, that is a different matter. There is no scriptural basis for self-flagellation, penance, not bathing, not cutting finger nails, sleeping on cold floors, long periods of silence, not eating meat, etc. They thought they were made good by feeling bad. It all goes back to works or seeking to satisfy a holy God. It is incredible that intelligent Christian leaders are trying to lead churches back into those days where church leaders should never have gone in the first place.

You wrote, “Too many times, however, [among Fundamentalists] the joy and love of Christ Jesus seems absent from their teaching; it becomes overshadowed by angry and harsh rhetoric lashing out against those who are not part of their community and living by their cultural expectations; it is not simply that they are loud.” I have noticed that there is more harshness, loudness, unfairness, and anger on the part of mushy evangelicals and liberals toward Fundamentalists than how Fundamentalists react to their critics. Among the Emergent Church people and megachurch people there is far more tolerance for homosexuals, Muslims, abortionists, etc., than for Christian Fundamentalists! Wonder why? Could we be a threat to them and their useless dogmas? Then again, maybe it is guilt because informed Evangelicals know that they are backslidden Fundamentalists! At least their parents were Fundamentalists.

Did you use Paul’s statement about his being willing to become all things so that the Gospel will be known to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) as a justification for fellowshipping and uniting with worldings and unbelievers? He was saying that he would not pursue something legitimate if his doing so might hinder a person trusting Christ. For example, if I am witnessing to a black man, I will not bring up Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a charlatan, adulterer, plagiarist, etc., since that is not necessary to that person’s salvation. However, after he trusts Christ and I am mentoring him, I may deal with King, Jackson, Sharpton, and other Blacks who rode to power on the backs of other Blacks. It is a matter of the uninformed Black becoming an educated person who accepts people as what they are not what race they may be. I can easily prove my contention about black opportunists but it could be unproductive, even harmful to the concerned Black, even though everything I tell him would be truthful. Paul is saying, “Why offend people when it will do no good? In matters of customs, dress, ceremony, I will conform to them, as far as I can, for the purpose of winning them.” I agree with Paul, not you.

As an aside, note that Paul spoke of saving “some.” If Willard, Schuller, Graham and Company are correct, then Paul would not have been concerned since all not “some” would be saved.

Your quotes by [Bryan Crawford] Loritts, (who chided Reformed Christians at this year’s Elephant Room conclave for criticizing T. D. Jakes for his heresy regarding the Godhead), “The goal of all ministry is transformation,” and, “Don’t ever stand in front of a group of people with a Bible in your hand and not expect change” are right on target. I certainly agree; however, if that means, as you wrote, “Christians need to be reading and interacting with books, movies, and ideas of the present age, for that is where the people are giving much of their attention,” then I disagree. When I got saved, I was not perfected but I was changed and all Christians are to be in the process of becoming in the image of Christ. Yes, it is important for Christians to be informed, but that requires discretion. For Christians to drink, share dirty stories, watch filthy television shows and movies and profess that they are becoming all things to all people and are engaging the culture is pure poppycock. They are, in my opinion, trying to justify ungodly, unscriptural living. You imply that such people should be given a religious “merit badge.”

You said that “I will engage in the corrupt culture as flavoring and savoring salt and enlightening and prophetic light by means of the Holy Spirit.” I don’t think that is Christian living as per the New Testament. I am not sure how you are using “engage.” I think your statement says you are not fighting the culture but participating with the culture. You seem to be saying you will “participate in the corruption” in order to be salt and light, i.e., to show that you are one of them, but II Cor. 6:17 tells us not to be “one of them” and to come out from among them and be separate. Paul adds also that we should not touch the unclean thing. Of course, personal and ecclesiastical separation is one of the major differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

It is my opinion that Christians should not love the world, talk like the world, dress like the world, nor act like the world. However, we should not withdraw from the world as the medieval mystics did to the extent that we are hermits and have no influence with the lost. I have discovered that those Christians who talk about being involved with the culture whereby almost anything is acceptable are simply trying to justify an ungodly lifestyle. Hence, those people can go to dirty movies, watch television (or videos) filled with obscenities and nudity, drink alcohol, read salacious literature, etc., without any feelings of guilt.

However, guilt is present whether felt or not and sin needs to be confessed and forsaken.

Thanks for writing.

Revealing the very crass, crude, and corrupt King would destroy the hero worship of most Americans. King is not held to the same standard of “lesser” men; therefore preachers, pundits, and politicians refuse to tell the truth about him! Is that not black privilege? Moreover, have other black leaders assumed that they too have a right not to be judged by a high standard of civility, godly living, and personal conduct–Oh, all right, how about simple honesty?

Some King defenders excused his very close association with Communist activists such as Abner W. Berry, Bayard Rustin (who spent time in jail for public homosexual acts), Hunter Pitts O’Dell, Stanley Levison (bag man for the Communist Party in the U.S.), Robert Williams, and Carl and Anne Braden (convicted of conspiring to bomb the home of a Black and place the blame on “white segregationists.”) All the above were vile Communists dedicated to the overthrow of our government, but King climbed in bed with them. He was defended by his followers and since his mission was so sacred, he was forgiven. Black privilege on steroids.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy warned King to sever connections with the Communists that surrounded him but he refused to listen. Finally, President Kennedy told King: “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.” Even then, King discussed, delayed, and dissimulated.

King’s many grammatical errors and plagiarism were admitted by King’s family and the plagiarism was characterized by King defenders as “textual appropriation.” King was “only doing what Blacks do.” That is a slander of all black scholars. Others identified his thievery as “borrowings,” “voice merging,” “resonances,” “intertextualizations,” “blending,” “alchemizing,” and other whoppers. King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University from another author but the university did not revoke, recall, or repudiate his degree! No white student would have been treated so kindly. It all translates: Black privilege. Special rules for special people.

Had I been a member of King’s church or a preacher in his movement, I would have charged him with heresy, tried him in a religious court, and stripped him of his religious credentials. He provided evidence of his heresy and heresy is not cancelled out by Black privilege!

King’s graduate paper titled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. King declared, “But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, [Christ’s deity, virgin birth, and physical resurrection] and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically [sic] untenable.” So the early Christians had no other reason to believe He was deity? What about His miraculous birth? What about walking on water? What about raising the dead? What about giving sight to the blind? What about rising from the dead? What about Christ’s declaration: “I and my Father are one.” No, no reason at all!

Returning to the divinity of Christ, King concluded: “So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og [sic] God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.” So all men have the potential of being divine! King was not a believer and any honest Bible scholar of any persuasion will admit that that statement alone would disqualify King being recognized as a Christian, let alone a leader in any Christian group.

He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth but a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deal with them from the same perspective.

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.”

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” King was saying that you are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.

As to the atonement of Christ, he wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He added that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral.” Any white Baptist preacher would be drummed out the ministry for such heresy but King had special privilege.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that non-canonical books were as good as or better than the Old Testament books! “To my mind, many of the works of this period were infinitely more valuable than those that received canonicity. The materials to justify such statements are found mainly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These works, although presented pseudonymously, are of lasting significance to the Biblical student.” Any study of those books will easily confirm the fact that they are forgeries, foolishness, and fraudulent and did not come close to the canonical books which were inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life.

A Black preacher encapsulated King’s theology and philosophy better than anyone else: “It is as though Socrates, Thoreau, Hegel, and Jesus were all dumped together into one philosophical bowl like tossed salad.” Then Gandhi was tossed in to add additional spice to the muddle!

When King received the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest man to receive it, he said: “I am a minister of the Gospel.” He was an ordained minister but not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! He preached “another gospel,” and his Black privilege did not guarantee him a place in Heaven.

Moreover, I cringe to hear him called a “Baptist.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

You can be sure it will be a cold, wet day on the Arabian Desert (and in that other place) before any U.S. mosque invites a Bible-believer to preach in their Friday service! In fact, they won’t permit a radical unbelieving “Christian” to preach for them. Ahh yes, sweet reciprocity.

Moreover, while I am filling my schedule maybe the ecumenical Episcopal leaders will also invite me, a Fundamentalist, to preach for them! Now that would show real tolerance, but then, even Episcopalians can’t show that much tolerance. After all, there must be some limits.

The National Cathedral is the place of numerous famous funerals: Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford; memorial services were held for presidents Harding, Coolidge, Truman and Nixon. Non presidents’ funerals include Eleanor Roosevelt, Neil Armstrong, and Nelson Mandela. So the Episcopal National Cathedral is more of a Funeral Home than a church. For sure, it is a dead or dying church.

At the interfaith service, Reverend Gina Campbell welcomed worshippers, declaring the Washington National Cathedral is “a place of prayer for all people.” Remembering her sensitivity training she prayed but not in the name of Christ. If I receive an invitation I could preach Nicodemus coming to Christ–the Seeker coming to the Savior for Salvation. Or maybe I could preach “A Christian Looks at Islam,” or “A Fundamentalist Looks at Episcopalians.” That would create more excitement in the National Cathedral than when one of the janitors unsuspectedly walked into a ladies restroom while one of the female “reverends” was there.

I suppose I should correct Gina’s heresy because she told the Muslims, “Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God.” First of all, her statement makes no sense. It is religious gibberish and she should know better. Secondly, Muslims worship Allah, the desert moon god as all historians know as well as readers of my book, ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse!

The incredible ecumenical worship service was organized by Gina Campbell and South African Ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool who praised religious freedom in America and lashed out against extremism which was commendable; however, non-Muslims are somewhat skeptical since Muslims have been given permission to be duplicitous, devious, and dishonest in the advancement of Islam. But some sincere folk will suggest that it is unfair to assume Muslim leader Ebrahim would lie to advance his religious cause. Maybe he is totally sincere. However, such thinking shows a person does not understand that ALL Muslims must seek to make the nation where he lives an Islamic state. So, if Ebrahim is a true Muslim, he will seek to advance Islam even to the point of lying. So the suspicion is not unfair, unreasonable, or unchristian.

The Ambassador’s motives are also called into question since the event was sponsored by himself, the cathedral, and several Muslim spiritual and advocacy groups: the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council and Masjid Muhammad mosque in Northwest Washington. All these Muslim groups are linked, even joined at the hip, with terrorist organizations! They are all shrill and angry defenders of any Muslim activity, anti-Israel in the extreme, and promoters of terror–if it is Muslim terror.

To his credit the Muslim Ambassador asked for a sliver of light to be permitted in Saudi Arabia but that was in an interview, not the interfaith service. He suggested that Christians should be permitted to pray in Saudi mosques but we don’t want to pray there. We want Baptist Churches next to their mosques! In fact, as a non-Muslim, I can’t even visit the nation! Ah, yes sweet tolerance–but only in one direction.

If Ebrahim can arrange for me to preach at a mosque, no special arrangements need be made. We will sing some historic Christian songs such as “There is Power in the Blood,” “O How I Love Jesus,” and “Jesus is the Sweetest Name I Know.” Maybe close with “Just as I Am.” Then we will pray for the conversion of Muslims around the world; for Muslims to stop beheading journalists, women, and children; for bloody dictators in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to trust Christ and follow Him in believers’ baptism; for Hamas to stop its war against Israel; for butchers in many Muslim-dominated nations to stop mutilating little girls; for toleration in permitting Muslims to be converted to Christ; for Saudi to give me permission to start Trinity Baptist Church in Mecca; for all female Muslims to be treated equally with men; ad infinitum.

There was a backlash, you know, from “intolerant Christians” who thought it was not scriptural or prudent or acceptable for “Christians” to compromise with unbelievers. Franklin Graham was very forthright and courageous when he wrote: “It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins. Jesus was clear when He said, ‘I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (John 14:6).”

I have had disagreements with Franklin and his father’s ecumenical evangelism but that is a fuss among family members. I greatly appreciate and respect his stand on the religious fiasco at the National Cathedral and other courageous positions on controversial issues.

Just before the Muslims started to pray, a lady caused some to have an apologetic fit when she stood up, pointed to the cross and shouted, “Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. We have built enough of your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques? …America was founded on Christian principles…Leave our church alone!” She was escorted out of the church.

All genuine Christians who are members of the National Cathedral, should demand the resignation of all senior staff and church officers who permitted such an event.

Does this incident say something about the strange day in which we live? We have Muslims worshipping in a Christian church and a lady is castigated as a hater for saying, “Christ is Lord” and escorted out of the church for her protest!

I wonder what Christ would do! No, I know what Christ would do. He would use a whip again to drive the hypocrites out of the house of God.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Genuine Fundamentalists are clean, caring, and committed Christians living according to the New Testament, worshiping in simple, relatively inexpensive buildings (or homes), and a few megachurches. Like early Christians, Bible-believers today generally eschew liturgy, human doctrines, vestments, and repetitive and meaningless gestures. They seek to reach others; but, at the same time, cautioning, contending, and confronting laymen and leaders who are too much involved in this world’s affairs. They are what the early Christians were and are willing to experience poverty, prison and persecution for the truth. Most of today’s Christianettes seek prosperity, preference, and popularity.

Even infidel theologians such as the late Kirsopp Lake, Professor Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School and author of the five-volume The Beginnings of Christianity, affirmed that Fundamentalism is original Christianity! He made an incredible statement that should shake mainline churches to their foundations: “It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” Lake added, “The Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority.” He added that the Bible is on the Fundamentalist side. Remember, he was an expert on the New Testament and ecclesiastical history! Moreover, he agrees with me!

So today’s New Testament churches (that includes some Evangelicals) are original Christianity and should be making an impact on our culture as the early churches did, but the fact is our success is limited because the culture is driving us! Our churches are not the master or the servant of the state but are to be the conscience of the state and society. We must be the state’s critic but not its tool.

Most American and Canadian pastors are silent and most churches could close their doors without anyone noticing since they have become little, irrelevant, homogeneous groups that have monthly pitch-in dinners and weekly hot chocolate huddles in church basements. Maybe a revival meeting each year. Few preachers actually confront society with the Gospel and with Bible truths. That means America’s mess can be attributed directly to our pulpits!

Fact: if a preacher is not contending, he is not a true preacher of God. The truth is that every Fundamentalist is a fighting Fundamentalist. Not fighting everyone, not fighting all the time, and never being mean, but fighting by counseling, cautioning, confronting, and combating political, religious, social, and business leaders while also presenting the claims of Christ to them. We must be scriptural, sincere, strong, and never silent.

Many preachers are telling us that modern Christians are not to contend for the faith as the old timers did; after all, it isn’t cool and drives people away from the church. But then, people should be driven away from many churches! Such critics think they are obeying the Bible but they are not. Compromisers were wrong yesterday, are wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow and will finally be convinced of it in eternity. These New Evangelicals and Very Mushy Fundamentalists (VMF) have digressed and departed and deserted Bible Christianity. True Fundamentalists (or if you prefer, New Testament Christians) stand where genuine Christians have always stood: upon the inspired, infallible, indispensable Word of God. The corollary is to obey New Testament instructions which involves contending, rebuking, and coming out from among them. But doing so according to Eph. 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love.”

The woods are full of Evangelicals or conservatives, even Fundamentalists, who desire peace above purity and unity over truth. They are willing to tolerate apostasy, not confronting others for their heresy, and are therefore not original Christians! The Bible commands us to “shun” some (II Tim. 2:16); and to “turn away” from others (II Tim. 3:5); then “mark them . . .[in order to] avoid” those who are not doctrinally correct (Rom. 16:17); furthermore, those who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ are not to be received “into your house neither bid them God speed” (II John 10). We are even told to not be involved with and to separate from Christians who walk in disobedience. (II Thess. 3:6.) Finally, we are to “come out from among” compromisers and evil doers (II Cor. 6:17); but that requires all who are members of an unbiblical church or denomination to leave. That means leaving family and friends and joining a fellowship that teaches truth.

The departure from Bible Christianity started at the very beginning of the church age and accelerated into the Middle Ages; however, it exploded during the 1900s until today. The major catalyst for this was the National Association of Evangelicals who were embarrassed to be associated with Fundamentalists. The loosey-goosey NAE wanted to present a soft, sophisticated, and scholarly persona to the world and they had eight complaints against Fundamentalists which were listed in Christian Life Magazine, March, 1956. There was a tinge of truth to some of their complaints but only a tinge. For example, no one could be against true scholarship; however, radical scholarship is really radical unbelief in amateurish disguise.

Get your barf bag ready. Each one is as dangerous as a landmine in a schoolyard: 1) a friendly attitude toward science; 2) a willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit; 3) a more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology; 4) a shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism; 5) an increased emphasis on scholarship; 6) a more definite recognition of social responsibility; 7) a re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration; and 8) a growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians. Ahh yes, converse but never confront.

Each of the eight screams compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation. The Evangelicals pulled away from the Fundamentalists which would not have a tragedy but they got a makeover strangely resembling the unbelieving modernists! The Evangelicals’ indulgent, irrelevant, implausible, and inaccurate preaching further added to their error.

Like insecure teens looking for approval, the renovated Christian leaders abandoned the high ground of the Bible for the slime pits of a mushy Evangelicalism. Mushy Fundamentalists march more slowly than the Evangelicals but they march in the same direction and eventually arrive at the same destination: compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation.

Too much preaching nowadays pats the back and tickles the ear, but does not get under the skin. There is no conviction and therefore no conversion. I am thinking not only of the ministry of reproof and rebuke but also of the message of inspiration, of encouragement, and of comfort. People leave church at noon with their depths unstirred, their hearts untouched, and their consciences unpricked. They leave church licking on a stone rather than chewing on bread.

Church goers need to hear from Heaven; instead they often hear from a denominational bureaucrat or warmed-over sermons from Rick Warren or Bill Hybels.

The further churches drift away from biblical truth, the more the hatred is dumped upon those who expose the drift away from original Christianity.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam.  Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world. 

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation.  He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim.  However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.   

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncom-fortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate.  The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.    

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken. 

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

 Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation. He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim. However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate. The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken made a major mistake when he did not respond to Nye’s ridiculous suggestion that every land plant on earth was in the Ark. Noah did not take the plants on the Ark since they could easily survive the Flood via seeds and roots. Besides, God made His intentions clear in Gen. 6:17 when He said, “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” Plants don’t have “the breath of life.”

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken.

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.