Full of Crap

Someone wants us to be discouraged. This isn't over yet.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/23/house-panels-benghazi-report-full-senator-says/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

I have full faith in Trey Gowdey's committee....and it is coming in December.

Don't listen to the rhetoric. Good for Senator Lindsey Graham in this interview!!!

The Good Guys

Below is an excerpt from Dinesh D’Souza’s recent book entitled America, Imagine a World Without Her. I have posted the selection from the thirteenth chapter of his book, pages 210 -213.

 

There are so many good points in Mr. D’Souza’s book that I feel we all would be wise to consider; but I believe, what is discussed below is one of the most important aspects of D’Souza’s work. For me, it is the book in a “nutshell”.  It is exactly what I had hoped to glean from his writings and then to also share.

 

I am weary of the attacks on America and for all that we stand. In recent years, the attacks have seemed relentless mischaracterizing who we are in an extremely insidious way.  Obviously, the assault comes from the left; the “progressives”. But the attacks have been so convincing, I’m afraid that there are those who even though they consider themselves “conservatives” have also joined in this mantra from the left.

 

It is a shame. While I don’t agree with everything Dinesh says in his book and even in the excerpt below, I am not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Take a moment to read his thoughts. I will write more about my thoughts after offering any who read here, a chance to contemplate Mr. D'Souza's writings first. Emphasis in bold is mine.

 

~~~~~~~~~~

 

What, then, of more recent involvements, from America’s alliance with unsavory Middle Eastern dictators to its role in Vietnam, the Gulf War; and the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions? Many progressives point out that America has long allied with dictators like the Shah of Iran and the Saudi royal family in order to maintain access to oil supplies.  By doing this, we become part of the “gang of thieves” exploiting the people.  We even allied for some years with Saddam Hussein, before turning against him.  During the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the United States supplied weapons to Osama bin Laden.  These facts seem to suggest, on America’s part, an amoral, mercenary foreign policy, a vindication of the progressive allegation that America’s actions are motivated by power-seeking and theft.

Progressives are certainly right that America makes these alliances to protect its self-interest.  In the Middle East, that self-interest is oil.  Now America is not stealing and has never stolen that oil - we purchase it at the world market price.  America, however, seeks to avoid hostile regimes or instability in the region that might cause a disruption in the oil market.  Progressives don’t seem to realize that there is nothing wrong with this.  Some years ago I debated a leftist professor who harangued me, “Mr. D’Souza, will you admit that the main reason America is in the Middle East is because of oil?”  I replied, “I certainly hope so.  I cannot think of any other reasons to be there, can you?”  The audience laughed.  My opponent looked sullen.  I could see he wasn’t convinced.  And in a sense he was right.  The question he was wrestling with was not self-interest, are we making the overall situation in other countries better or worse?  This is a legitimate question.

In, order to answer it, we must consider the central principle of foreign policy - the principle of the lesser evil.  This principle says it is legitimate to ally with the bad guy to avoid the worse guy.  The classic example of this was in World War II.  The United States allied with Stalin - a very bad guy - because another bad guy, Hitler, posed a greater threat at the time.  In the same vein, the United States was right to support the Shah of Iran, and when under Jimmy Carter we pulled the Persian rug out from under him, we got Khomeini. The Shah was a pretty bad guy, a dictator who had a secret police, but Khomeini soon proved himself a far worse.  American and Iranian interests would have been better served if Khomeini had been prevented from coming to power. During the 1980’s, the United States briefly allied with Saddam Hussein.  This was during the Iran-Iraq war. Again, Saddam was the bad guy and Khomeini was the worse guy.

When America provided arms to Osama bin Laden, he was part of the mujahedeen, a Muslim fighting force seeking to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.  The mujahedeen could never have succeeded without American aid.  Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire.  It was a spectacular triumph of American foreign policy.  Of course no one knew that bin Laden and his minions would subsequently make America their main target.  We see here a danger of “lesser evil” thinking: lesser evils are still evils.  The bad guys you support today may turn against you tomorrow, as bin Laden did.  Bin Laden many have been a ”good guy” in fighting the Soviets, but he remained a “bad guy” seeking the eventual destruction of both the Soviet empire and what he took to be its American equivalent.  So was America wrong to back the mujahedeen?  No.  At the time, radical Islam was not a major force in the world and we did not know bin Laden’s intentions.  Foreign policy does not have the privilege that historians have – the privilege of hindsight.  And even in hindsight, America was right to do what it did. 

What went wrong in Vietnam, and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Vietnam, America miscalculated its self-interest.  Of course the South Vietnamese were threatened by the North.  Of course Vietnam would be worse off if it went Communist.  But America committed large numbers of troops because it believed its vital interests in deterring Communist aggression were at stake. In fact, America had no vital interests in Vietnam; it was a drain on American resources rather than an intelligent use of them. So Vietnam was a stupid war; but it was not a wicked war:  America had no intention to rule Vietnam, or to steal the resources of the Vietnamese people; America had no colonial designs on Vietnam.  Still, Vietnam was an irresponsible use of American power – on this the progressives are right.

The Iraq War; undertaken by George W Bush, was also a mistake.  I supported the war at the time, because I believed the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).  In retrospect, that proved to be false.  I don’t understand how a country can invade another country based on the suspicion that they have WMDs.  We should not have gone in unless we knew they had WMDs. Having said that, the Bush administration assiduously sought to rebuild Iraq after Saddam’s ouster.  The problem was that this proved to be a difficult and costly enterprise.  Far from stealing from Iraq, America returned to the Iraqis the keys to the oil fields, and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in restoring order and commerce to that country.  Far from acting like a colonial occupier, America’s intention from the beginning was to get in and get out. 

Over the past few decades, America has intervened in a half-dozen countries, from Libya to Grenada to Afghanistan to Iraq.  In every case, America has acted in a most un-colonial way.  First, America did not take resources from those countries; rather, it expended resources to improve them. Second, America was planning its exit almost immediately after its intervention, looking for the quickest, safest way to get out.  Progressives don’t seem to recognize this.  They often make lists of countries America has invaded and occupied.  But they never consider the simple question, “If America was the evil colonial occupier of all these countries, why don’t we own them?”  The reason is that Americans have no interest in acquiring foreign real estate.  We never have, and I’m convinced we never will.  As Colin Powell memorably put it, the only ground America has sought abroad in the after math of war is sufficient ground to bury our dead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love what Mr. D’Souza has written here. I couldn’t agree more with his points. I only want to add that it is my belief we absolutely should have gone into Iraq at the chance of there being WMD. That was a chance with which we should not have gambled and thankfully we didn’t. We went in for the protection of nations. That is what America does.  After all, we are the good guys! And just because we didn’t find WMD, certainly does not mean they weren’t there.

Further, it is my contention that again we were right to go into Vietnam. We were preventing the spread of Communism, the greatest evil at the time. Just because it became a “political war” does not mean it was not right to begin with. Yes, as Dinesh said, valuable resources were wasted. But it didn’t have to be that way. Politics prevented our soldiers from winning that war and strung it out far longer than needed. We should have gone in for the win, and came out just as quickly. The America of old would have done just that.

In a recent debate between Mr. D'Souza and Ward Churchill - liberal professor and radical anti-American socialist activist - Churchill brought up the fact that America stole oil from the Middle East for our own selfish benefits. Churchill couldn't wait to throw that in Dinesh's face, (and all of America's face, too, as it was televised) but he only bloviated; he provided no proof, or facts. There simply are none.

Finally, I want to say to those “conservatives” on the fence, or to those that may have bought into the lie of the left that America is an “Imperialistic nation” stealing from others for our own benefit:  Please stop to rethink that! Many of you believe it was wrong to take some of the steps America has taken citing that America did it for our own benefit to the detriment of others. That simply isn’t the case. That is the leftist mantra. History proves otherwise. What we have in the way of “occupied” land proves otherwise. There is none. Even the more liberal Colin Powell can recognize that fact, as we see quoted at the end of this passage from Dinesh's book: "the only ground America has sought abroad in the after math of war is sufficient ground to bury our dead."

When we join the progressive's refrain, we inadvertently join the left in their attack of America. We then are also participating in compromise - the very thing we claim to hate. We join forces with evil; but with this evil there will never be any good that will come from it. The left cannot be more encouraged by that as they more easily promote their socialist "take over" of the United States of America. Mr. D’Souza has done an excellent job addressing that outcome in his movie and in this book. We would be wise to listen to what he has to say and then think critically about what we are going to do about it.

 

America always has and I believe always should bring aid to the underdog, to those nations being attacked and abused. I don't ever want to see another holocaust - not on my watch. After all, we are the good guys, and that is what good guys do! We would do well to remember that when someone tries to make America into something else to benefit their own evil agenda.

 

 

 

Except the Lord Build the House

Below is another excellent testimony from Hal Lindsey. I, too, remember most of the events he remembers, though I am a tad bit younger. I remember, just after "the malaise of Jimmy Carter" the election of President Reagan offered us a new direction. I will never forget the sense of hope we then realized as a nation. One could literally feel the change from apathy or disgust, to an atmosphere of encouragement and life. Not only did President Reagan give us strong leadership, he reminded us we were still "a shining light on a hill" - a real hope for a hurting world. He did this not only through his strong leadership, but also by reminding us of the God we serve and that it is He who is the true Founder of our nation.   Hal Lindsey could not be more right in his commentary below: We are trying to succeed without God. But along with that, I also believe Americans have grown weary of the continual attack and belittling of our nation. That attitude elicits no hope and only brings discouragement. The quote President Reagan used to encourage Americans is from Matthew 5:14. "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden." Our past can remind us there are better days if we indeed find our way back to our roots.   Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.  ~Psalm 33:12-22 KJV   Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. ~Proverbs 14:34 KJV    And I like that Mr. Lindsey, used the same verse that I have chosen to show my hope for my blog:    “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”  ~Psalm 127:1  KJV ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 14th, 2014 This week on 'The Hal Lindsey Report'   I have a birthday coming soon and I've been thinking about my life and the times in which I've lived. I was born just days after Black Tuesday, the day of the most devastating stock market crash in U.S. history. I grew up during the Depression and the lean years that followed. In fact, it was not until my 25th birthday that the stock market again reached its peak level from 1929. I remember the Dust Bowl and what life here was like during World War Two, the biggest, deadliest conflict in human history. I remember the start of the Cold War. I served in the Coast Guard during the Korean conflict. I lived through the Cuban missile crisis, the Kennedy assassination, the Viet Nam war, and the counter-culture rebellion of the 60s and 70s. I worked on American college campuses during some of those tumultuous years. I remember the Arab oil embargo, Watergate, the Nixon resignation, the malaise of Jimmy Carter, and the terror of 9/11. But through all of that, the American people seemed never to lose their sense of optimism. That is, until now. In a recent Fox News Poll, a staggering 58% of Americans polled thought that "the way things are going" could best be described by the phrase: "Things are going to hell in a handbasket." Americans today share a sense of doom that they just can't seem to shake. So what makes our time different? Is it the Ebola outbreak? So far, only one person has died in the U.S. and only two people have contracted it here. On the other hand, 1,500 Americas die each day from cancer. Is it ISIS? The small terrorist army is unsettling, and even though they've vowed to fly their flag over the White House, they're a long way from being able to carry out that threat. Is it Vladimir Putin? He's been doing a lot of saber-rattling lately. His bombers are probing ours and NATO's defenses. He's engaged in a slow-motion takeover of chunks of Eastern Europe. He's irritated because Western sanctions are beginning to bite and he's started making veiled threats about nuking those who oppose Russia. When an insulated sociopath who controls 10,000 nuclear weapons publicly insinuates that he might use them, it's worth taking notice. But I don't think Americans really believe him. So I don't think that's why they seem to be feeling this sense of doom. I think that, deep down, most Americans know that our nation's true strength is her morality and they sense that America's moral base is crumbling. A few weeks ago, I discussed Psalm 127:1 and how it applies to the United States today: "Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain." That's what America 2014 feels like. It feels like there's a hole in our boat. We bail and bail, but the water in the boat only gets deeper. Things don't work like they used to work. Everything seems upside down. Why? I think it's because we're trying to succeed without God. As individuals and as a nation, we have the ability to reject the presence and fellowship of the Lord, but we do not have the ability to achieve real and lasting success without Him. Until we patch that hole in our boat, we're bailing desperately, but in vain. Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. God Bless, Hal Lindsey

Beyond Ourselves

I’m feeling a little discouraged, today. I don’t know. Have you been watching the case about the nurse from Maine who came back from Sierra Leone after caring for Ebola patients? She now refuses to be quarantined. I can’t even begin to tell you how angry that makes me. Does that sound self-righteous or judgmental on my part?  I don’t mean to sound that way. I simply don’t understand this woman’s thinking.

My folks’ generation which would be those now in their 80’s have lived through a lot of “stuff” and they have seen a lot of changes in our society. When they were young, before vaccines had been beneficial in stopping so many diseases of that time, citizens voluntarily went into quarantine. I remember my mom telling me stories of a time when she couldn’t go home, because her mom had been helping a family who had come down with one of these diseases. There were many diseases prevalent back then: whooping cough, small pox, measles, mumps, and polio to name a few; I don’t remember which it was. But Mom came home from school one day, and saw a “Quarantine” sign on the front door of her home. She knew what that meant. No one was going in and no one was going to be coming out. That is the way they used to handle it; they would simply put a sign on the door to let everyone know. My mom didn’t try to fight it. She didn’t try to sue anyone; or even question it. She simply went to stay with a friend whose family also understood and willingly welcomed my mother to stay with them.

What a difference then as opposed to what we are seeing today from this woman!!

Further, when the astronauts returned from their trip to the moon, they willingly went into quarantine. Our troops, who have been forced to travel to West Africa, (whether they want to or not) are placed in quarantine when they return. And then we have Kaci Hickox in arrogance and selfishness, thinking only of Kaci as she refuses to stay away from the public for a mere 21 days. Shame on her!! When she acts this way, it is really hard to believe that she had anyone but herself in mind when she decided to go to Sierra Leone. Seems to me, it might have only been about the attention that would be brought to Kaci. The actions are otherwise as different as night and day, and it is nearly impossible to assume anything else.

Another troubling issue for me is that we have some voters that have also caused some problems for America.  There are those that should very well understand that if we don’t like the way America is going, then this election of all elections is crucial to make some changes. In order to get anything done, that would favor conservatives, the Senate must be returned to Republicans. Even most Independents have realized this. But in North Carolina, there are some in the tea party that do not seem to be thinking too clearly. Now while I am a tea party supporter, I am wise enough to know they also are capable of making mistakes. It seems in North Carolina, they are about to make a huge one!

In one of the closest Senate races in the nation, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan –D and Tom Tillis – R, could be the race that makes the clear difference in whether Harry Reid continues his liberal left rule in the Senate. This is also one of the most expensive races in the nation, but who cares! It seems we have some in the tea party blogging and campaigning and refusing to vote for the Republican simply due to the possibility of the creation of a toll road to Charlotte which they do not want to see happen. Right! Whatever is in your little corner of the world! All of America is crumbling before our very eyes, The United States Senate hangs in the balance and someone is worried about a 20 mile toll road charge. Whatever! I guess the little issue in your neck of the woods, takes priority!  This one single selfish issue, however, won’t simply affect the people on their way to Charlotte, North Carolina.  That toll road, if the vote goes the wrong way, will affect those in Bismarck, South Dakota; Gillette, Wyoming; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Boise Idaho. It will affect the entire nation, when it prevents the Republicans from gaining back the Senate.

Where have we come? Where is the understanding? Where is the focus on someone other than our own best interest?

It seems we have brought up generations that do not know how to see the bigger picture; they do not know how to see beyond their, own personal needs. Oh, that someone could grasp some of the insights and behavior of those of the greatest generation – those in their 80’s and who seem to be almost forgotten. But who most assuredly would not have forgotten anyone else.

 

 

For the Sake of Jerusalem

This is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's passionate speech at the United Nations. We would do well to listen:

 

For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. ~~Isaiah 62:1  KJV

 

Only a Speck?

I decided I would re-post an old post from last April. It addresses concerns I have regarding the direction some in "the church" are taking.

I understand there are doctrinal differences within the church. There always has been and there always will be differences until Jesus returns. I am not addressing those issues. With this post, I do address what has come to be known as "New Calvinism" which I believe you will see is far removed from Calvinism of old. Now, while I do not hold to Calvinism or Reformed theology, I do respect those that do. Reformed theology is not the issue here. However, there are problems within this new movement that bring me great concern. There are many within the Reformed faith who are equally concerned. In my article, I have used them as resources to explain what has been taking place.

Yesterday, with the resignation of Mark Driscoll as senior pastor of Mars Hill Church, there were some things that came up via the internet that I felt I wanted to once again address here.

Mark Driscoll (along with John Piper and Tim Keller) is one of the main leaders of the new movement called "New Calvinism". I was a bit surprised to see the resignation of Driscoll. I was certain he would dig in his heals and never resign. He did start Mars Hill after all; it's his baby. Controversy and problems have followed him for awhile now. He only seemed to address those issues with arrogance and pride, in my opinion. You can "Google" the issues; I am not going to go into them here.

What did surprise me was the amount of support he received throughout the Christian community from people who are not affiliated with that church. I was hard-pressed to find anyone who believed this was a matter of "church discipline". Almost everyone believed it was an attack on a successful pastor that was vocal and firm in his belief. That simply isn't the case. The lack of knowledge and misinformation regarding what took place at that church was not only mind-boggling, it was frightening.

I was heart-broken. I tried to understand how behavior such as Driscoll's could be so accepted among Christians. I came to realize it is in part due to the trash that Christians are subjected to (but willingly take part in) day in and day out on television. Busy lives; inattention; lack of concern; living in "sound-bites"; enormous difficulties of a life lived in the modern world; ignoring the Word of God, and a successful campaign to take over the church are all a part of the problem. Someone has been successful. We love to say how much we love Him, but we don't understand, loving Him requires a walk that honors Him in our words and action. Perhaps we forget the world watches us and expects something different. Many are drawn in, because it makes them comfortable in their own sin. "As long as I vow my love, I am ok." But someone has stepped over the line, influencing thousands in the process. Mark's church called him to account, offering him mercy and grace by not bringing up many of his past issues. It's called Biblical church discipline, and in this case, I feel church elders went easy on a pastor they love.

Mark Driscoll has a very public "ministry" growing a mega-church in Seattle, and throughout America. I don't know how anyone can expect a correction not to be public.

The comments I read on line in support of Driscoll with an obvious lack of understanding made me want to address this movement once again. I feel there needs to be awareness brought to what is taking place. Where does one step in to try to make a difference? When do you step on someone's belief and risk looking like you are attacking the speck in your brother's eye, before you take the log out of your own? I don't know. I have wrestled with that and wrestled with that. I am not a well-liked person for expressing my beliefs. I don't know what to do about that. I do not know how to stay silent.

~~~~~~~

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Emergent Church Renamed

I found myself in an on-line forum a few days ago, discussing the recent movie God’s Not Dead. It is so curious to me that there are Christians who have only criticized this movie with little or nothing good to say about it. So I have been carrying on dialogue in a number of forums to try to find out why.

I am not surprised to find that the lack of support for the movie often seems to lead back to those that support emergent church philosophy.

Though the movie God’s Not Dead is not at all a political movie, it seems to have bothered some of those that are immersed in the emergent church. The negative comments ranged from “every single non-Christian is painted as evil”, to “the movie isn’t realistic”, and on and on.

The discussions on line are very revealing. One person, with whom I had been discussing the movie, condescendingly told me I should pick up a copy of David Platt’s book, Radical- Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream, and there I would learn a few things. This person had been dropping a few key words that caused me to suspect she was coming from an emergent belief system, but when she recommended this book from an emergent author, I knew for certain. Further, emergent proponents always seem to love to attack the American Dream; I will get to what I believe is the reason for that, later.

Certainly this movie isn’t the main focus I want to address in this blog. Of course the movie isn’t and shouldn’t be anyone’s main concern. I use it only as a recent example to show a clear problem that I believe is facing the church today. The conversations I had with people only caused me to want to demonstrate the difference in this movement and traditional Christianity. As well, I hope to focus on the beginnings of this particular movement and the progressions that have been taking place.

The Emergent Church

I have been watching this trend for so long, now, I decided I wanted to write a bit about what I know is the beginning of the emergent church and the dangerous ideology it presents. Let me use a definition of the emergent church from a secular source to avoid any appearances of bias. The on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia describes the emergent church this way:

“Proponents believe the movement transcends such "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community.”[1]

Whatever…that sounds political to me. And though proponents would deny it, upon careful research we find politics at its roots. A professed goal of this movement is to “deconstruct” what is viewed as “modern Christian dogma” due to a “postmodern”cultural shift. Simply from this quote, I would say we see proponents would like to do away with labels such as conservative and liberal, and instead open our minds with conversation and dialogue. It sounds so noble, doesn't it?

Frederick Nymeyer author of Progressive Calvinism defines the emerging church in 1971 in a way that clearly reveals the attitude and thought of the emergent church movement we have seen in recent years:

“The emerging church seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making 'truth claims' with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.”[2]

Through this quote, we are easily able to discern some beliefs of those involved in the emergent church. "Post-Christendom"? Not a good idea, in my opinion. Apparently emergents view Christians as imperialists, much as President Obama and many on the left view America. Also revealed is the belief that the church has not approached missions with "humility and respect"; but rather, from a lofty place physically, socially and spiritually above those who are outside the circle. The church has never been at "the margins" where Jesus is so badly needed, but rather only from a place of privilege. Oh, and if we read between the lines here, Christians don't witness, they control, and care more about their brick and mortar buildings than they do about missions. We see emergents are disillusioned with organized church and really, Christianity in general. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Let's get to why.

We will find a great deal of diversity within the emergent church as its reaches have extended to several denominations and constructs of Christianity. Within it we have also seen a renewed focus on past rituals - often Catholic in nature; mysticism; an elevation of good works, and a promotion of political/social agendas. One will hear a lot about “conversation” and “dialogue” as opposed to the old-fashioned means of evangelism. I believe the term used in this case is to present a fluidity that will offer room for change. Conversation of course has always been involved in evangelism, both one on one, as well as in a church or stadium setting; but the meaning behind this thought regarding “conversation” is a reference to doing away with any altar call type of experiences, it would seem to me. I don’t know how else to interpret it. I would love to hear a correction on this if I am wrong.

There is much talk about interfaith dialogue within this movement which is viewed as necessary to be successful in any and all action desired. It needs to be accepted by all, so "contextualization" is utilized. Adapt wherever possible, to keep from offending anyone. Talk of sin is rejected, being viewed as judgmental and destructive to the opportunity of bringing anyone to Christ. Rather, emergent believers prefer to rely on social works and action as a means to winning souls. This is viewed as much more loving and appropriate from Christians who are to love everyone. Unfortunately, that leaves out the importance of a change of heart attitude, and the love that is more importantly involved in hoping to free people from the bondage of sin. Rather than a focus on the evangelistic message of eternal salvation, the here and now is a larger part of the emergent mission. This brings me to the root of the emergent church beginnings.

The Social Gospel

The emergent church promotes a “social gospel” that while certainly not new, (it’s been around since the early 1800’s) has made a resurgence in the church over recent years. The social gospel is defined in part by Wikipedia in this way:

“The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war .”[3]
 

The leaders of this movement were early progressives, liberal in their politics as well as their theology. Three who are credited with this movement are Washington Gladden, who was involved with labor workers and unions, William Dwight Porter Bliss who worked with the Knights of Labor as well as the Socialist Party, and Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister in New York City. The focus of the social gospel has been poverty, centrally and around the world; the unemployment of the poor; civil rights in regard to minorities and women, and even gun control. It would also include any dissident believed to need representation, as well as a desire for social justice for all. Basically, much of what the left wing agenda is today.

  

Walter Rauschenbusch, a pastor during the late 1800’s until his death at 56 in 1918, was one of those theologians that promoted this movement in its early stages. Rauschenbusch did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and neither did he believe in substitutionary atonement, stating Jesus never taught it. Rauschenbusch believed that sin wasn’t an individual problem as much as it was a societal issue. He believed a sinful nation offended God, which is in fact true. But where he carried this thought is one of his biggest mistakes. Rauschenbusch believed if we sin as a society, we should be able to fight that sin as a society, thus we find the social gospel seeking the redemption of our society rather than individual hearts. He viewed capitalism as selfish and dangerous. Instead, he wanted to see socialism introduced to our churches that would result in an early kind of “spreading the wealth around” belief. Rauschenbusch wanted to see a type of “theology” given to the social gospel to revitalize and grow the movement. Certainly we see in his beliefs, the emergent church philosophy and recent undertakings of that movement.

Those that supported the social gospel at that time, as today, were mostly post-millennialist believers who believe that Jesus cannot return until the evils of the world have been corrected; i.e. Christians are here to make the world a better place until the return of Jesus. Not a bad goal! Post-millennialists (also known as "Kingdom Now Theology") believe Jesus will not return until after the Great Tribulation and the millennial Kingdom, as opposed to the pre-millennialists who believe He will return before the Tribulation to rapture His church. I believe this is one of the reasons we find the social gospel is a draw to those of Reformed Theology. It comes out of their desire to make the world a better place as we wait for the return of Jesus. In my opinion, Christians' desire to better the world made it an easy target for proponents of the social gospel, but there is also an obvious political agenda attached of which we should be wary. Certainly not all who adhere to Reformed Theology support the social gospel, but I believe the revived interest and promotion of the social gospel is one of the main reasons we are seeing unprecedented growth in Reformed Theology and Calvinism in the church today. They seem to go hand-in-hand and I believe it to be an intentional means to infiltrate the church with liberal politics. Alleviating poverty and bringing aid to those in need is what we should all be doing as we wait for the return of Jesus. We simply shouldn't forget the true Gospel in the process.

The social gospel is believed to have died out some in the early 1900’s, but then saw a new resurgence during the tumultuous years of the 1960’s. It was then that tenets of this belief system were picked up by some in the civil rights movement such as Martin Luther King Jr., and it actually became the “religion” of the progressive movement, who saw alleviating poverty in our society as a number one goal of government.

The church was a great venue for social reform which soon led to ecumenical efforts such as the Federal Council of Churches (later to become the National Council of Churches) and the World Council of Churches.

We also see the emergent church movement using, the social gospel, has particularly targeted the overseas mission field in bringing others into its fold. Perhaps that is due to their strong belief in pro-active works, but I also see missions as the most natural venue to promote ecumenical works and even garner support for the liberal United Nations goals. Christians want to be obedient and do good works. What better place than the mission field? This has always been an important aspect of Christianity, but in the past, has simply been done without attacking America in the process, which is what we are seeing today.

Unfortunately, we have seen at the same time a movement which holds a disdain for the belief that the United States is a “Christian nation” founded on Biblical principals. If America is viewed as somehow superior to any other nation, then Christians will be ineffective in reaching the needy of other countries. This thought is alienating in their view, and the excuse is used that this only denies a close relationship at the community level, focusing on too much power between the church and the culture. This is where contextualization also comes into play. And if Christianity is at the center of society, then in the emergent view it is neglecting the outer realms of humanity where it actually needs to be. Lame excuse? Yeah, I would say so. I personally believe there could be an ulterior motive by those troubled with this label. If not intentionally, in ignorance then, they join the mantra of the left.

Emergent proponents (as noted in the prior quote by Nymeyer) also often see America as an "Imperialistic" nation trying to control the world. Americans are fat, lazy and greedy, only putting themselves first. They see the “American Dream” as something evil, and the bashing of that term (and thereby the belief) is relentless. John Piper has video after video lamenting selfish Americans, retirement, and the American Dream. Richard Stearns in his book The Hole in Our Gospel also does a pretty good job of blaming the American Christian for all the ills of the world. It is here we see the liberal agenda in this movement (which is the social gospel) come to life.

 

Stuart Murray– author of such books as Church After Christendom and Planting Churches in the 21st Century – is a consultant for starting emergent churches in the UK, but his books are also widely read in America. Murray reveals the beliefs of those promoting a social gospel best in the following quote saying this about “Christendom”:

“a commitment to hierarchy and the status quo; the loss of lay involvement; institutional values rather than community focus; church at the centre of society rather than the margins; the use of political power to bring in the Kingdom; religious compulsion; punitive rather than restorative justice; marginalization of women, the poor, and dissident movements; inattentiveness to the criticisms of those outraged by the historic association of Christianity with patriarchy, warfare, injustice and patronage; partiality for respectability and top-down mission; attractional evangelism; assuming the Christian story is known; and a preoccupation with the rich and powerful.”[4]

Wow! That’s not how I see the Christian church or “Christendom”. And remember, Murray with the books he has authored, is a key player in advising, beginning and planting these emergent churches that are actively promoting the social gospel.

New Calvinism

Some say the emergent church has died out; that no one even mentions it, talks about it, or writes about it anymore. That I suppose could be true, but perhaps it has only been renamed. Just because the emergent church isn’t talked about doesn’t mean it is no longer active.

What we have seen spoken of recently is “the post modern world” as an excuse for a need to change God’s Word. We have seen“New Calvinism” broached in discussions and dialogue. We have seen talk of “Christian hedonism” – now there is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Hedonism defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is:

“Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure. The ethical doctrine that only that which is pleasant is intrinsically good.”[5]

Christian hedonism as defined by John Piper (one who lays claim to the New Calvinist title) is “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”[6]

Wow! I don’t think it’s about us. Another term being thrown around at this time is “antinomianism”i.e. a belief that we are saved by faith alone with no regard to works, including moral behavior. While that is true, this belief takes it a step further in expecting no change of lifestyle that would come with repentance of sin. The end result is an anything goes type lifestyle.

Because of this, I believe we are seeing an acceptance of sin in the church and a failure to want to talk about sin, repentance, and the old fashioned altar call. This is why I believe movies like God’s Not Dead, which promotes the need for repentance, won’t be accepted by what I still call “the emergent church”.

We have seen changes in the church throughout history. Of late, we have seen the pendulum swing from charismatic movement, into the prosperity gospel, to the recent emergent church which evolved, to "missional living", and now to New Calvinism. There can be no doubt New Calvinism was birthed out of the emergent movement and uses much of the same principles, rituals and procedures. As long as we see the social gospel and an attack on American ideals, along with a degree of new age mysticism and a return to some Catholic liturgy and rituals, the emergent church is still very much alive, whatever one calls it.

Certainly we have seen a resurgence of Calvinism within the church body. The younger generation, those that are in their twenties and thirties, seem to be those targeted with this message. The thing that is holding all of this together, in my opinion, is“Kingdom Now” theology. “Kingdom Now”, as I mentioned earlier, is the post-milleniallist belief that we are to make the world better before Jesus can return. This is why we see the return to Calvinism. It is unfortunate in my opinion, this generation has even taken Calvinism, outside of its bounds of moral law. Reformed Theology typically taught three important uses of the law:

1. To convict of sin
2. To prevent a lawless society
3. To be held up to the believer as a mirror so that he might see himself in its reflection as a standard for a believer’s life.

As complicated as all of this is getting, I am actually trying to keep it simple, for a more in depth study of New Calvinism, I highly recommend Rev. Tom Aicken’s article. Rev. Aicken is a Reformed pastor, and besides the fact that this article is an excellent critique on New Calvinism, it also shows that even those of the Reformed doctrine see problems with this new movement, which is why I wanted to include it here.

In regard to the missional aspect of this new movement which I mentioned earlier, I would like to explain my concern with that as well. There has been a new and popular, almost trending activity in the way of overseas missions. Now of course missions have always been a big part of our church history, especiallyAmerican church history. This is a very important part of Christianity. But missions within this new movement tend to focus on temporal, social issues, as opposed to a message of eternal salvation. We are commanded in Scripture to bring the Great Commission and I do not want to take away from that, but I feel the priority in regard to social issues, even over the message of the cross, has been misplaced. Moreover, missions have always been in the church, just not mission work that includes an attack on the very means that allows the work of those missions in the first place, and that is the "American Dream". It is with that I have a problem. There are those within this movement that take the view that the most important thing a Christian can do in his mission work is make the world a better place, and that has sometimes brought the neglect of calling sinners to repentance, rescuing lives from the pit of Hell and building God’s eternal Kingdom.

The American Dream

Why these emergent pastors see the need to continually bash the “American Dream” is simply beyond me. Certainly we can see, and probably correctly assume this “need” springs from the progressive roots of this movement which I have attempted to show is clearly there. In that regard, why should we be surprised? It’s the same thing the liberal left does!

The book I mentioned earlier Radical - Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream by David Platt, is a classic example. Taking back our faith from the "American Dream"??? Really?! Our faith would be lost if not for the "American Dream"!! It is the "American Dream" that allows us to express our faith in the way we see fit. Our nation was founded because of a desire for freedom of religion. That is and always has been the "American Dream". We continue to have our faith because of the "American Dream"! The "American Dream" is about freedom, not money! Surely these people can see there is no other nation better equipped to offer aid to the poor than America! Certainly there is no other nation on earth that brings more relief to the underprivileged around the world. It takes money to support humanitarian efforts, and the best way to money is capitalism! We are also the most generous nation on earth – without argument! It is our freedom that allows all of this.

Furthermore, aside from all that, these people that are so quick to attack the "American Dream" are, in fact, LIVING the “American Dream”. If they choose to be missionaries in some foreign land, they are living their dream! Being able to choose to live and work as we desire is the "American Dream"! I, for one, am sick and tired of this attack. I am disgusted by this phony premise. This is the same lie of the left– along with the left’s lie that America is an Imperialistic nation only out for ourselves, seeking control of the world. This couldn’t be more incorrect as we have proven throughout history to be the ones that are always there to bring aid when needed.

In regard to what I have shown here, can’t we see now why there is a need by these groups to attack America and the "American Dream"? There will be no success of the ecumenical movement that seems to be desired by the emergent church as long as America is a super power. There will be no uniting of nations into a one world government as long as America is strong. Until, Americans are finally and fully misled with what America really stands for - a Christian nation that stands for freedom - America will remain a strong, and sovereign nation.

To be fair, Kevin DeYoung , pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, and a member of The Gospel Coalition (a New Calvinist organization led by Tim Keller and Don Carson) wrote an interesting response to David Platt’s book Radical. Even as a Reformed/New Calvinist, DeYoung had legitimate concerns and criticism of Platt’s book. However, DeYoung still couldn’t write his critique without mentioning the desire this movement has to attack and do away with the “American Dream” saying:

“We need to find a way to attack the American dream while still allowing for differing vocations and that sort of ordinary Christian life that can plod along for fifty years.”[7]

Good to know we are all just plodding along.

Continuing Common Threads

While, I do not want to continue to mention names of emergent church pastors, and proponents of this movement, (I will leave that for the reader to discern) there is one that cannot be left unmentioned due to his unprecedented success in bringing the social gospel to fruition.

Rick Warren, senior pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, came to fame with his Purpose-Drivenbooks: The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. With the publishing of these books and the widely, and readily acceptance of an ill-informed audience, Warren was off to success in influencing a generation with the teaching of the social gospel, though it was yet realized as such. Later he revealed his P.E.A.C.E. Plan which is very well explained by T.A. McMahon with the Berean Call, so I will refrain from doing it here. While I don’t agree with every aspect of McMahon’s paper, I highly recommend reading his article regarding the influence of Rick Warren in the emergent church and the recent revival of the social gospel. Needless to say, the social gospel grew exponentially with the onset of Warren’s work.

Though it has yet to be revealed in Warren’s movement, the social gospel has never been effective (at any time in history) in the goal of bringing about the desired change in society. The end result of attacking and seeking to replace the true Gospel is doubt that creeps into the hearts and minds of believers. This “doubt” instead ends up with believers believing and supporting a false gospel.

What occurs is best revealed in the following quote from Frederick Nymeyer, whom I mentioned earlier, and who was a staunch critic of the social gospel. Ironically, though Nymeyer was a Dutch Calvinist (certainly not to be confused with Calvinism of today) he actively spoke out against the social gospel. He was also known to be a libertarian thinker. Though I do not hold to either of these beliefs, I do not let these facts dissuade me from quoting him. Calvinism at its roots and early libertarianism were both different than what they are today - the latter simply becoming social liberalism on moral issues. Further, I want to make it clear that there are those of the Reformed faith, (then and now) that do not support or agree with the "New Calvinism" movement. What I like about Nymeyer is his desire to show the incompatibility of socialism with regard to Christianity and his concern for making that known. He did it well. Perhaps he was better able to see the harmful nature of it due to the generation in which he was born as opposed to the youth of today. It is my belief that he could not have been more accurate in his following statement regarding the social gospel.

“The Social Gospel may be the most crucial of all problems besetting Christian churches at this time, for when a Christian's ethical certitudes are revealed to be defective, as it always turns out to be in the Social Gospel, then he ends up abandoning confidence in valid, Biblical faith. In practice what happens is that when Social Gospel action fails to produce valid results, the person promoting such programs does not abandon the Social Gospel and return to the true Gospel, but plunges deeper into further Social Gospel actions with progressively more frustrating results.”[8]

Finally, I believe the social gospel we see today is little different than liberation theology often described by detractors of that“theology” as “Christianized Marxism”. Liberation theology as defined by Wikipedia is:

“a political movement in Roman Catholic theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in relation to a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions.”[9]

This certainly isn’t restricted to Roman Catholicism, however. If it isn’t the same as the social gospel, certainly there are some very similar attributes in both“theologies”. In fact, Dr. Tim Keller who co-founded the Gospel Coalition which I mentioned earlier (and of whom Kevin DeYoung and John Piper are members) actually promotes this theology in his book Generous Justice, and quotes from Gustavo Gutierrez who is credited with beginning liberation theology. Furthermore, Keller readily admits that he has been influenced by social activism with a liberal political bias throughout his life. Keller is also given credit by some for the new “missional living”movement…new only due to proponents perceived intentions. It is simply a facet of the liberal social gospel and/or liberation theology renamed.

One cannot get away from the ties these emerging and evolving movements have to a liberal, socialist agenda. Regardless of what it is called or labeled – emergent, emerging, New Covenant, or New Calvinism, I believe there to be some very clear threads that are interwoven throughout the emergent/social gospel movement that has brought us to what we see influencing American churches today – New Calvinism.

Those threads are:

• A social gospel from the 19^th century, reinvented and re-inspired
• A resurgence of some Catholic rituals, contemplative prayer, and new age mysticism.
• An increase in overseas missions without the true Gospel being brought forth, but rather a focus on meeting physical needs and uniting/equalizing the rich with the poor
• A connection to liberal politics i.e. goals, platform, and policies; as well as advocating, advancing and working with the United Nations
• Liberation theology as defined above
• An attack on America and the American Dream
• An attack on conservative Christians, traditional Christianity and their beliefs
• An increase in the growth of a Calvinistic doctrine (far removed from the Calvinism of the 16^th century)
• A luring away of the topic of sin
• Watering down of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ

And while all of this can seem overwhelming with the many directions the church seems to be taking, there is a need to identify and define each of these doctrines. Suffice it to say, what I have noticed is within what we now call the "New Calvinist Movement", we see all of the aspects of which I am most concerned. It appears the New Calvinists have adopted in some form each of these beliefs or doctrines:

• Reformed Doctrine - Embraces the 5 points of Calvinism and predestination. Reformed Doctrine is synonymous with Calvinism, though in these modern times, it has been taken far past what Calvin or even Spurgeon taught. There is a distinct political narrative that has infected Reformed teaching of today, which I hope to have clearly shown.
• Replacement Theology - the belief that the church has replaced Israel
• Kingdom Now Theology, also known as Dominion Theology - God's Kingdom is here now. Christians are to make the world better until Jesus returns. There is no rapture/only at the return of Jesus, after the 1000 year millennial reign - if there is a belief in the 1000 year reign at all.
• New Covenant Theology which neglects to believe in a literal translation of Scripture, or that God deals with man through dispensations. Further,it is my belief that this has been twisted enough that it almost appears to give a license to sin.
• Missional Living - Missional Living though something every Christian should live by and should be a standard of our faith, has been used and manipulated by a liberal left agenda that pushes United Nations goals, as well as a disdain for America. While in theory of course missions are important to Christian life, this segment of the church seems to have been infiltrated with a liberal, progressive agenda and a social gospel message. Because of the very nature of the mission field, it has been an easy target of the UN seeking a platform for their liberal message.
• Antinomianism - From the Greek "lawless". Taking God's grace further than He intended; teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey any laws of ethics or morality. "Cheap grace" it has been known to be called.

What we have ended up with in "New Calvinism" is simply the very political "emergent church" renamed.

Summary

Hopefully I have shown that though this movement loves to attack all conservative political endeavors, it actually has its roots in liberal politics and is still by its very nature “political”. If we believe that those who seek to destroy America(And yes, there are those who do.) wouldn’t attempt to infiltrate our churches, we our foolish. Of course they would!

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within..." ~Josef Stalin c. 1947

Our faith is the foundation of our nation. It needs to be destroyed to bring America down. If America is destroyed, the richest, most generous nation which is also the one most pro-active in spreading the true Gospel is the most important thing that is lost.

Of course those that want America destroyed would target a generation that has not been taught to understand the importance of our Christian roots and foundation; nor the importance of maintaining the label of "Christian nation". Certainly that must be removed, or at the very least minimized. Revisionist history being taught in our public schools has simply made that easier. This doesn’t mean it is only the younger generations that are being fooled. There are those from every generation that have been deceived. And I don’t believe each and every one intends this for evil…but evil sometimes is in the consequences.

For me, it is troubling that there are some within this movement that can’t even find anything constructive to say about a movie like God’s Not Dead. Again, as I said earlier, the reviews that I came across about the movie is what led me to writing about all my past discoveries of the emergent church. God’s Not Dead is simply traditional, evangelical Christianity! Shouldn’t there be some redeeming grace found in that aspect of the movie by every Christian? Again this post isn’t about the movie, rather this post is about Christians who couldn’t seem to support the movie and what I believe is the reason why –the detractors simply don’t seem to like traditional Christianity. The movie is only the most recent example of true Christianity, as opposed to those who seem to want to change it. I simply can’t understand how a Christian that should support the spreading of the Gospel would only find fault with this movie. Some persuaded by the emergent church simply cannot seem to accept that old fashioned Gospel message. I find that odd. Further, I can’t understand that some in this movement continue to attack that which is the very means by which they get their funds – the "American Dream". It is beyond my comprehension, and in light of all that I have read about the beginnings of the emergent church and this social gospel, I believe there is much more to it than what anyone will admit or claim or even that some really comprehend. And I believe a great divide within Christianity is only one of the end results.

With this movement that includes a return to Reformed Theology in the way of New Calvinism, we will not only see a decline in moral values, (unfortunately pastors such as Mark Driscoll – pastor at Mars Hill in Seattle - seem to be taking us there [10]) we will also see attacks on our American way of life and the nation that we love. Most concerning to me is that there is also a recent, rapid and dangerous decline in support of Israel. As I said earlier, along with the New Calvinist message also comes a message of Replacement Theology. Though there are some within the Reformed church that will dispute, this statement, it appears to me to be only a matter of semantics. The following quote is from a Reformed site and shows little difference in the definition, but rather only a disdain for the term“Replacement Theology”.
 

“How does “Replacement Theology” misrepresent and malign many good Christians? Reformed or Covenant theologians simply do not hold that the church replaced Israel. Reformed theologians believe that God “pruned off” many Jews in judgment for their disbelief; then God grafted in Gentiles by faith. There is no replacement. Grafting-in keeps and cherishes Jewish roots and does them no harm. This correct view promotes a continuity of God’s faithfulness to both believing Jews and Gentiles from the Old Testament and on into the New.”[11]

What this author of this quote fails to see is that with his belief, he still leaves out the national aspect of the land of Israel - a nation given boundaries by God. He only presents the argument of those who are finally saved, are now one whether Jew or Gentile. The Christian is indeed grafted in to Jewish roots and covenants, but this allows for no regard to the national boundaries which God obviously intended and created, and which is clearly spoken of in prophetic Scripture. God had/has a purpose in creating individual nations.

The Bible verse Genesis 12:3 that states, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:”which is speaking of the nation of Israel, has no place within this New Calvinist/Reformed trend. We are definitely seeing God slowly remove His hand of protection and blessing on our nation as we find ourselves turning our backs on Israeland the true message of God’s Word. It is becoming more and more apparent how the Bible verse that every nation will turn against Israel(Zechariah 14:2) will come to fruition. I simply couldn’t understand how that would include America; how America could turn against Israel. I do now, in light of the growth of the Reformed Church that believes the church has replaced Israel in Scripture whether some agree with the terminology (Replacement Theology) or not.

We are already seeing decline and discord within the Christian church. We are seeing a move away from support of God’s chosen land and people, and for me that is one of the most dangerous things of all. I believe it to be rather frightening to see God’s hand of protection removed from our lives, wouldn’t you agree?

Further, the fact that the salvation of lost souls has taken a back seat to man’s view of bettering the world is beyond disheartening. Where have we come?

I do not seek to attack anyone or any doctrine. I only hope for this to serve as a warning as to where this diverse movement (in all of its facets, renaming and new theology) will take us.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” ~Galatians 6:7

Feel free to comment or email me with any questions or comments.

King James Bible - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

King James Bible - Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 

King James Bible - 2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

King James Bible - Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

King James Bible - Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Resources

[1] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

[2] PBS - http://www.pbs.org/now/society/socialgospel.html

[3] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

[4] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

[5] The American Heritage Dictionary; Dell Publishing, 1972

[6] Rev. Tom Aicken - http://www.freereformedchurchlangley.org/the-new-calvinism-a-critical-assessment

[7] The Gospel Coalition - http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/05/25/getting-to-the-root-of-radical/

[8] Frederick Nymeyer - Progressive Calvinism

[9] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[10] Marsha West - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mwest/120927

[11]Rev. Brian D. Warner, M.A., Wheaton College GraduateSchool http://replacementtheology.org/77-rt/24-rt

Other Sources

~The Berean Call - http://www.thebereancall.org/print/book/export/html/7062
~The New Calvinist - http://www.newcalvinist.com/

~The King James Bible

*Disclaimer: I have quoted several people in this article. I purposely used many resources from the Reformed faith to “take it from the horses mouth”, so to speak. This in no way means I am advocating any particular belief system that any individual may hold.