Thursday, October 7, 2010

Christianity Today: The Magazine of Apostate Christianity?


I sometimes pick up a copy of Christianity Today, to see the latest trends in apostate Christianity. This magazine was founded by Billy Graham. Calling itself "a magazine of evangelical conviction", I do not know what they feel convicted about except perhaps the ecumenical movement and misleading numerous Christians.

Over the last few years, reading copies of this magazine, I have seen articles praising the Pope, praising the Orthodox church in Russia [which holds many of the same errors of Roman Catholicism including sacramentalism], promoting Chuck Colson, and other deceivers and blatantly decrying the watchmen. The magazine pictured above even has an article that praises science fiction and it's "myth making", but does not seem to discern the endless luciferian messages in science fiction, including "the force" presented in the popular Star Wars movies.

If one wants to catch the trends of the apostate neo-evangelical world and to see what the latest Christian-culture fads are, this is the magazine, which more and more preaches unity with Rome, advances modern Christian contemporary music including a Catholic promoting band, and influences to skew Christians away from the truth. One of their worse articles from a few years ago was called "Attack Dogs of Christendom", and condemned discernment ministries in general, especially those who have stood against the one world religion in different capacities [Way of Life ministries is mentioned which is David Cloud's fundamentalist baptist website that warns of many false teachers and trends in Christendom]. This articles uses the "scripts" I have already discussed, based on the false premise that everyone should consider anyone who calls themselves a Christian, a member of the body of Christ and decries those who warn against the ecumenical movement or deceivers.

Then there is this month's oddness and not just the article in the same magazine with it's quote where Obama claims to be a "devout Christian" but an article or really discussion entitled "Condemnation" Is it weird for me to ask myself why these trained pastors, can not figure out that the The Westboro clan really are not Christians, and most likely are shills of some sort meant to discredit Christians ? But here we see the erudite evangelical ministers being interviewed by Christianity Today all bending over backwards to make sure they do not "offend" Fred Phelps and his small group of followers which consists of many of his relatives. Westboro Baptist church is the group that goes around country-wide telling the world "God hates fags", and other unbibilical and nasty announcements, they even have invaded the funerals of straight soldiers to agitate with their homosexuality focused messages. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out these folks are anything but true born again Christians? "God is your enemy" is something a Satanist would say, not a "fellow believer".


But let's look at this article: try not to let the milquetoast acquiescence to the wicked make you cringe.

People have been very quiet about these things, and we need to say something and let it be known that they do not represent the evangelical world. I think that when you use a word like denounce or condemn, you're just playing into their game and acting like them, and so people are just going to point to that and say, 'See? They're all like that.' We should be civil toward fellow believers, but very firm, and say, 'We're not necessarily rejecting the people, but we're rejecting their practice

Right within this comment is the term "fellow believer", why on earth does he consider Phelps and his crew to be a "fellow believer", that definitely is putting judging someone by the fruits away in the closet. It is interesting to me, the Supreme Court, as reported in this article is going to rule if Phelps and his church, have the right to protest at funerals:

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments October 6 on whether Westboro Baptist Church's street protests of military funerals are protected by the First Amendment


I always believed it was possible they were some operation meant to put dents in freedom of speech via their outrageous behavior, and remember bringing up that point years ago, as a theory, but will wait and see the results.

But that it isn't the only quote there that seems skewed in calling Phelps and his church fellow believers, but this one too:

"I think Matt. 18:15-20 provides Jesus' model. We should first try to reach an erring brother or sister privately"


Phelps is a "brother in Christ" by the definitions of these seminary theologians, presidents and leaders of religious organizations? It is scary that these religious leaders can see an out and out wolf, call him an "fellow believer" and then turn to Christians telling them they should not sound too mean or tough in condemning this man's behaviors. This is more of the script: when it comes right to it, it is Christian's that will be lead to speak out directly who are condemned not the wicked.

Now I want you all to think about this, how long have the Phelps group been at it? Since at least the 90s, as far as I know and I remember reading about them at least 6-8 years ago, and these pastors are quibbling about coddling a wolf? or making sure they do not look "too mean" to outsiders as they "think" about making a stand against his behavior?

Something is really wrong with that picture. One thing about Christianity Today, and other publications is realize how these type of articles work even in a subtle fashion. Think about the influence that will be had on people who read it. So wonder, I am being told by endless Christians, that to speak out against wolves in any direct fashion at all is wrong. Yes Christians should avoid insults and low behavior, but there is a difference here. There are endless subjects covered in Christianity Today where instead of biblical answers, you get neo-evangelical influences, compromises and odd double messages. This definitely contains one of them. If these pastors have to "think" about even standing up against evil publically, that is a problem. This in my opinion is more about getting people to be quiet and repress any speaking out against evil across the board. Some think being a Christian is about being the silent accepter of evil, and that the "nice" will see heaven, remaining silent in the face of evil, is a sin in itself. What about all the families this group has hurt, showing up at their young soldier's funerals? What about those reading the signs about how "god hates them"? The overwhelming silence of religious leaders like this is one reason, so much of the world believes they are a "real Christian church", now that is something they should have a "Christian apology" day over.



Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

No comments: