Monday, July 18, 2005

Mulligan Mondays
...sometimes you just need another swing at the ball

I'm afraid it won't help in today's postings; but let's tee it up. Time to grip and rip!

Good day "Ministers of the Biblical Green." I have two entries for you in the "Mulligan Monday" journal of theological misspeak, doctrinal confusion, and just plain ol' heterodoxy: 1.) "Sainthood: The Pope's Blood Linked to Christ's Blood"; and, 2.) "Rod Parsley, ...'I'm a Christocrat.'" Grab your favorite beverage; find a comfortable chair if you're WIFI; make sure you have your iPaq handy with several Bible translations loaded and ready (for those who still use paper, have your one or two favorite Bibles nearby) and prepare yourself for the severe "slice and hook" of the following articles.

The Blood of JPII - Compared to the Blood of Christ?
1. The late Pope, John Paul II, is being considered for sainthood because of "a link" that some are making between the blood of Christ and JPII's blood. Here is the story: Cardinal Camillo Ruini appeared to have been setting the stage for a possible martyrdom declaration Tuesday when he formally opened the beatification cause for John Paul. Ruini said there was a "decisive" link between John Paul and Jesus Christ based on blood. "John Paul truly spilled his blood in St. Peter's Square on May 13, 1981, and then again, not just his blood but he offered his life during the long years of his illness," Ruini said. "In the end, his suffering and his death, his silent blessing from his window at the end of Easter Mass, were for all of humanity an extraordinary and efficient testimony of Jesus Christ killed and resurrected, of the Christian significance of suffering, death and the force of salvation.

First of all, the Roman idea of sainthood is heretical--nowhere to be found in Scripture. It denies the sole mediatorial work of Jesus Christ interceding for us (1 Tim. 2:5; Rom. 8:34); and it promotes idolatry, where upon confirmation of sainthood, the name of the "blessed" and "beatified" is celebrated in public prayer or in the Mass (the Mass being also a heretical tradition of Romanism thinking the Mass is propitiatory for the recipient). But more importantly, this kind of identification with the sinless Lord Jesus Christ is blasphemous. Sentiment for the departed is one thing. But claiming a dead vicar of the Roman Church is somehow linked directly to Christ in blood spilt, life offered in suffering and death, and that such "offering" is considered to be "the Christian significance of suffering, death and the force of salvation." is hitting the ball beyond "purgatory" (the rough), to being completely "out of bounds" altogether.

Let's be clear: John Paul II having denied the faith, the very gospel of sola fide, sola gratia and solus Christus upon his dying awakened not in glory, but awoke in perdition. Rome heaps further wrath upon wrath by elevating this abhorrent tradition to an unregenerate Pope that they give praise that should be reserved for Christ alone... is unthinkable. This ultimately denies again sola scriptura, for this practice is simply the doctrines of man being represented as the commands of God (cp, Matt. 15:6b-9).

Rod Parsley, "The Christocrat"
2. Parsley, senior pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio and founder of The Center for Moral Clarity, outspoken on the judicial filibuster, the Houses of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act, and outlays in his book, "Silent No More" a call for faith-based co-belligerence (ECB). The list just keeps growing more wide and diverse folks in the number of pastors and evangelicals from all faith constraints that are now joining "the political remedies for moral maladies" bandwagon. (Al Mohler, James Kennedy, Chuck Colson and other ECBers cannot be elated about Parsley's addition to the "ECB political club." The sad thing is, they must find unanimity with Parsley on the social/moral cause agenda, even though biblically they would never have fellowship with a man who is as aberrant as Parsley is on theological essentials. As I have stated before, this is part of the danger of this movement--unity absent of orthodox biblical truth; and unity absent of the gospel.)

Parsley, a devote Word Faith and Health, Wealth, Prosperity advocate and promoter has made an appealing "makeover" of his flamboyant, TBN ranting, "sytle over substance" image and has found more than willing vibrant acceptance from the conservative political mainstream, welcomed by Congressmen and Senators alike, because of his now "new found convictions" that Christians are to get involved in the political process to cure the moral ills facing our nation. Despite his specious doctrinal suasions, he enjoys the favor of mainstream evangelicals: The Honorable Tony Perkins - President, Family Research Council (Dobson); and Pastor Ted Haggard - President, National Association of Evangelicals and Senior Pastor, New Life Church. Both who with glowing praise and endorse Parsley's latest book called, "
Silent No More." Rod Parsley refers to anyone, Christian or not, that will join him in his co-belligerent quest as "value voters." I wonder if Dr. Richard Land with his "iVoters campaign" will partner will Parsley in future events and causes; or maybe even the SBC will find solace in his political convictions and join hands with him in their fight to regain the moral footing in our nation? Never mind his errant theological views, as long as Parsley's right politically on cause and issue, they will overlook everything else. (My prediction: of course they will end up eventually partnering with him--it's unavoidable. This is the "politics of faith" these days.)

In the next few years it would not surprise me if an ecumenical "Center for Theological, Doctrinal and Biblical Tolerance for Cultural Moral Change" is established by all involved in the ECB movement. This kind of thing seems imminent; and it would alter historical biblical Christianity, as we know it, dramatically for generations to come. This movement is far worse than NPP or Open Theism. Why? Because it flies under the theological/biblical radar; it crosses all denominational barriers; it unifies Christians with non-Christians solely on the recovery of traditional family-values; it promotes alliances by making the Christian faith tertiary rather than primary; it offers no biblical foundation for its practice and existence; it is only pragmatic in nature; it confuses patriotism with Christianity; it is currently championed by millions of evangelicals; and all this is happening absent of the gospel, absent of the preaching of God's Word, absent of cross-centered living.

But Mr. Parsley's Mulligan mention is not because of the above (enough worthy evidence presented), but due to his new label for Christians in the culture wars desiring political middle-ground. Here is his claim that he made while being interviewed by Crosswalk.com:

Crosswalk: You've mentioned that you urge both sides of the political spectrum to work together to return America to the vision of the founding fathers. Please talk about some of your bi-partisan efforts.

Parsley: "I told an audience the other day that I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but a Christocrat (emphasis added). I'm not looking to endorse a candidate; I'm looking for a candidate who will endorse what I believe. Both in my book and on my tour, I speak to both sides of the political spectrum. I take issues that traditionally belong to the Left and commend them to the Right and vice versa. I supposed that makes me difficult to peg, but I've found that being morally correct often means being politically unpredictable. I speak out on poverty, racism, education, as well as on judicial tyranny, abortion and homosexuality. Last year, I launched the Center for Moral Clarity to help educate the church about the important issues of the day, and influence legislation based on biblical standards. We're not a partisan organization by any stretch of the imagination."

He mentions good moral causes worth championing; just the wrong method. I believe these are spritual issues; they believe they are political ones; I believe resolve on these things comes through life-transformation by way of the gospel (2 Cor. 5:15-21; Titus 3:1-8), they believe it is through legislation.

It is notable that Parsley now speaks out on everything from poverty to judicial tyranny in those settings, but is he preaching the gospel as the only hope for resolve in those same venues? So far, I have not discovered this to be the case (Not surprising, this is a typical ECB tactic for political moral reform.) He also claims that he wants to educate the church to "influence legislation based on biblical standards." Once again, he says that but the biblical standards are never developed. These biblical standards: what are they; where are they? Silence. (Parsley has adapted well to ECB thinking.)

But the Mulligan goes to Parsley this week because of his labeling of Christians who are speaking out on political issues as "Christocrats." This is foolish and insulting to the name of Christ. Taking the Lord's name and making it a political identifier is unthinkable. Ladies and gentlemen, stating the obvious, Christ has no political affiliation. And for him to slur His name, and I believe take the Lord's name in vain by such ridiculous twisting and play on terms, is demeaning to the name of our Lord Jesus. It clearly violates The Third Commandment - (the same one they are trying to protect in courthouses to be displayed as a religious wall hanging.) I'm almost certain that Parsley, in some jaded way, thought he was being clever and even honorable by naming himself this. But nonetheless, this should be shocking to our ears to hear Christ's name debased in such a manner. How dare he!?!

The only positive thing when it comes to Parsley's co-belligerent affiliation, is that the more time he spends on politics, the less time he spends prostituting Scripture to promulgate his other erroneous faith claims. But that is very little consolation.

These are two major "club swings" that are really impossible to correct. Romanism isn't in need of a Mulligan, but a whole new set of clubs, balls and game. And Parsley isn't much better. He has diverted attention away from his nefarious and heretical Word/Faith affiliations and doctrine to appeal to evangelicals at their most vunerable and loyal area these days... patriotism; "political involvement for moral resolve." He has figured out that political solutions for "family value causes" among Americans and specifically American evangelicals can really widen ones platform and appeal, add valuable names to the mailing list, and if the cause is right--bring in the donations. Parsley's not stupid; he's dangerous.

That's "Mulligan Monday" for July 18, 2005. Let me know your thoughts. Walk the fairways... you see so much than when riding a cart.

Playing through...
Steve
Acts 20:24

PS - And remember, as a dear friend of mine is fond of saying: "you won't go liberal by reading your Bible." And if I may add, you certainly won't be given over to Romanist heresy or to evangelical pragmatic insipid Reconstructionism by reading your Bible either.

May we keep on faithfully in "the once for all delivered to the saints faith" in all things... for Christ and His Word are the answers. I wonder what all these guys will do if Hillary becomes President in 2008? Well, that's for another day.

8 comments:

Breuss Wane said...

If you look reeeaaall close at the book cover, you'll see Rockin' Rod... uh... come to think of it, you don't have to look real close. :-)

AuthenticTruth said...

Regardless of how many mulligans you give these guys, I doubt they will ever be able to land it on the green. We live just a few miles away from Rod Parsley’s church here in Columbus. That place is a den of heresy! A long time ago, when I was looking for a church here after moving to Columbus, I visited Parsley’s church. It only took one visit to determine that I wanted nothing to do with it. Someone once told me on their visit, when they took up the Sunday offering, Rod apparently felt that there was not enough money being given, so he apparently had the ushers stand at the doors and demanded that no one was leaving until he felt the offering was sufficient! You stated that “the more time he spends on politics, the less time he spends prostituting Scripture to promulgate his other erroneous faith claims”. It is interesting that despite his other endeavors, he still seems to have ample time to spread his heresy. If not, he usually has plenty of help from his friends Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, etc., who are frequent guest speakers at his many “camp meetings”.

Efrayim said...

A small adjustment for the sake of being clear and correct:

the fourth commandment (dalet)is the one regarding the keeping of Shabbat.

Exd 20:8 "Remember the day of Shabbat, to keep it holy.
Exd 20:9 You shall labor six days, and do all your work,
Exd 20:10 but the seventh day is a Shabbat to the LORD your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your man-servant, nor your maid-servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates;
Exd 20:11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and eretz, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the day of Shabbat, and made it holy.


the third commandment (geemal) is the one that instructs us not to bring His Name to emptiness or use it in a curse.

I know most english bibles break up the 10 Words the other way, but in the original Hebrew, it is not that way. Keep in mind that the Scriptures were not written with chapters and verses.

As a point of interest, or, perhaps not, the word "Christ" is not a name. Or part of a name. It comes from the Greek word "christos" which was a general term used for someone who was considered to be annointed. The Hebrew word for "annointed One" or Messiah is Mashiach. It is very specific and is not used for anyone or anything else. The Messiah's name in Hebrew would reflect His mission and goal, which would be the salvation of His people. This is why you may sometimes see His name written as Yeshua, which means "salvation" in Hebrew. It can also be written "Yahshua" "Yahashua" or other variations. The meaning does not change, it is "salvation from Yah", the Messiah's Father.
Although His true Name has been hidden for a time, it is now being revealed again to His people. So what is commonly written as "Jesus Christ" would be "Yeshua HaMashiach", meaning "Yeshua the Messiah", or, "Yeshua the Annointed One". It is an interesting language study if nothing else. Words and names should not lose their meaning when moving between languages.

Consider these verses:

Jhn 17:6 "I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me. They have kept your word."

Jhn 17:11 "I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are."

Jhn 17:26 "I made known to them your name, and will make it known; that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."

Yeshua would not have had to reveal and make known the Father's name to His disciples if they already knew it. But it was important that He did.

As for Rod Parsley and his kind, I believe the following would be sound advice for anyone in that realm:

Rev 18:3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality, the kings of the eretz (world) committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the eretz grew rich from the abundance of her luxury."
Rev 18:4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don't receive of her plagues,
Rev 18:5 for her sins have reached to the sky, and God has remembered her iniquities".

There's not much time left.

Shalom,

Russ

SJ Camp said...

Thank you for pointing out it is the Third Commandment - a typo and the correction has been made.

Thank you,
Steve

Jus Divinum said...

Insofar as someone should think that etymology is a reliable guide to meaning, 'democrat' means 'the people rule' whereas 'Christocrat' means that 'Christ rules'. That's a useful reminder when the Christian steps into the voting booth, isn't it?

There's no more 'blasphemy' in saying 'Christocrat,' then in saying that you should think like a _Christian_ (and not like a merely earthly political party) when it comes to exercising your political privileges. What is the difference between that word and that statement? Is it blasphemy to use the word 'Christian' in that statement? If not, then why is it blasphemy to say 'Christocrat'?

You say that "Christ has no political affiliation," as if it's some criticism of Parsley, but ironically that is _precisely_ what the 'Christocrat' label is trying to affirm. _Christ isn't a Democrat or a Republican_. That's why his followers should identify with Christ first and temporal political parties second. It's an _eschewing_ of party affiliation.

I really don't want to come across as harsh, but this criticism seems even more carping and petty than the last one (about Billy Graham).

Bhedr said...

You know! I'm trying to think of a time when Parsley was silent.

"...since they set out for the sake of the name(help us efrayim-Yeshua HaMeshiach-you got a peshitta?)accepting nothing from the pagans(out of Al Mohler's Bible too. HolmanCSB. S.B.C)" did you see that? Nothing from the pagans! "Therefore we ought to support such men,so that we can be co-workers(hmmm) with the truth."
3 John 7&8.

Say you know that verse has a certain ring of independence from the ECB way and one of support toward men of likemind like Campi.

Keep on brother!

P.S- Is it my imagination or could you classify some of the mulligans for life as Diotrephes? Hijacking the true biblical way!

Bhedr said...

Efrayim. You and my brother would get along great. He doesn't read anything but Hebrew anymore. I like to kick around on Blue letter Bible.org and read from the Key Word in the morning and New Geneva in the evening. It is very resourceful.Blue Letter Bible that is.
Anyway go to his site. www.bradlee.com

Shalom,
Brian

James said...

I believe "Christocrat" came from a founding father,Benjamin Rush. An unexact quote from a Senator Zell Miller speech is where I get this from. The senator in his speech "Famine in the Land" said a contemporary of Rush's asked him if he was a democrat or aristrocrat. He replied,"...neither,I am a Christocrat for only the One who died for the sins of man is fit to rule over the affiars of men..." I just wanted to throw that in there.