Compromise With the Radical Homosexual Agenda By Pastors

Pastors who cannot preach the simple message of the transforming power of the Gospel to free homosexuals from their sin, ought to resign from the pulpit before causing further damage.

Here is the truth:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor. 6:9-11

“There is NO love in being kind, and gentle, and welcoming, and “affirming”, or “standing with them”, (whatever that might mean), if you DO NOT preach the Gospel plain and simple. It is the opposite of love; it is cruel and wrong and unbiblical.”

Those were my words in response to “rumfordrev”, a pastor who left comments on my blog post Eastern Nazarene College Rejects The Bible, Moves Towards Affirmation of Homosexuality.  He responded in defense of chaplain Corey McPherson, who in April 2012 preached a message to the Eastern Nazarene College students titled “Homosexuality: What Does God Think?”  Listen to the entire message if you will and judge for yourself, especially those of you who have an investment in either your children, or youth from your church who are attending, or thinking of attending a Nazarene college.  I had characterized Dr. McPherson as one who “speaks more like a confused college student, rather than a spiritual leader who is supposed to give biblical guidance to the students.”  His unapologetic boasting of having shared communion and worship service with a homosexual pastor and his congregation is one of the many disturbing things I found in his message.

In his defense of Corey McPherson, (see comments at my blog) you will not find a clear defense of biblical teaching on this subject from rumfordrev, and that illustrates one of the problems in the Church of the Nazarene today.  Certainly, there are still pastors and chaplains who, without wavering and making excuses or condemning the church for its faults, will articulate what God clearly teaches about sin, whether it is homosexuality, or any other sin.  Yet today I find more and more examples of a kind of compromise, sometimes very subtle, that is trying to make some kind of distinction in defining homosexuality, and raising this sin to a special position that it does not warrant.

Many of us are seeing a trend in the Church of the Nazarene of a movement towards “affirmation” and acceptance of homosexuality as “okay” and normal.  I think it is just a matter of time, and perhaps some might be in for a shock after General Assembly.  Some of the previous examples of this trend were Point Loma Nazarene University and the gay student chaplain situation, in which he was allowed to continue in that position for a while; and the off campus gay support group hosted by the local Nazarene church in San Diego.  Then we have had compromise by Trevecca Nazarene University, allowing a radical homosexual group to come onto its campus for “dialogue.”  At Southern Nazarene University, the leadership’s bad judgment allowed a student newspaper to promote the “new view” of homosexuality; one quote said that “Christian circles are too quick to call homosexuality a sin, without ever having talked to someone who identifies as gay.”  Eastern Nazarene College leadership recently approved a new support group for GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, and questioning student), as reported at my blog post of April 9.

Rumfordrev pointed out a quote from Dr. McPherson as indicative of a Christ-like approach, but he failed to address the serious problems with much of what was said, including the issue of having communion with a homosexual pastor, or worshipping with a gay affirming congregation, and he did not affirm agreement with my biblical answer to his question.  What does this mean?  I’m not sure, but for someone to suggest to me that I made personal attacks without being specific about it, and yet not agree clearly with me about the sinfulness of having communion with a homosexual “Christian”,  and who himself stated “I am not responding to whether one can or can not be homosexual and Christian at the same time”, that leaves me asking: why would you not respond?

Affirming The Gay Lifestyle: What Does That Mean?

As examples of what Dr. McPherson said in his message, which I am working on transcribing, here are some disturbing quotes:

“You can’t help but put on a whole new perspective when someone you love is gay.  I was gradually coming to the point where I was affirming the gay and lesbian lifestyle. By affirming I mean encouraging him and I mean believing that an active gay lifestyle in a committed monogamous relationship is acceptable by God.”

“Many of you already know the passages of Scripture that address or seem to address the issue of homosexuality.  They are used as weapons to attack and abuse others even if the passage is quoted in the right text, it is done so in a manner that is demeaning and abusive.  So I would not look to these texts, in fact I will not quote them at all.”

I would say to Dr. McPherson that first of all, if one of my children declared someday that they were gay, that the only perspective I would have is that of a grieving dad who was just told by their child that they were rejecting God and were living a life of what they wish to do, and not what God wants them to do.  That’s all.  Our perspective in any other way should never change.  God’s word is applicable to all, whether they are related to you or not.  What your responsibility would be is to lovingly tell that loved one that they are in sin, and are headed towards eternity in hell without God for rebelling against him.

Secondly, his failure to properly give the biblical teaching on homosexuality, without any ambiguity to those who were listening, was unfair to them, and wrong.  Too many pastors now are talking about sexual orientation as a separate issue from homosexual acts.  I was astounded when I heard this sermon by Rev. Rick Power of College Church in Olathe, KS, when he said the following (my emphasis in bold):

“as a community that is called to reflect the grace and forgiveness and hospitality of our Savior, we must thoughtfully and carefully respond to the questions of homosexuality, and sexual purity, and divorce.  To say that marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman …. doesn’t mean that we are slamming our doors or closing our hearts to gay and lesbian people. Not at all.   We have learned that for the vast majority of individuals sexual orientation is not a choice, and it cannot be changed.  If this is true then homosexual orientation in itself is not sinful.  It may be a sign of the brokenness and fallenness of our world, but if it does not involve personal choice, it is not in itself sinful, and we have to make this distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts.”

Is this thinking coming out of the seminaries now?  Are these ideas being driven by the emergent church crowd, of which many like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and others openly approve gay marriage, and believe now that you can be homosexual and remain Christian?  What is the fascination with a kind of coddling of those who identify with this particular sin, but not with those who are involved in other types of sin?  Where is the direct and clear, bold preaching that homosexuals can be freed from the bondage of their sin?  Instead, we see pastors stating that they “affirm” them, and “stand with them”, but to what end?  Is it to get more bodies into the church, and show everyone how “caring” you are?

I shudder to think that perhaps next month, the General Assembly might elect one, maybe even two, new General Superintendents who also believe in this unbiblical approach to dealing with homosexual sin.  If so, the spiraling downwards of the Church of the Nazarene will continue at an even faster pace than I thought would happen.  And the words of Rev. Power from his sermon makes me wonder: how many of his congregation that day were nodding their heads in approval, instead of standing up and objecting to his unbiblical view on homosexual sin?  That should be of concern as well.

Not All Are Compromising

I remind you of the pastors in Rhode Island who stood up against gay “marriage” and publicly signed a petition expressing the biblical view that condemns such things.  Not all evangelical pastors were on this list, and I wonder was it because they never saw the petition, or because they did not want to be identified as one who is against the radical political correctness of the day?  Sadly, gay “marriage” has been foisted upon Rhode Islanders, with much thanks to some legislators who caved in at the last minute.

And there is Pastor John Lindell of James River Assembly in Missouri, another example of those ministers of Christ who refuse to water down the Gospel, and who do it in a loving way, in spite of accusations by the radicals and the compromising “pastors” who objected to his biblical views.  Can you believe pastors objecting to a biblical assessment of homosexuality?  That’s exactly how he was treated, and I will report on this further.  In the meantime, his story can be read here, and the full context of his speech can be read here.

(On Wednesday, I will also post a response to the “sexual orientation” question, written by John Henderson, which addresses this fallacy being propagated by what seems to be a growing number of pastors).

 

Mocking and Rejecting God And His Word

“Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22

They twist God’s word for their own purposes.  We see them all around us now more than ever before, or so it seems.  Perhaps they are just simply less subtle and have been emboldened to be more plain about their heresies.  Complacency by both leadership and laiety alike further enables them to take a stronger foothold in our “Christian” universities, seminaries, and churches.  The sincere desire for “unity”, “love”, and setting aside “minor” differences has led to a watering down of God’s word and a reliance on man’s rationalizing to decide what is valid in Scripture.

Tom Oord of Northwest Nazarene University, a highly regarded professor of theology and philosophy, is perhaps the leading false teacher in the Church of the Nazarene.  He has been allowed to continue on and on with his poisonous agenda of evolution and open theism, and you would think he would be out by now, and teaching in a secular school instead.  Why he remains, as well as others, is either a matter of complacency, or fear, or the leadership sees no problem with his ideas.  He certainly is not there because he holds fast to biblical truth, because he has rejected biblical truth in place of his own.

In his latest article that caught my attention, he practically starts off with a falsehood:

“I take the Bible with utmost seriousness”

Anyone who does not believe Adam and Eve were real, or who believes that God cannot know the future, or who believes that God can learn from His mistakes, or that God could not have created all things in a brief period of days- does not take the Bible seriously!

He then starts slowly explaining how he came to his disbelief:

“Witnessing to God’s truth seemed to require that I believe the Bible was without error on all matters, including matters related to science.”

His love of man’s wisdom instead of God is shown in these words:

“Instead, I started reading the Bible carefully and the work of biblical scholars.”
“I also discovered discrepancies in the Bible.” (so he says)

“My quest for better ways to think about the Bible prompted me to read theologians and Bible scholars from the past and present.”

His claim of “discrepancies” can be proven to be false, and that is another whole new article in itself.  He also rejects John Wesley’s own testimony that he believed in biblical inerrancy, conveniently dismissing it as being inconsistent at best.

He continues with his high regard for what “leading scholars” think:

“And I discovered through reading and conversations that those considered the leading biblical scholars and theologians today also reject absolute biblical inerrancy.”

“Perhaps even more important was my discovery that great theologians and biblical scholars of yesteryear believed the Bible’s basic purpose was to reveal God’s desire for our salvation.”

“The vast majority of Evangelical scholars with whom I talked also didn’t think the Bible has to be inerrant about scientific matters.”

These statement are all indications that show he clearly does not come to his conclusions based on what the plain teaching of God’s word is, but rather on the wisdom of “great scholars and theologians.”  Throughout his writings you will see examples of what he “thinks” is, instead of taking God’s word for it, when God clearly speaks in a literal, not allegorical fashion.  But leave it to Tom Oord and other intellectuals to decide what’s best for us and convince us that only certain parts of Scripture are infallible; the rest are not trustworthy in what they say, because of a so-called conflict with “science” and man’s foolish and unproven theory of evolution.

Scripture instead asks “Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  1 Cor. 1:20

And then he finishes with a flourish and an example of his superior intellect over what the Bible teaches:

“After my studies, I came to believe that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life. But it does not provide the science for how life became abundant.”

So Tom Oord’s premise is this: we cannot believe anything the Bible teaches us, even if evidently in a plain literal way, if it has to do with such things as geography, science, history, anthropology, or even politics.  No, to Tom Oord and others, we can believe in biblical inerrancy only in matters of salvation.  I don’t know who originally came up with this, but it is certainly not based on God’s word.  The Bible does not teach us this at all; it is man’s invention.  I believe the answer as to why he thinks this way, is that he has no trust in God’s word at all.  It is impossible to trust God’s word, and then at the same time say that parts of it are false.   And if he does not even trust God’s word, let me dare ask the question: is Tom Oord even saved?

How do we determine which parts of Scripture has to do with salvation, and which does not?

For instance, in Romans 5:12, it is written that “sin entered into the world” and thus “death” by sin.  Does Tom Oord reject the fact that the “man” that Paul is talking about is none other than Adam?  And if sin entered the world through Adam according to Scripture, followed by death, how is that compatible with the story (fable) of evolution, which logically says that death came into the world long before man existed?  Is Paul a liar, thus making God a liar, since what Paul wrote IS God’s word?  How then can Tom Oord or any other pastor or Christian leader tell us that this passage has nothing to do with “matters of salvation?”

Let me make it clear as far as what I believe.  If you are actively teaching others that evolution is compatible with the Bible, you are a false teacher.  If you believe this theory to be true, you are sadly deceived and need to re-visit the Bible and what it says.  You have been fed a lie, and if you think that a Christian can continue on in their Christian faith solidly believing in only part of God’s word, and not stumbling on account of that belief, you are sorely mistaken.

In part two of his series on BioLogos, Oord says the following:

“I think, however, that the Bible can be trusted about what it says about salvation even though its statements about the natural world – when interpreted literally – may be wrong.”

What total arrogance!  His reliance on “biblical scholars once again brings him to this man-driven conclusion:

“After all, biblical scholars say we best interpret Genesis 1 and other Bible creation passages as hymns and theological poetry, not scientific treatises.”

And then the height of arrogance in the following:

“For instance, evolution tells us that it took millions of years for creatures to evolve into the complex forms we now see. But if God gives freedom and/or agency to all creatures and they act as created co-creators, it would make sense that creating complex creatures takes time.”

Yes, for Tom Oord, it does not make sense that God can create anything in a short amount of time.  For him and his colleagues, it only makes sense that God needs millions and millions of years to create life.  Perhaps Dr. Oord believes that God made some mistakes over those years, and had to try several times before He got it right. After all, that is what process theology teaches, does it not?

This is total foolishness, and this is only a small part of what is destroying the Church of the Nazarene from within.  Tom Oord is a lover of wisdom, not a lover of God’s holy and pure and inerrant word.  The doctrines which he conjures up are senseless and speculative, and in the general sense of how the word “fool” is used often in Scripture, it means void of understanding or any moral sense.  This aptly describes Dr. Oord and all those who are teaching this philosophy.  They are devoid of understanding of God’s word, notwithstanding all of their training and degrees.  They are corrupt shepherds leading the flock to destruction.

And the rest of the leaders in the church?  What about them?  Silent as usual.

Deceptive Confusion About Orientation

(John Henderson)

A simple dictionary definition of oriented is to be intellectually, emotionally, or functionally directed.  It is typically all three at once.  Intellectually means there is an intellectual agreement to something.  Emotionally means there is an emotional involvement with something.  Functionally, means there is an established and tooted commitment to something.  All of this without overt action.

If we speak of homosexual orientation, this is what must be meant by it.  Faux theologians make a false assumption by comparing homosexual orientation to temptation.  This is not scriptural by any definition.

It is true that fallen mankind is “bent” to sinning in any area and some in particular.  Wesleyans have traditionally called that the carnal nature and have not made excuses for the carnal nature but have preached that through entire sanctification this nature is crucified with Christ.  It is on His cross and is no longer any part of the Christian life.

The fundamental Wesleyan doctrine never declares that the carnal nature is eradicated in a sense that it ceases to exist.  In other words, “resurrection” is possible.  This is where temptation—something completely different—operates.  Those who equate temptation with orientation or any potential to sin are practicing unscriptural theology.  The faux Wesleyans who do that are trying to stretch a predetermined assumption over an unyielding concept of the Scriptures—they try to form the concept to look biblical when in fact it is error.

I find it interesting that there is such a focus on homosexual orientation versus homosexual behavior as though the two are distinct from one another.  No similar comparison is ever made about hatred or heterosexual lust.  But then we do have clear words from Jesus about those matters when He teaches that hating is the same as murder and lusting after a woman (the opposite sex) is the same as having actually committed adultery in one’s heart.  In other words, you have done it before you actually do it; or whether or not you follow through.  We may use other examples from the Lord, such as it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes from the heart, etc.  All sin starts in the heart.  Like an unborn baby, it is a baby from conception, whether in the womb or out of the womb.

Shall we also consider James’ clear teaching about temptation?  “…But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. 1:15 Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death” (James 1:14-15, NET).

By considering that homosexual orientation (or any other orientation) is something from the fallen nature we have two possible solutions:  that person is either hopelessly condemned to it or there is a rescue available.  Will a homosexual who comes to Christ be tempted to homosexuality?  The answer is yes but it is not a kind of yes that excuses his former life.  It is a kind of yes that says Christ is the answer.  “There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Emanuel’s veins.  And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.”

For Further Reference:

What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality Is Legal (David Cloud, Way of Life)

​Eastern Nazarene College Rejects The Bible, Moves Towards Affirmation Of Homosexuality​

Quite the headline, isn’t it?  If you still want to continue sending your children to Eastern Nazarene College, you do so at their peril.  If you know all of what I have been reporting to you in the last few years, and still want to send them there, I question your level of discernment and interest in instilling biblical values for your children.

I’m typing this up rather quickly.  When I was notified of this story, I had mixed reactions.  One was of mental fatigue from seeing nothing but bad news about the state of the Nazarene denomination.  I’m afraid we will be going from worse to worse, and more bad stories will come to light.​

​I don’t have much interest in writing a long piece on this, I will just let the original article enlighten you as to the depths that the leaders at my old school have gone, and continue to do so apparently.  This fits other pieces of the puzzle well anyway, so I am not surprised.  In this chapel message from last year, listen as ENC chaplain Corey McPherson talks about Homosexuality: What Does God Think?“  Dr. McPherson speaks more like a confused college student, rather than a spiritual leader who is supposed to give biblical guidance to the students.  But I am certain all the leaders including President McGee are on board with this kind of thinking.  No surprise, since the Nazarene denomination embraces Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren, both who support gay marriage and homosexual “Christians.”

They all need to resign or need to be fired.​

As I write this, I am borrowing a paragraph that a friend posted earlier tonight, which expresses my exact sentiments:

“I do not need to say anything about this except to say they have gone way too far here. I will not waste time debating these compromisers of scriptural truth. It is time for a separation and they must be the ones to go, not true Nazarenes. We must have the fortitude to demand that they vacate the premises of our churches and institutions. As long as we remain timid, they will wax worse and worse because we are too fearful or too blindly loyal to a memory that has faded into the past to any longer stand for the truth. Oh, the judgment God will bring upon us if we let this go unchallenged. There is no longer a place for being neutral. Doing nothing is the same as supporting it.”

Here is the article:

Evangelical Colleges Inching Toward Affirmation of Homosexuality

​(source)
A recent article on the CNN Belief Blog highlighted the trend of Evangelical colleges inching toward culturally acceptable views of homosexuality. The article highlighted Wheaton College, which in February established an official group for “students to explore questions of gender identity and sexual orientation.” Although Wheaton College receives the most attention because of its prominence, other Evangelical schools are making similar moves.

Last week at Eastern Nazarene College (ENC) the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) student group called ‘Love of God Bringing Triumph,’ announced the college administration approved an LGBT support group through the school’s counseling and health services center. Although the administration denied the group’s initial request for an official club because of concerns about breaches in confidentiality, the new “support group” through the counseling center will ensure the privacy of all students involved.

The new group will only be open to those who identify as “members of the LGBT community, and will walk alongside them as they wrestle through issues that are common to being LGBT.” Some students complained that facilitating the group through the school’s counseling center implies homosexuality is a problem requiring counseling, rather than a legitimate orientation to be affirmed. One student told the college newspaper “I don’t want this to be an excuse for those kids to be put into counseling, because that’s not what they need, they need our support as a community.”

Dr. Vernon Wesley, vice president for Student Development at ENC acknowledged “The questions of ‘affirming’ and ‘condoning’ as a Christian college continue to hover over us.” Athena Horton, a senior who submitted the initial proposal for an official LGBT club said “By even allowing a group to happen in this format, ENC’s administration is saying to the student body that they care about the wellbeing of all of its students—not just the straight ones.” Further, she is “grateful that we have this group, and that we are beginning a journey that is moving in a positive direction when it comes to the LGBT among us.”

In another article for the student newspaper, Horton said “Being LGBT in society today is difficult enough with the stigmas associated with it, but being a part of a Christian community whose denominational stance is that ‘Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted … and subject to the wrath of God’ (as stated in the Church of the Nazarene Manual ’09-’13) is even more difficult.’”

Conservative Christian colleges have become a battleground for the LGBT movement’s goal to gain universal acceptance and affirmation. Traditional Christian teachings on sexuality are an affront to their goals, so groups like Soulforce have aggressively targeted Christian campuses to further their agenda. ENC’s group is not the result of Soulforce activity, but illustrates the continued trend of students, alumni, faculty and staff of Christian colleges shifting toward a progressive approach to sexuality. Despite this shift, for LGBT activists establishing a student group within a counseling center is insufficient and even offensive because it indicates homosexual practice is aberrant behavior. Consequently, activists view such groups as a mere first step toward unqualified affirmation.

Soulforce was established in 1998 “to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQ people” and they specifically target young Christian students through their “Equality Rides” to “hostile” campuses across the country. These “Rides” have “catalyzed conversations and dialogue at these otherwise silent institutions. Soulforce has witnessed real change in practices and policies.” They complain counseling given to students who openly identify as LGBT is “harmful,” “ex-gay,” or “‘reparative’ therapy.”

Through Equality Ride’s seven year history, 14 Christian colleges they visited have relaxed policies on homosexuality. In the same time, “Twenty-five schools and counting have some form of supportive student group, and at least 20 have LGBTQ alumni organizations [not necessarily Christian schools].”

Soulforce knows they will sway young Evangelicals by starting seemingly innocuous “conversations and dialogue,” because many students are unsure what they believe about homosexuality. “Equality Rides” include sessions on scriptural interpretation, intended to dismiss biblical prohibitions of homosexuality.

Without receiving clear instruction on traditional Christian and scriptural teachings about sexuality, often these young believers are ill equipped to defend a faithful perspective on homosexual practice. They are bombarded with messages about “equality,” “tolerance,” and are called “bigots” if they don’t affirm a homosexual lifestyle. When they don’t know how to respond to reinterpretations of scripture, some ultimately conclude there is no legitimate reason to view homosexuality as sinful; that such a belief has no place among their tolerant, nonjudgmental generation.

Christian institutions will have to clearly address homosexuality as the culture increasingly affirms it and more people within the Church openly struggle with same-sex attraction. It is understandable that administrators at these schools recognize the challenges Christian students experiencing same-sex attraction face and want to help and disciple them. At the same time, historically faithful Christian academic institutions should recognize that the ultimate goal of establishing groups expressly for students who identify as LGBT is to legitimize the idea that one’s “sexual orientation” is an inherent and defining characteristic of his personhood.

Christian colleges are communities of young people who are figuring out who they are and what direction their lives will take. They are made up of broken, human people struggling with innumerable sins, all needing discipleship, mentorship, and guidance. Homosexuality is one among many issues students face, and should be addressed with genuine Christian love. Our culture is confused about what it means to be human, and uniquely a man or woman and the Church ought to be a light of clarity amid the chaos. Although a campus is not a church, these institutions play a key role in shaping their students’ lives and they are responsible to clearly teach and equip Christian students to follow God’s design for their lives, including their sexuality.

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/April08/087.html#.UWRaAhlp62x

 

Prominent Nazarenes Reject God’s Word And Promote Ungodly Evolution

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  Rom 1:21-22

There has been a movement for quite some time now to serve up evolution as a viable alternative for Christians as to how God created man.  That movement is trying to gain momentum in the Nazarene denomination, as part of a “big tent” philosophy.  But if you accept evolution, you also must accept certain ideas that come with it.  And in accepting them, you have no choice but to reject what Holy Scripture has to say about it.  You cannot believe in the Bible, and also believe in evolution.  It is an oxymoron.

Believing in evolution means you must accept that, among other things:

-Adam and Eve were not real historical figures as described in Genesis;

-Jesus was not truthful when he talked about Adam and Eve in a historical context;

-You reject God’s account in Genesis that He created everything in six days;

-You reject the ​truthfulness of the​ genealogical account of the Lord in Matthew, which includes Adam;

-The account of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is only allegory;

-You accept that death came into the world many years before any Adam and Eve, contradicting Romans 5:12 and its explanation of how sin and death came into the world;

-You pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of accepting God’s historical account at face value;

-You choose to use your own intellect and human reasoning and philosophy to validate the Bible, instead of letting the Bible validate itself;

-You reject the inerrancy and reliability of Scripture as the sole and final written authority for our faith and practice, and instead accept that the Bible has errors and is written deceptively.

We could list more things from the Bible that require someone to suspend belief in it, when they say they adhere to “theistic evolution.”  These people in the end pick and choose what they want to believe, to satisfy their intellectual snobbery and their disbelief in God’s word.  What is not literal about the following account, as one example?

Gen 2:7 “And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

They just cannot accept such accounts as fact.  They twist the word of God, and insist that there is no way it could have happened that way, because “science” disproves it.  Of course, we know how flawed science has been in the past, and evolution is a prime example.  The entire concept of original sin falls apart if Adam and Eve were not created by God as is said in Genesis.

The fossil record actually shows an abrupt appearance of human life, and there is no evidence whatsoever of gradual evolution.  And so, the evolutionists had to come up with something called “Punctuated Equilibrium”  to explain away that problem.  The fact is that Darwin’s theory (really a hypothesis) has been clearly refuted many times by the evidence of science, yet the deniers continue to insist on this fairy tale as being fact, when it is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humankind.

The Leadership of The Evolution Movement In The Church

Nazarenes Exploring Evolution is composed of a group of Nazarene theologians, pastors and scientists.  Here are two of the more familiar people (to me) who are on the leadership:

Tom Oord: open theist and professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene, who rejected my biblical answer to him several years ago at a lecture where he seemed to miss the point of Romans 5:12 and its explanation of sin and death.  He is first on the list of leadership of this group, and that is no surprise.  He is probably the number one prime mover of this unbiblical agenda.

Scott Daniels: pastor of Pasadena First Church and dean of Azuza Pacific University’s School of Theology.  In 2009 at General Assembly, Rev. Daniels teamed up with Jon Middendorf to hold a workshop where they promoted the emergent church, and such mystics as Richard Foster and Thomas Merton.  Rev. Daniels has made the ridiculous claim, against all evidence,  that not only is the emergent church movement dead, but that he is not a part of it as well.

Others on this team include: Bob Branson, graduate of Southern Nazarene and Nazarene Theological Seminary, who has written for several Sunday School handbooks; Jennifer Chase, another product of Northwest Nazarene University who specializes in biology; Kerry Fulcher from Point Loma Nazarene University, another school that along with Northwest promotes emergent ideology and contemplative mysticism; Mark Mann, also a teacher at Point Loma who is a contributor to The BioLogos Forum, which heavily promotes theistic evolution; Sherri Walker, another product of Northwest Nazarene; and Mark Winslow, who teaches at Southern Nazarene and whose interests include  “understanding how college students accommodate evolution and religious beliefs.”

Then there are the various article contributors, which includes some from the extremely liberal and emergent-embracing NazNet blog, an “unofficial” Nazarene site for conversations amongst Nazarenes.  Most notable of these contributors is Dr. Karl Giberson, formerly a science professor at Eastern Nazarene College, author of the book Saving Darwin, and I cannot think of any other science teacher who has caused more damage to students with his open theism and evolution teaching.  The “toxic-ness” is compounded by the utter arrogance of this man, who has been known to rip into the reputation and character of anyone who dares to disagree with his ungodly teachings.  I do not hate him, but I do hate what he has done, and continues to do.  Sadly, his colleague Dr. Randall Stephens is carrying on the same philosophy to the detriment of more ENC students.

Far From Loving And Humble

The final paragraph of their statement describing this project says “In a loving, constructive, and humble endeavor, the Nazarenes Exploring Evolution project seeks to help the Church of the Nazarene consider how evolution can complement rather than contradict Wesleyan-holiness theology.”  This is quite laughable, because it is not believable, when you read the way some of these hold a disdain for those who dare to believe God’s word instead of theirs!  In fact, in the words preceding that statement, the less than charitable Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, says this:

“Will I engage a young generation in an open-minded biblical conversation that welcomes scientific discovery, reasoned philosophy, and careful logic? Or will I ignore all of these in favor of an interpretation of creation that is barely one hundred years old and rooted in the fear of science?”

This type of rhetoric is typical of Dr. Boone and others.  First, they elevate philosophy and human reasoning to a level that is so important that man must turn to it first, in order to then confirm what the Bible says.  Then he throws up a red herring, and paints Bible believers as “fearful of science,” instead of just admitting that we vigorously disagree with what these people promote.  This is the same old way they talk amongst themselves, congratulating themselves for their intellect, and parading their degrees in front of us.  Just read their Leadership page and you will understand what I mean by how much they are so impressed with themselves.  It is, to paraphrase a friend’s comment, more like a mutual admiration society.

Follow The Money

In funding evolution, it takes money to push forth anti-biblical views.  So, what group or person is behind all this?  Enter the John Templeton Foundation.  And what does it have to do with Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, you ask?  First, here is a quote from one of John Templeton’s writings:

 “No one should say that God can be reached by only one path” (The Humble Approach pp. 46,55). Templeton writes in his book Discovering the Laws of Life: “[T]he basic principles for leading a ‘sublime life’… may be derived from any religious tradition, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and others, as well as Christian”

(Discovering the Laws of Life pp. 6-7).  Source: http://www.letusreason.org/Curren40.htm

Then, there is the BioLogos Foundation, which was/is heavily funded by the John Templeton Foundation.http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/the-language-of-god-biologos-website-and-workshop

And now, the connection. The Biologos Foundation has recently granted a significant amount of money to Tom Oord to push forth John Templeton’s philosophical (anti-biblical) views further into the Nazarene denomination via a new website:
http://biologos.org/ecf/grantees

And now, enter: NAZARENES EXPLORING EVOLUTION  http://exploringevolution.com/

By the way, this word “exploring” is very deceptive.  They are not exploring evolution; they are promoting it, plain and simple.  There is no other agenda.

 

At his own blog, Dr. Oord introduces the birth of this new website:
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/nazarenes_exploring_evolution/#.USJt-_KneKI

So, you just need to follow the money BEHIND these people and their projects to understand how and why these philosophies are being implemented.  It takes money and well networked groups to assault the basic tenets of scripture.  And as always, the best place to start is with the youth in the schools.  This follows happily along with the Brian McClaren philosophy of getting to the children and grandchildren first.

Most parents have no idea how the foundations that they thought they have established with their children will be under assault by a well-funded liberal machine.

Here is another quote:

 “Our vision is derived from the late Sir John Templeton’s optimism about the possibility of acquiring “new spiritual information” and from his commitment to rigorous scientific research and related scholarship.” (end of quote)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

New spiritual information???  A new revelation from God?  Does not the Nazarene denomination believe in the closed canon of Scripture, and that what God has revealed in His word is our only authority, not some so-called new spiritual information?

It’s no coincidence that Answers In Genesis, run by Ken Ham, has come under attack by groups that hate the biblical account of creation. This ministry serves to equip our youth and to stand strong against the wiles of the devil who goes about like a roaring lion seeking to devour and tear down the foundations of our faith.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/.  Dr. Ham has been at the forefront of fighting back and refuting Karl Giberson and others who are promoting the Bible denying man’s religion called evolution, and he is not even a Nazarene.

The Real Force Behind The Movement

In commenting on an article from Dr. Oord’s blog, a good friend and pastor described it well:

“Just reading this article by Oord – An Alternative Doctrine of Creation.

It’s interesting how he labels his own view of creation, “my alternative doctrine.” That’s exactly what it is! These people have become their own god! It’s the deception of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “You shall be as God”, with your own alternative doctrine.”

He is exactly right.  These people have been blinded to the truth, and satan is using them for his ends. These people cannot see that if Adam and Eve were not literal, then we could not have been born in sin, and the Lord Jesus died for nothing.  The message of evolution opposes the message of the Bible.  You cannot believe in both.

Every ungodly movement has its leader, sitting in the back unnoticed.  That leader is satan, and he is using men and women like these to deceive countless Christians.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  Col. 2:8

(By Manny Silva and contributors)

 

For further reference:

Articles by Ken Ham Refuting Karl Giberson and Others:

Nazarene Professor Misrepresents-Again

Is Jesus An Evolutionist?

New Book By Nazarene Scholars Slams Biblical Creationists

What Are Nazarene Students Being Taught?

Why Not Edit The Bible?

Exposing The Anointed (review of book by Goberson and Randall Stephens)

It Is Not “Religion” Versus “Science”

Same Old, Same Old

Maligned By Ken Ham?

What the Bible Says About the Origin of Death and Suffering (Answers in Genesis)

Evolution of Darwin: His Life (video, Answers in Genesis)