Appointment Of A New President at ENC: Symptom of A Major Problem In The Nazarene Church

Dan Boone, president of Trevecca Nazarene University, was recently selected as the new president of Eastern Nazarene College, which is also being discussed as a possible merger with Trevecca. He will step in sometime after Dr. Corlis McGee leaves her current position later in the summer. The “leaders” of the denomination are cheering, no doubt. They have always been complicit, or at the very least willfully ignorant, with everything that has been destroying the Nazarene denomination spiritually.

I am not surprised at this choice. Dr. Boone and Dr. McGee share some views that make this selection understandable. To many of us who have voiced our concerns about the denomination for years, it further indicates full steam ahead towards a practical marriage between Nazarenes and Roman Catholics. The only major item that will be missing soon is to have pope Francis as the keynote speaker at a future General Assembly. And why not? The prayer stations are already in place, the Roman Catholic practice of Lent and ashes to the forehead is everywhere, and the Roman Catholic retreat is scheduled for a pre-Assembly event this summer.

If you believe in the Bible- truly believe in it, not just parts of it as Dan Boone does- then I could not warn you any more than I do now. You are placing your child in danger by sending them to Eastern Nazarene College, and frankly, there is hardly a Nazarene college now that has a strong biblical foundation anymore.

So here is why Dr. Boone’s appointment bodes very badly, especially for those who have children of college age.

Ecumenicists Promoting Roman Catholicism

Dr. Boone and Dr. McGee are both ecumenicists. Dr. McGee has expressed to me in a past meeting with her and the ENC provost that Roman Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ. On the ENC website, you will find Roman Catholic churches on the list of available churches to attend in the community. In the ENC bookstore (last time I visited), you would also find Roman Catholic related books, including a Roman Catholic bible, along with many books by authors that promote an ecumenical belief system.

Dr. Boone, as Trevecca president, has long promoted yearly trips for students to the Gethsemani Monastery in Kentucky, a site that was the spiritual home of the Roman Catholic mystic, Thomas Merton. Here at this retreat, students from ENC have the opportunity to “practice the silence”, which is nothing more than Catholic mysticism that has no roots in biblical teaching. The “spiritual discipline” of silence is a doctrine of demons. This retreat is scheduled for this year again:

Dr. Boone also has promoted the use of prayer labyrinths, and has had one there for years at Trevecca. After I exposed this more fully, he made excuses about it, and later re-named the labyrinth and called it something else. It is not just Trevecca doing this:

An Uneasy Accommodation To The LGBT Community

At Eastern Nazarene College, an LGBT support group was allowed to be established at Munro Hall. I sent a letter to Dr. McGee wondering how Bertha Munro would have felt, knowing an LGBT group was meeting in a building named in her honor. I received a reply their from former chaplain, with an excuse that the school does not necessarily sponsor the group, which was a lame excuse because all they had to do was say no to a group whose basic premise goes against Biblical values. And this same chaplain spoke in a chapel service several years ago, all but promoting a relaxation of biblical standards regarding homosexuality.

For Dr. Boone, all those things at ENC fit right in with his track record. He is known for accommodating the LGBT agenda at Trevecca, having allowed an extreme LGBT group to come on campus to have “a dialog.”

And lest we forget, at the last General Assembly, Dr. Boone was one of those most instrumental in arguing for postponing an attempt to strengthen the Church statement on homosexuality. It will be interesting to see what the arguments for this will be this year. I working on evidence that indicates that the denomination is in for a very difficult time regarding the homosexuality issue, which will lead to further division in the Church.

Hostility Towards Bible Believers

Dr. Boone has an utter disdain for Bible believing Christians, as shown in this article I wrote a few years ago. He has compared Bible Believing Christians to Islamic fundamentalists. He says that our appetites have been whetted “by religious blood in the water.” (

Promoting False Teachers

Dr. Boone is certainly no Bible traditionalist. He has very bad theology, he promotes false teachers, and he does not believe in the creation as told in Genesis. He was a prominent member of the group, Nazarenes Exploring Evolution, before it’s website suddenly closed down for no apparent reason. Until it closed down, folks like Dr. Boone were heartily endorsing the idea that God used evolution to create us. He was not alone in that group, and was joined by many well-respected pastors, professors and national leaders. Very frightening indeed.

In an older profile at Nazarene Theological Seminary, which is no longer posted, he said the following:

“…I am deepening in the mystical forms of prayer.”

Dr. Boone promotes one of the leading teachers of contemplative mysticism, false teacher Richard Foster. As an example, Foster makes the amazing claim that non-believers can also practice the Christian spiritual disciplines: “We need not be well advanced in matters of theology to practice the Disciplines. Recent converts–for that matter people who have yet to turn their lives over to Jesus Christ–can and should practice them” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 2).

Dr. Boone has called Thomas Merton and Ignatius of Loyola spiritual giants.
Merton was not a spiritual giant- he was a monk who said that he was “deeply impregnated with Sufism” because he believed that Eastern mysticism was compatible with and could be incorporated into Christianity.  He placed Mary high on a level equal to Jesus, he prayed to many catholic saints.  He was influenced by Aldous Huxley, who found enlightenment through hallucinogenic drugs.

Ignatius of Loyola was no wiser, and as the founder of the Jesuits he brutally persecuted Christians and swore complete submission to the pope.  As most Roman Catholics do, he venerated Mary.  He practiced extreme asceticism, living in a cave for a year and never bathing.  He also promoted and taught visualization prayers, breath prayers, and other unbiblical practices (Source: Way of Life).  Yet, Dan Boone calls him a spiritual giant.

In a Letter to Pastors he wrote in 2009, Dr. Boone not only erroneously claimed that the Roman Catholic church was the only church for 1500 years after Christ, but he also exposed more error along with his ecumenical get along with everyone philosophy.  How is it that we can “be one” with the Roman Catholic Church?

“While Nazarenes are different from Catholics in very significant ways, we believe that we will share eternity with them in the presence of the Christ who prayed that we might be one.”

His philosophy seems to be, anyone who claims the name of Jesus, no matter their belief otherwise, will spend eternity with Christ. This is contrary to Jesus’s teaching, and indicates Dr. Boone’s dangerous and ignorant thinking as he misleads others.

A Symptom Of A Bigger Problem

I am sure Dan Boone is a nice guy. But how long will the denomination continue to tolerate nice guys who teach bad theology, who do not believe in the creation account in Scripture, and who promote Roman Catholic mysticism? Sadly, the appointment of Dan Boone is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem in the Church of the Nazarene. Dan Boone is not going anywhere else because I wrote this article. I have no illusions of that.

It is going to take a huge cataclysmic event of spiritually challenging proportions to generate any kind of major opposition to the apostasy in the church. By then it might be too late. Will people only wake up at the next General Assembly if some earth shattering amendment is made regarding homosexuality, the next frontier in the Church? Will same sex relations be blessed in the church? Is it happening already, and you just don’t know it? Will homosexual “Christians” be a part of the accepted conversation?

Or perhaps, most of the sheep in the pews will they continue on pretending that all is well in a holiness denomination that only mouths the words, but does not live them anymore.

Holiness is becoming heresy right before our eyes.

Additional Documentation:

Dan Boone’s Involvement with Promoting Evolution

Dan Boone’s Dislike of Bible Believers

Dan Boone’s Involvement with SoulForce (LGBT advocates)

My Conversation with Dan Boone:

A Charitable Discourse?

Labyrinths and Prayer Stations


Yoga At Eastern Nazarene College: More Spiritual Deception

Yoga at ENCWith its weekly yoga class right on campus, in fact right in Munro Parlor, named after the first dean of the college, Eastern Nazarene College continues to commit serious error in identifying itself as a “Christian” school. I have written much in the past about my alma mater and its embrace of false teachers, its support of professors who promote evolution and open theism, its compromise with homosexual activism, and its ecumenicalism. The school is yet again reaching out into the world and bringing in not only what is a worldly practice, but a practice that teaches pagan spirituality, delves into dangerous use of mysticism, and leaves a Christian open to spiritual deception. Instead of following the biblical command to “be not conformed to the world”, the school continues to reject almost every sound biblical principle taught in Scripture.

The poster advertising the class shows the silhouette of a young female in the familiar Lotus pose used by those who practice Eastern meditation. It is a very common pose, and it also has a spiritual meaning, as does all other yoga poses. It is a frequently used pose for meditation and prayanama (breathing exercises). Breath is believed to be the purifying power in our bodies, and the objective of deep, slow breathing is meant to purify and energize our bodies, according to yoga tradition. But contrary to the arguments of many who have “Christianized” yoga, you cannot separate the physical from the spiritual aspects of this practice. It is pagan eastern mysticism, and its goal is not simply physical exercise, but to bring the yoga practitioner to the point of a deep spiritual experience and connection. But that kind of connection is not with the God of the Bible. (See Yoga Uncoiled by Caryl Matrisciana

The word yoga means “union.” The goal is eventually to unite yourself with the infinite Brahman, which is the Hindu concept of God. That concept is expressed as the belief in “pantheism”, that everything is God. Because everything is God, therefore there is no difference between man and God. The origins of yoga are clearly anti-Christian, and its emphasis is on teaching a person to focus on one’s self rather than focusing on God.

So one of the goals of yoga is to teach you spirituality, or help you find your spirituality. It teaches that there is a divine light within each of us. All of the yoga postures represent a specific spiritual meaning, and although I will not go into details of these postures, you can research for yourself and find out that yoga is far more than physical exercise, and why it is to be avoided by all Christians.

Several years ago my wife and I met with the president of ENC, Dr. Corlis McGee, as well as the school chaplain and the provost. Although we had a cordial conversation with them, we were miles apart in our beliefs. It is certainly no surprise to me that yoga is now allowed on the campus. We had gone there to voice our objections to the scheduling of Tony Campolo to speak to the students at chapel services. Dr. Campolo is an advocate of contemplative mysticism, and he confirmed our concerns when he spoke the next month, unashamedly promoting mantra prayers (centering prayer) and occultic Celtic spirituality. As I looked around and noticed several pastors in attendance, I wondered whether any of them had any idea of the harm this man was potentially causing to students listening to him.

Lack of discernment in the Christian colleges today is no longer a rare thing, but a common occurrence. There is not one Nazarene Christian college, and very few other Christian colleges, that has not been affected in one way or another by these false teachings and the ecumenical philosophy that is plaguing these schools. It would be much better for a Christian student to attend a secular college, than to attend and support a Christian school today in name only.

While proclaiming faithfulness to the truth of Scripture, schools such as Eastern Nazarene College have become nothing but havens for compromise. ENC proudly proclaims the statement, attributed to Bertha Munro herself, that “There is no conflict between the best in education and the best in our Christian faith.” And in doing so, they have no problem allowing evolutionists to confuse the minds of their students, and allowing other doctrines of demons to be taught to the students. Instead of strengthening the students’ faith with the truth of Scripture, they promote the liberal mentality of “let them come to their own conclusions” by exposing them to all sorts of false teaching.

We are told by Paul in Romans 12:2 “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Yoga is a worldly practice that does not reflect the mind of God. Practicing Eastern pagan meditation is not part of God’s “perfect will.” The practicing of yoga will leave the Christian wide open to deception from satan. (Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Peter 5:8) Instead, all that we do, we should do for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

In a post from last October on his blog, Pastor Douglas Graham of Cedarville Church of the Nazarene states:

“Yoga is based on idolatry and worldly thinking. It often involves a Hindu chant and emptying the mind. As Christians we are to fill our mind with the Word of God.”

“As a Christian I’d rather not join with a false god (Brahma) or ideas steeped in idolatry in order to be whole. Even Hindus know that yoga is not a practice of Christianity. I’d rather place my faith in the Gospel of Christ than to put my body in weird positions. I’m not saying someone isn’t a Christian if they do yoga. I’m using Biblical discernment and I hope Christians would do the same.”

If yoga is truly okay for Christians, then why not also use Ouija boards, Tarot cards, Astrology signs and symbols? Like yoga, they all have a philosophy and idea behind them that makes it a problem for Christians to justify. Yet somehow yoga has passed the smell test at many “Christian” colleges and churches, and is now practiced by many undiscerning Christians, encouraged by pastors and other leaders who are also blind to the truth.

But such is the sad state of the “Christian” college today. Many Nazarenes, including myself, do not recommend that parents send their children to any Nazarene college at the moment, including attending the seminary, which also promotes contemplative spirituality and occultic Celtic “Christianity.” I sent an email to President McGee on March 27, asking her to explain why this is being allowed, and if the school is approving of this practice. I have not yet received a response.

I urge anyone who is concerned about this to write to Dr. McGee as well. Her email address is

For further information and research:

Yoga Uncoiled by Caryl Matrisciana

What Christian College Should I Attend? Answering A Student’s Question

Recently I was asked by a young Christian for my opinion about Christian colleges.  My alma mater, Eastern Nazarene College, was mentioned as a consideration. Here is what I was asked:

“I was thinking about transferring to another university in the fall of 2014.
I know you like to do a lot of research, and such, so I have several questions.

 1. What are the positive things about Eastern Nazarene College (I ask this first because I know you might ignore the pros)?
 2. What are the bad things about ENC?
 3. What Christian colleges would you recommend? 

I will share my answers here, in the hopes that I can contribute towards helping other young Christians make the right decision for their future education.

Dear Jane,

First of all, I am honored that you would seek my advice regarding such an important decision in your life.  I pray that any influence I may have in your life is based on a biblically-centered worldview, and based on the unwavering truth that the Bible is God’s inerrant word, and it is the final authority for our Christian faith and practice.  So here are my answers to your three questions.

Question 1: What are the positive things about Eastern Nazarene College?

It’s hard for me nowadays to think of the positive things about ENC, when there are so many negatives that I have found.  Although I don’t ignore the pros about any school, I consider them based on the cons as well. One positive is that I am sure there are principled, biblically grounded professors at ENC, who would be a good influence for you if you were in any of their courses.  You will probably be able to find a real Bible believing professor at any Christian school, except perhaps for the very worst ones.  I am sure also that there are good career programs at the school, perhaps one that will fit your career plans.  I recall enjoying much of what I learned back when I attended ENC in the late seventies.  ENC is also located in a town which is not far from the city of Boston, a city rich with historical significance.  They have a pretty good athletics program, and if you are interested in sports, you may well want to participate.  These are some of the positives I can think of right now.

Question 2: What are the bad things about ENC?

I will summarize some of the most significant things that make ENC a “Christian” school in name only, and instead makes it a breeding ground for some of the most damaging and anti-God teachings you would ever encounter.

  1. ENC supports and welcomes professors who teach ungodly ideologies, such as: open theism, the teaching that God does not know the future; process theology, the teaching that God is not perfect, and actually learns from His mistakes; and “theistic” evolution, a godless belief in our origins that completely contradicts God’s word and clear account of how he created us.  One of the most dangerous professors who taught evolution, Karl Giberson, has left ENC, but still speaks at schools such as Northwest Nazarene University and remains an influence.
  2. ENC has been gradually softening its position on the clear biblical teachings on homosexuality.  Its leadership recently approved the formation of an LGBTQ support group on campus.  Its current chaplain delivered one of the most shameful messages to the student body at a chapel service a few years ago, diluting the message of the Gospel and condoning the acceptance of “homosexual Christians.”  It is clear that the president and other leadership have no problem with the kind of message given that day.  They are compromisers of the truth and are filling the minds of students with an unbiblical message, in the name of “love.”
  3. ENC welcomes false teachers to speak at their chapels.  They have repeatedly had Tony Campolo to speak.  Campolo blatantly promoted mysticism to all the students and pastors in attendance the last time he spoke, and not one person seemed to care.  The college leadership personally told me they had no problem with Tony Campolo, in spite of my warnings and evidence of his unbiblical ideology.  Discernment is sorely lacking in the leadership at ENC.
  4. ENC is ecumenical in philosophy.  In a personal conversation my wife and I had with the college president, the chaplain, and the provost, President Corlis McGee referred to Roman Catholics as “brothers and sisters in Christ.”  How can that be, when the Roman Catholic Church teaches a works-based gospel, that you have do good works in order to be saved?  Sadly, this trend is happening throughout the Nazarene denomination.  ENC even lists several Roman Catholic churches in its list of suggested churches on their website.  My father, who was rescued by Jesus from Roman Catholic bondage, would be in tears at knowing what is happening now.
  5. ENC promotes many books by emergent church leaders, such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and others.  You will find these books in the college bookstore, along with Roman Catholic bibles, including one that even has a rosary inside it.

There is much more I could tell you, but I want to keep this fairly brief.  You can read many articles about ENC and the other Nazarene colleges at my blog (see link at the end), including the entire transcript of the chaplain’s message about homosexuality.  I do not recommend a single Nazarene university today, because all of them have been compromised by false teaching, some very severely.

Since what you are considering is Christian colleges, I recommend that you stay away from Eastern Nazarene College if you are opposed to one or more of the things I listed.  If a definition of a Christian college is that it is one that upholds the very basic principles and teachings of the Bible while providing a good education, then ENC does not live up to that standard.  The school no longer even lives up to Nazarene standards, yet calls itself Nazarene.  This is clear misrepresentation of a product.  For example, you will not see any clear statements from the leadership that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God- because they do not believe it is.  Instead, you will most likely hear of seminars and lectures that promote social justice and good works, diminishing the true teachings of Scripture and changing the real Gospel into another gospel.

Many people have told me, “hey, its better that they go to a “Christian” school than a secular school.  Well, at a secular school what you would be up against is a worldly philosophy that is unpretentious, and most would not even care that you are Christian anyway.  You will definitely know your “enemy” if you go to a secular school.  But at most “Christian” schools today, you will find that the enemy is from within, and you will discover also that the enemy is very deceiving.  The apostle Paul wrote that Satan and his servants appear to us as ministers of light, and thus they will work to deceive you, or at least oppress you in your Christian faith.  Is that what you really want at a “Christian” school?

Question 3: What Christian colleges would you recommend?

Most “Christian” universities today promote and teach spiritual formation, which is another word for contemplative spirituality or mysticism.  There are really few that I can recommend just based on that fact, and even the ones I recommend need to be “inspected” before making the commitment.  At the minimum, if a Christian school does not clearly and boldly state their stand on Scripture as the word of God, then that school is suspect, and perhaps you need to look elsewhere.  The list I have made at the end is not exhaustive, but are schools I have either researched, or they have been recommended by trusted Christian friends.  In the end, you must do your own homework before making that final decision. I realize some of them may not have the programs that you are seeking, so some of them may be ruled out for that reason.


Short of God’s intervention with an infusion of godly administrators who are dedicated to real Biblical principles, schools such as Eastern Nazarene College are doomed to continue down a path of corrupted teaching which will damage many in their faith, and divert many others from the real Jesus.

In the end, it is clearly a decision you will need to make yourself with much prayer and with guidance from God’s word.  Should you decide that you can weather the storm and go to ENC, you must acknowledge that you are going to be surrounded by wolves in sheep’s clothing, while at the same time your money is benefiting a school that is not upholding biblical principles.  You will need to realize that the need to put on God’s armor is even greater when you attend a “Christian” school, and that the very people who are entrusted with your spiritual health and guidance, may be the ones who will do their best to undermine it.

May the Lord grant you wisdom.



Here are some recommended Christian Colleges that do not teach spiritual formation nor promote the emerging church, as far as I know. You will have to research them to see if they offer programs that you are interested in.


Geneva College


Bob Jones University (South Carolina)
Pensacola Christian College (Florida)
Allegheny Wesleyan College (Salem, OH)
Appalachian Bible College (West Virginia)
Atlanta Baptist College (Georgia)
Berean Bible Institute (Wisconsin)
Bible Missionary Institute (Rock Island, IL)
Boston Baptist College (Massachusetts)
Cornerstone Bible Institute (South Dakota)
Faith Baptist Bible College & Seminary (Iowa)
Faith Bible School (Mitchell, SD)
God’s Bible School (Cincinnati, OH)
Heartland Baptist Bible College ( Oklahoma)
His Hill Bible School and Camp (Texas)
Hobe Sound Bible College, Florida)
International Baptist College (Arizona)
Northwest Indian Bible Institute (Alberton, MT)
Penn View Bible Institute (Penns Creek, PA)
Union Bible College (Westfield, IN)


Corey McPherson’s message at ENC:

Tony Campolo:

ENC’s Local Church Recommendation page:

​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

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.


Arrogance, Intellectual Elitism, Rejection of Scripture, Karl Giberson

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Cor. 1:19

The four items above go together.  Dr. Karl Giberson is no longer a professor at my old school, Eastern Nazarene College, but he now has a colleague there who is apparently carrying on the Giberson tradition.  What would that tradition be?  The Giberson tradition is to disparage, insult, and otherwise look down on anyone- anyone at all- who…

– Dares to believe in the Christian fundamentals (especially biblical inerrancy)

– Dares to challenge the myth of evolution and the global warming religion

– Dares to accept the biblical account of a historical Adam and Eve

– Dares to believe homosexuality is sin, or opposes homosexual “marriage”

– Dares to disagree with him in any way in regards to science and the Bible

I am not criticizing his right to have an opinion, or in making an honest argument to support his opinion.  But frankly, I am sick and tired of Dr. Giberson’s continually belittling attitude towards those who believe that God created Adam and Eve as He said he did; that God did create the world as He said he did; and that the sin of homosexuality is clearly condemned by God’s word.  He looks down on evangelicals that do not match his brand of “evangelicalism”, which is the type that insists that we verify the Bible with our intellectual reasoning and scientific theories, instead of believing the Bible for what it actually says is true.  He “professes to be wise”, but…

So last week, he and Dr. Randall J. Stephens, a professor at ENC, wrote a piece that rips apart anyone who apparently does not have the level of elitist understanding that they have.  Dr. Giberson clearly is one of the most arrogant people on this planet, and I am thankful he is no longer associated with ENC.  Only God knows how many students have had their faith shaken or shipwrecked because of his unbiblical teachings.  Sadly, it seems Dr. Stephens has taken up his mantle at the school and will continue to propagate false notions of the Bible to our students there.  Since they co-wrote this attack on fundamental Bible believers, it goes without saying that they share the same basic contempt for us.  It is a piece brimming with intellectual snobbery, in my opinion.

You can read the entire article and come to your own conclusions here: The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.  Just reading the title got things off on the wrong foot.  When man cannot to his own satisfaction explain facts that are stated plainly in Scripture, he then often resorts to his own reason and intellect to fit his preferred worldview.

Following are a few of the comments they made, and my reaction:

 “The two candidates who espouse the greatest support for science, Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., happen to be Mormons, a faith regarded with mistrust by many Christians.”

Dr Giberson, you don’t believe that the Mormon faith is actually part of true Christianity, do you?  I would think ANY discerning, Bible believing Christian would not only distrust Mormonism altogether, but would not consider a professing Mormon to be a brother in Christ!  Do you feel the same way about those who “mistrust” the Jehovah’s Witness religion?  Or perhaps the Buddhist or Muslim religions?

And then there are the examples of the amazingly condescending, arrogant, elitist attitude towards Christian fundamentalists who dare to trust what Holy Scripture says:

“unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious”

evangelical Christianity need not be defined by the simplistic theology, cultural isolationism and stubborn anti-intellectualism

“fundamentalism is literalistic, overconfident and reactionary.”

“Fundamentalism appeals to evangelicals who have become convinced that their country has been overrun by a vast secular conspiracy; denial is the simplest and most attractive response to change.

 “They have been scarred by the elimination of prayer in schools; the removal of nativity scenes from public places; the increasing legitimacy of abortion and homosexuality; the persistence of pornography and drug abuse; and acceptance of other religions and of atheism.”

Again, no substantive argument, nothing legitimate to say, just false assumptions.

Here are a few more quotes:

“Mr. Ham built his organization, Answers in Genesis, on the premise that biblical truth trumps all other knowledge.”

I believe the difference with your statement is that Dr. Ham would say, as I would, that it is a fact that biblical truth trumps all other knowledge- not a premise.  Since God is the only source of truth, then my conclusion is that all of God’s truth trumps man’s knowledge, including yours.

In an NPR interview on Oct. 20 related to the same article, Giberson said:  “I mean, there’s just a handful of proof text scattered throughout the Bible about homosexuality. Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.”

Dr. Giberson apparently disagrees with the orthodox Christian and current Nazarene stance on homosexuality, and rejects or chooses to ignore what the Bible teaches.  It’s quite interesting that with this kind of view, he taught at a Nazarene university for years, yet Bible believing ministers in the denomination are denied ordination.  I guess if you are an academic,you’re allowed to teach heresy with impunity and indoctrinate impressionable students with it.   How the Christian world is turned upside down!

Dr. Giberson is a member of Evolutionary Christianity, a group filled with heretics such as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Richard Rohr, Matthew Fox, and John Shelby Spong, who believes that our Lord was buried in a shallow grave and was eaten by wild dogs!  He is also a big promoter of Open Theism, the teaching that God does not know the future.  To me, this is in indication of his ignorance, not mine or anyone else who can read the Bible for what it plainly teaches, in spite of not having the many degrees he has.  This is intellectual snobbery.  I guess if he does not like it, it can’t be true, or it can’t really mean what it says, can it?

Finally, Dr. Giberson points this out about Ken Ham:  (In a recent blog post, Mr. Ham called us “wolves” in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as Christians while secretly trying to destroy faith in the Bible.)”

 Yes, Dr. Giberson, I completely agree with Ken Ham, who has also commented on your article (Shot Taken at Aig by Nazarene Professor in New York Times Op-ed).  You sir, are truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and I join with Dr. Ham, Dr. Al Mohler, and any other Bible believing Christian who is willing to stand up against those who dare to say that human intellect can trump the Bible, which we know to be God’s word- all of it.  Sadly you do not.  You may be a nice guy in person, but I pray that you never teach in another Christian school again, spreading the kind of Bible doubting evolutionary faith that you call Christian faith.  However, I will continue to pray for you and that you will come to truly trust all of God’s word.

The following email response to Dr. Stephens is from Dr. David A. Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries:

Oct. 21, 2011

Dr. Stephens:

Your recent opinion article in the New York Times about the Evangelical rejection of reason is a perfect example of why the term, Evangelical, has completely lost its meaning. How can it have any meaning when you claim to be an Evangelical and yet reject what the Bible teaches about Creation, the origin of Man, and homosexuality?

I was also turned off by your arrogance in dismissing those who disagree with you as being persons who have rejected reason. I happen to have a doctorate in International Law and Politics from a Harvard graduate school. The vice chairman of the board of trustees of the ministry I represent is a research scientist who is a graduate of Cal Tech and holds a doctorate in nuclear physics from Stanford. Yet, he believes in a 6,000 year earth and totally rejects the concept of evolution. In fact, he was an atheist when he entered Stanford University and became a Christian because he concluded that the best explanation of what he could observe in the natural universe was special creation.

I do not understand how anyone who claims to operate from reason could conclude that life evolved. It’s like standing in front of Mount Rushmore and exclaiming, “Wow! Isn’t it amazing what can be created accidentally from erosion!”

You are welcome to your unbiblical viewpoints, but don’t have the audacity to call yourself an “Evangelical.” And don’t be so arrogant as to write-off those who disagree with you as being Neanderthals who have rejected reason.

Yours in Jesus,

Dave Reagan

Dr. David R. Reagan
Lamb & Lion Ministries

Additional Resources:  “Evangelicals” Despising Evangelicals (Denny Burk)

The New Evangelism: Michael Dowd’s Evolutionary Christianity

SFT Note: Dr. Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College has announced his resignation effective this year to “pursue several professional scholarship and writing opportunities”, according to an ENC news article.  He had been the subject of several posts by me, as well as others such as Ken Ham and Dr. Albert Mohler.  Although I wish him well in his future endeavors, I am honestly happy that he will no longer be teaching his unbiblical theistic evolution and open theism ideas to more young students.  Please pray that ENC will seek to hire professors who uphold the biblical view of creationism, who reject open theism, and who hold to the full authority and infallibility of God’s word.  I urge all who are concerned to keep holding our Christian schools accountable for what they teach, who they allow to teach, and to make sure they uphold the truth of scripture above all else.

Gailon Totheroh April 22, 2011
(originally posted at

hands with the sun.jpg


Who is Michael Dowd? He calls himself an evangelist. Not surprisingly, he can be found in churches preaching. But Dowd’s gospel is not one where sin is rebellion against God, but rejection of Darwin.

Likewise, salvation doesn’t come from Jesus on a Roman crucifix, but merely embracing the emergent Universe. Thus, we should Thank God for Evolution, the title of his 2008 magnus opus. Subtitled “The Marriage of Science and Religion,” the popular book-endorsed by no less than six Nobel Laureates-unfolds a central theme that standard Darwinism is scientifically accurate and religiously inspiring.

With faith-evolution controversies running unabated, Dowd’s Darwin-for-all-occasions may seem a hard sell. Yet Dowd’s effusive friendliness and seeming openness are swaying many his direction. His sales technique even wins over atheists and Christian evangelicals.

Still, Dowd is a mover-and- shaker who doesn’t move everybody to awe. The unwilling might include those who question Neo-Darwinism in whole or part, those who are uncomfortable with religion, and conservative adherents of traditional religions.

Since 2002, the self-described “evolutionary evangelist” has been on the road across America in a marathon of speaking engagements held mainly at schools and church groups. In addition, Dowd has four main websites, three books, and has spoken at the United Nations for their Values Caucus, a group dedicated to provide an “open forum . . . in order to allow a new culture to emerge.”

But Dowd’s background emerges from the old culture. Growing up Roman Catholic, he says he became a born-again Christian while serving in the army in 1979. He accepted that evolution was mostly harmful bunk until a few professors at Evangel University (conservative, Pentecostal) convinced him otherwise. From there, he went to seminary and then signed on with the liberal United Church of Christ for nine years.

While still with the UCC, he fully embraced evolutionary mysticism in 1988. Within an hour of starting a course on “The New Catholic Mysticism,” Dowd says he was weeping and seeing the “scientific story of the Universe” as a “sacred epic.” “I knew I would spend the rest of my life sharing this perspective as great news,” he adds. In fact, Dowd’s worldview moved from Christian monotheism to religious naturalism.

His commitment to naturalism while retaining the language of Christianity can be glimpsed in his statements from a recent article in Skeptic magazine:

“God is not a person; God is a personification of one or more deeply significant dimensions of reality.”

“‘Getting right with God’ means coming into right relationship with our planet and all its gloriously diverse species and cultures.”

“I foresee a time when religious leaders get their guidance and inspiration from humanity’s common creation story (Darwinian evolution) and teach and preach the discoveries of science as God’s word. When that day comes, our faith traditions will thrive and many of us will look back and exclaim, ‘Thank God for the New Atheists’.”

Despite his co-option of theological language, there is little left of traditional monotheism, let alone traditional Christianity, in Dowd’s worldview. Indeed, the “supernatural” itself doesn’t exist according Dowd; it’s merely an invention of the Western mind. “Evidence suggests that the only place that the so-called supernatural realm has ever existed has been in the minds and hearts (and speech) of human beings–and only quite recently.” Accordingly, the God of the Bible is no more real than the Greek gods Poseidon or Helios, and the Bible itself is a jumble of “old mythic stories” that provides no real guidance for the challenges we face today: “Ours is a time of space telescopes, electron microscopes, supercomputers, and the worldwide web. It is also a time of smart bombs, collapsing economies, and exploding oil platforms. This is not a time for parsing the lessons given to a few goatherds, tentmakers, and camel drivers.” (emphasis added)


Given Dowd’s turn to religious naturalism, one may find surprising the number of Christian evangelicals interviewed for his recent online series at, “The Advent of Evolutionary Christianity.” Some of the evangelicals’ tacit approval of Dowd’s agenda is curious.

For instance, among the nearly 40 interviewees was Karl Giberson, professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College, who bemoans, “Evangelical theology has not made peace with evolution.” That is, some evangelicals have not accepted Darwin’s take on evolution as is and incorporated it into their theology.

Giberson serves as vice president with the pro-Darwin BioLogos Forum, a group he helped found with the most well-known evangelical advocate of Darwinian evolution, Francis Collins. The BioLogos website states, “We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.” But Dowd thinks God is only a metaphor for the universe and the Bible can’t be used to determine right and wrong. Science is the new Bible. This would seem to put BioLogos and Dowd at odds with one another.

Indeed, Giberson estimates that he disagrees with 60% of Dowd’s thinking. Yet Giberson objects to nothing Dowd asserts in their hour-long interview for the Advent series. Why is that?
Giberson says, “It’s fine to be working arm in arm with Michael Dowd, comfortably setting aside our differences and promoting the harmony of Christian faith and evolution.”

And Giberson also disagrees with Dowd about the New Atheists, taking them to task in his book Saving Darwin. What gives? Aren’t the Dawkins and Harris crowd the same people Dowd honors as God’s prophets? But Giberson says building a coalition to promote Darwinian evolution is more important than the gulf between their religious beliefs.


Even apart from Dowd’s celebration of the New Atheists as prophets, he shows an ability to win over secularists. Atheist blogger Phil Ferguson originally wrote with ambivalence about Dowd’s Advent series. For Ferguson, Dowd and his cohorts’ made-up religion stuff is okay as long as they “don’t fight known science.” At the same time, “Maybe they are just abusing science to promote religion.”

After Dowd responds online by saying that he’s a “religious naturalist” in which God doesn’t mean what it used to mean, Ferguson is on board. He applauds Dowd’s “intentions and efforts”-and his pragmatism in “reaching people that would run screaming from this blog, so keep up the good work.”


Not everyone has hopped onto Dowd’s bandwagon. New Testament scholar Peter Jones has described Dowd’s worldview (“One-ism”) in his book One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference (2010). Jones finds Dowd’s use of Christian and Biblical language deceptive; he rejects establishing common cause with someone who engages in “worship of creation.”

Stanford scientist Richard Bube, whom both Dowd and Giberson greatly respect, was extremely critical of Dowd’s first book written in 1990, The Meaning of Life in the 1990s. Bube was once president of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), an organization of devout Christians in science-and a pioneer in efforts to put science and faith in harmony.

Dowd says Bube’s writing were his “lifeline” during college. Yet Bube calls false Dowd’s assertions that “every atom of the universe has an inner intelligence which is non-material and ultimately unknowable” and “the earth is alive and we are the Earth’s reflexive consciousness.” Bube also criticized Dowd for taking liberties with the Bible and Christian theology, concluding that “we must not let the idea take root in the Christian community that these aberrations on Christianity are the prescribed way to go.”


Dowd frames all he does in terms of openness and diversity. After all, he says, “Just like a forest or a pond eco-system, variety and different diversity of species makes for the health of an eco-system. I think that’s true in consciousness and culture as well.”

But the range of diversity he is willing to embrace seems to have sharp limits. For one thing, by endorsing and heaping fulsome praise on the New Atheists and their bashing of what he calls “superstitious, other-wordly religiosity,” Dowd certainly appears to encourage the exclusion of traditional monotheists from being part of any discussion about Darwinian evolution. After all, one of the driving goals of the New Atheists is to so debunk traditional religion that its adherents will be driven out of the public square entirely.

In his own series at, meanwhile, don’t expect to find any supporters of intelligent design in biology as part of the conversation.

When asked why he didn’t include someone from the intelligent design movement among the nearly 40 interviews in his “Advent of Evolutionary Christianity” series, he replied, “If I were to do it again, I would probably include one, two, or three people from that perspective . . . I certainly anticipate interviewing and occasionally featuring some of the work of a more ID perspective.”

However, Dowd added pre-conditions for interviewing an ID proponent. Candidates would have to subscribe to four concepts Dowd says were held by the Advent interviewees: “We’re all committed Christians, we all value evidence as divine communication and divine guidance, we all have deep-time eyes, and we all have a global heart.”

But how can this group of interviewees truly have these four points of common ground when they obviously don’t agree on what being a Christian means? Or what “divine communication” signifies? What serves as evidence? Are “deep-time eyes” a reference to an old earth chronology or more about “one’s communion with the powers of the earth” as Dowd’s website states? Does “global heart” mean any animal is just as good as a human because people are only a part of “the larger body of life”?

While Dowd’s stated commitment to many voices matches his assertion that his is just one voice among many — his lone voice dominates the Advent series. By interjecting stories and commentary during the interviews, Dowd exerts far more influence than that of any other individual.


What is true of Dowd is that he has held a worldview of religious atheism for over 20 years. The difference is that today there are millions of people who have switched to Dowd’s faith in the Universe. In fact, analysts have estimated that there are 50 million Americans and 100 million Europeans who fit what used to be called New Agers, but now want to be known as Cultural Creatives, Progressives, Brights, or Integral Spiritualists.

So what wins out in the end for Dowd, the advocate of blending Christianity and evolution? Party-line evolution-with mysticism in tow-or is it vice versa?

And what true blue evolutionist might not welcome Dowd? Dowd himself finds even the atheist evolutionary biologist PZ Myers a kindred spirit: “There is very little about which PZ and I disagree, other than perhaps the fact that I’m working to evolve religion and he’s working to free society of it.”

In the process, well-reasoned scientific objections to macroevolution and alternatives to Neo-Darwinism like intelligent design are cast aside. The other casualty is well-considered traditional religion – thrown under the bus for the latest mystical fad that is nothing more than recycled paganism.

Nazarene Professor Giberson Says Jesus Is An Evolutionist

Note: Recently I was interviewed by Russ Jones of the OneNewsNow internet newspaper, of American Family Radio.  You can read a summary of the interview here: “Mysticism Infecting Nazarene Beliefs“.  May the Lord keep giving us additional avenues of disseminating the truth to as many Christians as possible.

Dr. Karl Giberson is more and more each day stepping out with thoughts that challenge the Bible’s authority and believability.  He apparently feels that he can say anything he wants to now, even if it goes against traditional biblical and Nazarene teachings.  I would ask the leadership at Eastern Nazarene College and board of directors, and I will, to what lengths will you go to ignore everything he says no matter what?  Will he or others ever cross a line that says to you that this cannot continue unchallenged?  Ken Ham, a non-Nazarene, and Dr. Albert Mohler, a non-Nazarene, have challenged this professor’s teachings that contradict scripture.  Will any Nazarenes do the same?  I agree with Ken Ham, Dr. Karl Giberson is clearly undermining the Bible with his words.  When will he stop?

Is Jesus An Evolutionist?
by Ken Ham, Answers In Genesis

A Nazarene college professor believes He is! Karl Giberson, from Eastern Nazarene College (located on Boston’s south shore), wrote this on a CNN website. The Nazarene school’s website states, “Karl Giberson teaches science and religion, and directs the honors program at Eastern Nazarene College. He is one of the leading scholarly voices in America’s ongoing controversy over evolution.”

What has this academic scholar at a Nazarene college written lately? From the religion blog at the CNN website, he wrote an article entitled “Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you.”

Here are some excerpts from Dr. Giberson’s commentary—which in itself is an attack on the Word of God. And really, because Jesus is the Word (John 1:1–2), an attack on God’s Word is also an attack on the Son.

Giberson states the following:

When science began in the 17th century, Christians eagerly applied the new knowledge to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions.

First of all, “science” means knowledge. What he is referring to is modern empirical science—based on repeatable, observable facts. Such empirical science has enabled us to develop technology, medicines, etc. For this we are all grateful. Whether a scientist is an evolutionist or creationist, we can applaud them for the great technological advances because of operational (or observational) science. But Giberson then steps out of discussing observational science and steps into historical science (beliefs about the past).

But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way.

From the context of the article, we see that by “evolution” he is referring to Darwinian evolution—molecules to ape-like creatures to man. This is not “truth.” It is a belief about the past. He then demeans Gods inspired (“God breathed,” 2 Timothy 3:16) Word by stating the following:

They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins—a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.

Giberson is actually applying his belief in evolutionary history to the Bible. He assumes that people in the past were not as intellectual or as intelligent as people today. Giberson has a very different view of inspiration than that of orthodox Christians. He obviously does not see the record of Genesis as “God breathed.” Yet in the New Testament (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, to name just a couple of references), the apostle Paul referred to events in Genesis as real history—foundational to the gospel. Jesus, in Matthew 19, quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 as real history—as the foundation for the doctrine of marriage.

Jesus is the Truth. He is the Word. To claim that Genesis is just an ancient story that “began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews” is to attack the Word of God, and thus it is an attack on the Son of God, who is the Word.

He continues.

This is the view on display in a $27 million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. It inspired the Institute for Creation Research, which purports to offer scientific support for creationism.

Those who have actually been to the Creation Museum know it is a place the honors God’s Word and proclaims the gospel.

Later in the article, Giberson states the following:

For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue. We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa—not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.

So Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 11 about the origins of humans when he twice stated that the woman is of the man? Paul said that the woman (the first woman, Eve), came from the man (a reference to God creating Eve from Adam’s side in Genesis 2). To believe in evolution as Giberson does, one must believe that woman came from an ape-woman and man from and ape-man.

The Bible makes it clear that man was made from dust and woman from his side. Jesus, in Matthew 19, quoted from Genesis 2:24 regarding the “one flesh,” thus clearly stating that the Genesis 2 account is literal history. So if Giberson is right, Jesus didn’t tell the truth, and Paul was wrong. So what is the Bible really? If it is fallible, who determines which bits are fallible?

Giberson goes on to again state that evolution is fact.

And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them. Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

Well, there is one verse of Scripture that comes to mind.

Let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

Giberson then discusses supposed evidence for evolution. This evidence is all countered and answered clearly in various articles on

Later in the article, he states the following:

Christians must come to welcome—rather than fear—the ideas of evolution. Truths about Nature are sacred, for they speak of our Creator. Such truths constitute “God’s second book” for Christians to read alongside the Bible. . . . To understand how the heavens go we must read the book of Nature, not the Bible.

This is a similar concept to one taught by Hugh Ross, that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. However, nature is cursed! It is affected by sin. And nature doesn’t “say” anything. Fallible man has to interpret nature. The only way to ensure one has the right basis to interpret it correctly, is to build one’s thinking on the history revealed in Scripture.

When this is done, we understand that nature is suffering from the affects of the Fall. The whole creation groans because of sin (Romans 8:22). One doesn’t look at the creation and see billions of years. That is an interpretation made by fallible man, and that interpretation is incorrect.

The written Word of God makes it clear that thorns came after the curse, yet there are fossil thorns in rocks said to be supposedly millions of years old. The Bible makes it clear that death, disease, and suffering are the result of sin; but death, disease, and evidence of violence and suffering abounds in the fossil record. This record had to come after sin—not millions of years before man.

Giberson continues.

The Book of nature reveals the truth that God created the world through gradual processes over billions of years, rather than over the course of six days, as many creationists believe.

Actually, the Bible does state that God created in six days (Exodus 20:11). Read the account for yourself. Where does it state billions of years? It doesn’t. And where do you read in “the book of nature” that the world is billions of years old and that life evolved? You read this in man’s fallible books, as fallible man who “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1), as Giberson is doing, then imposes this story (and that’s what it is, a made-up story) on nature.

He then states the following:

Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book.

What he is saying is that evolution doesn’t contradict the Bible, unless you take the Bible as written. As long as you reinterpret God’s Word—thus undermining its authority—you can make God’s Word mean anything you want to make it to mean.

Giberson ends the article with the following:

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?” And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

Here are the words of Jesus (He is the Word—so any quote of Scripture is to quote Jesus).

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

The entirety of Your word is truth. (Psalms 119:160)

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust.For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? (John 5:45–47)

You can read Giberson’s entire Bible-undermining commentary at the following link:

Already Compromised

On May 1, our new book Already Compromised will be released. It details the compromise teaching (like this commentary above) that is permeating our Christian colleges. This book is both revealing and shocking. You can pre-order Already Compromised now.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,