rain and the rhinoceros

I’ll blame Halden for introducing me to the awful blog Parchment and Pen where I found this utterly stupid and unhelpful diagram.

What the hell is this? If D. A. Carson lies at the heart of a truly orthodox Christianity I give up.

About a year ago a man walked up to me in the parking lot of a grocery store and asked me if I knew whether I was saved. I thought about it for a second and responded, “Well, no, I don’t think I really have much choice in the matter.” He, of course, reminded me that I do in fact have a choice in the matter, so he handed me a tract with a prayer on it. He informed me that if I say this prayer I will know that I will be saved from the pit of hell. I told him that I wasn’t so sure that we could decide such matters, and that it is more likely that God makes these decisions.

A friend sent me this. Wow! This is serious. Don’t laugh. My 1 1/2 year old son, Owen, began to whimper when he saw this.  

After hearing word that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani this morning, I can’t help but think of Robertson’s infamous interview of Jerry Falwell two days after September 11, 2001. In case you don’t remember, in reference to the 9/11 attacks Jerry Falwell claimed that abortionists, gays and lesbians, and feminists “helped this happen.”

In his words,

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way–all of them who have tried to secularize America–I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

In response Pat Robertson said,

“Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.”

Of course, Falwell and Robertson are best known by terms like the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. With Falwell dead, Robertson has become the symbol of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, militant rhetoric of the Christian Right.

The Christian Left has always thought of the Right as approaching moral issues too narrowly. You will often hear the Left say, “Yes, abortion is wrong, but be consistent with your focus on the right to life. What about war, the death penalty?” We all know the debate. Although the Christian Right has also been known to support US military operations around the world, I think the Left thought that it was really the social conservatism that held the Christian Right together (i.e. pro-life, anti-gay marriage).

Okay, do you see the irony…the man who once agreed with Jerry Falwell that the gays and abortionists helped 9/11 to happen, has just endorsed a candidate for president that is both pro-gay and pro-choice. Why? I assume it is what Guiliani said, “He supports me because we agree on what we think are the primary issues facing Americans: dealing with Islamic terrorism, dealing with the war on terror, dealing with the out-of-control spending in Washington.” But, wait, wouldn’t endorsing Guiliani actually have the reverse effect. I mean if the gays and the abortionists are given more room to spread their agenda, doesn’t this help the terrorists - like on 9/11?

I just don’t get Robertson’s shift in foreign policy. It seems like he supports terrorism.

WWJD? …What Would Jerry (Falwell) Do?

The late biblical scholar, James Barr, is best known for his demolishing of the linguistic fallacies of the so-called Biblical Theology movement in the 1960s. In The Semantics of Biblical Language Barr shows the lack of linguistic backing behind the assertions of the Biblical Theology movement. It truly is a wonderful book.

Barr is one of my favorite thinkers. In many ways, Barr got me “into” theology in the first place. He was an ardent critic of Brevard Childs’ “canonical approach” on the grounds of historical-criticism. When I spent most of my time reading biblical scholarship, I read almost everything Barr ever wrote. His volume on Christian fundamentalism remains one of the best introductions to the subject from a biblical critic’s perspective. Barr cared very deeply about the future of Christianity and saw fundamentalism as a major issue in the contemporary church. From a pastoral perspective he wrote Beyond Fundamentalism, which is a serious attempt at helping people “escape” from the pitfalls of fundamentalism.

In terms of scholarship, Barr never failed to produce wonderful and ground-breaking work. Late in his life he wrote a wonderful introduction to the major currents in biblical theology called The Concept of Biblical Theology.

Barr also presented the Gifford Lectures in 1991 and published them in a book called Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. In his lectures Barr argues that the Bible itself supports and utilizes a what could be called natural theology.

I’d recommend the work of James Barr to anyone because he is just a joy to read. He is brilliant writer and is one of the most hilarious authors I’ve ever read. It is not common for biblical scholars to be funny, but Barr certainly is.

His book Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism is an extremely helpful work on the authority of Scripture.

James Barr was a scot who at the end of his life lived in Nashville where he was Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt. I always wanted to go down to Nashville to visit him, but never got the chance. He died almost a year ago at the age of 82.

Coming from a Christian pacifist, the title of this post may come as a shock. Let me explain. I recently read an op-ed in the New Brunswick, well, Irving Oil’s Telegraph Journal, written by a woman of the Progressive Conservative party (PC) of Canada. The op-ed was entitled, “The War on Christmas.” I was on my way back from dropping some friends off at the train station in Moncton and I was intrigued by this article while taking a “pizza break” at a Saint John Greco. I can’t recall all the details, but basically this woman was explaining a situation that upset her regarding a Canadian judge who had a Christmas tree taken out of a government lobby because it was a religious symbol. The author of the article apparently thought this was ridiculous for the judge to do and as the title suggests it is part of a broader “war on christmas.” When I read this I thought of another big Maritime issue: Sunday shopping. In many areas in the Maritimes there a specific restrictions on if and when a store can open its doors on Sundays. Of course, this seems quite strange for a city boy. Initially I remember thinking, no Sunday shopping? Is that a joke? Is the government really making corporations observe the sabbath? The all-prevailing myth in both Canada and the U.S. is this idea of protecting “our Christian values.” Thus, allowing the corporations to open shop would be evidence of the erosion of these values. And, surely taking Christmas trees out of government buildings is crossing the line!!

It is difficult to lay out the theological underpinnings and assumptions of that fuel the defense of Sunday shopping and Christmas trees in a liberal democracy like Canada or the United States. I mean I usually feel like I am living in a very secular, individualistic and consumeristic society that has little time for religion at all, much less Christianity. Indeed, it would take too much time to attempt a thorough analysis of this, but it is just something that has baffled me lately.

Indeed, North American Christmas celebrations have little to do with historic Christianity. The Christmas tree simply symbolizes the idolatry of consumption of goods. So, I guess it makes sense that people would be outraged, if they felt like their religion was being challenged. No Sunday shopping obviously reflects a deep conservatism and traditionalism found in the Maritimes.But it is actually more radical in that it says no to the corporation for a day, which we can all do with out (apparently the gov’t thinks so too).

For many Christian radicals Christmas is a difficult time, for it is when the state of our religion shows its true consumeristic colours. Is this really the way we celebrate the birth of our king? Aren’t we instead acting like we’re celebrating the birth of the corporation? Though there may be some effort to help the poor, this does not make things any easier for the radical who thinks there should be no poor. Indeed, the radical wants people to ask why there are poor, but not much space is given for this kind of questioning in the church, for it threatens to remove our Christmas trees.

Do you remember when President Bush spoke of creating a “culture of life” in relation to the death of Teri Schaivo. I remember feeling furious when he used that phrase - a culture of life. President Bush wanted us to believe that he was creating a culture of life domestically, while waging an illegal war abroad, all in the name of the Judeo-Christian God. There is no doubt that many people, and even perhaps mostly Christian people, bought what the President said. “Yes, we need to create a culture of life in the United States: no more passive euthanasia and no more abortions,” you could hear the Christian Right call. Christians listening to our Christian President who was creating a culture of life in our Christian nation. A President who has nominated supreme court justices to please his base, the Christian Right. Perhaps, now that two conservative justices have been nominated, the Christian Right will begin to broaden their moral perspective a bit.

Perhaps, there is more to creating a culture of life in the United States, which happens to be closely linked to U.S. policies abroad. However, I have come to think that the problem is much more deeply ingrained than our history of destructive foreign policy. I think that Joel’s comment on my post on Iran is exactly right: when the bottom line is money, then how can we expect any decision to be subject to moral consideration. The epitome of human greed has manifested itself in the capitalist ideology. Some humans have decided that profit should be put before people - most humans have not been involved in this decision but are forced to suffer because of it. Today, however, the problem is worse because the humans who have not chosen this lifestyle, have either bought into it, learned to except it, or have been forced to except it. In fact, for most, at least in the U.S., it is not even seen as an issue, because most either know no other way or think the only other way is running behind the trail of evil “commie rats”. Thus, because communism has failed in the past, capitalism must be the way of the future. Of course, this premise is a logical fallacy. Just because one way has “failed” does not make the other way any better, and certainly doesn’t make it the only way of the future.

When the bottom line is money, where does human life come in to play? It seems like it really doesn’t at all. It is hard to create a culture of life within a culture that runs on a destructive system that largely values money over human life. A system that prizes the money making merits of the individual, and leaves everyone else in disease, poverty, and death. Wars are waged abroad for a more global free-market, a more globalized world, where more money is available for the corporations. More money to distract from people - more money to distract us from our own self - our own existence - and certainly a moral conscience cannot adequately operate when one does not know even ones own self.

Fundamentalist Sacred Books, Classics, and Traditions

The Qur’an refers to the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as “People of the Book.” Certainly, this is true of Islam and its relation to the Qur’an. Perhaps, Judaism could also be seen in this light. However, the extent to which this is true of Christianity is debatable. Of course, it is important to define exactly what is meant by a religion or a people of a book. In what sense does the Christian faith relate to its scripture? There have been varying answers to this question since the earliest followers of Jesus. In fact, this was a hotly debated issue in the early church, and continues to be so among Christians today.
In the early church all sorts of questions were asked about the nature of scripture, canon, and biblical authority. During the first few centuries of Christianity there was no closed list of scripture, or what is sometimes called, a canon. While some followers of Jesus questioned whether it was right for Christians to have any scripture at all, others believed that the Jewish scriptures should continue to have authority for Christians. Indeed, it seems as though Jesus and Paul were not clear on the matter, for they were both Jews who spoke from the Jewish scriptures, yet also called the authority of the law, scribes, and the prophets into question. At a certain point, Christians decided to create a closed list of books. The list included some of the Jewish scriptures and some writings about Jesus and his early followers.
The problem has become more complicated throughout Christian history. Indeed, there is no such thing as a universal Christian canon anymore. Although most Christian canons are relatively similar, some traditions have included or excluded books over time. All Christian traditions have a recognized canon that is believed to be authoritative and inspired by God. These faith claims, however, are interpreted and applied in radically different ways from varying perspectives.
One radical way of understanding the authority and inspiration of the Bible is the Protestant fundamentalist viewpoint. While most Christian traditions accept that there are multiple perspectives on the authority and inspiration of the Bible, fundamentalists do not. Fundamentalists believe that there is only one true way to understand the nature of the Bible. They believe that the Bible is the only authority and rule for the Christian faith, because it is inspired by God. Moreover, fundamentalists believe that “inspired by God” means that the Bible is the word of God. It is commonly thought that if the Bible is the word of God (in a literal sense), then the Bible must be without error, for God does not err. Included in the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is the concept of both theological and historical inerrancy, that is to say, the Bible conveys perfect theology, or to put it more acutely, the words of God himself, as well as an accurate account of history.
The belief in the historical inerrancy of the Bible is of crucial importance to fundamentalists, and distinguishes them from mainline Protestant faith, which might hold to theological inerrancy, but is less concerned with the accuracy of the Bible’s historical claims. It is arguable, however, that even maintaining a view that the Bible is theologically inerrant falls within the categories of fundamentalism. The fundamentalist belief that the Bible is inerrant in all respects is emphasized by its adherents. In this view, the Bible is thought to be the basis of Christian faith, doctrine, and practice. Of course, mainline Protestants insist on being biblically grounded, and even Catholic teaching speaks of this, but the main difference with fundamentalism is its unwavering insistence that the Bible is inerrant and that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. Indeed, some extreme forms of fundamentalism do not accept any kind of ecumenism, that is, they are not open to discussion with religious people of other Christian perspectives, much less with people of other religions.
The high place of scripture in Protestant fundamentalism can hardly be over emphasized. According to fundamentalists, the Bible ought to be the basis of faith, theology, history, and even present and future events. When I asked Pastor Kyle Stevens, the fundamentalist pastor in Coon Rapids, what word he would use to describe his church’s core beliefs, he said, “Well…the Bible!” Unlike most Christian traditions that think faith in Jesus should be a Christian’s first core belief, fundamentalists believe the Bible is central. At first glance, there does not seem to be anything inherently wrong about believing in the Bible first. Indeed, the documents within the Bible contain our best historical sources about Jesus. Moreover, Jesus and his early followers read the Jewish scriptures religiously, and the majority of Christian traditions today hold scripture in high authority for doctrine and practice. Therefore, it must be pointed out that Christian fundamentalist thought is not entirely removed from other forms of Christianity. It is also important to treat fundamentalism respectively and openly, for it is a legitimate way to practice Christianity.
We have already mentioned that the belief in inerrancy of the Bible distinguishes fundamentalism from mainline Protestantism. It is often said that the distinction lies in the fundamentalist insistence on having a literal interpretation of the text. Indeed, fundamentalist would agree with this distinction. The problem is that fundamentalists do not interpret the Bible literally. In fact, this has little to do with fundamentalist interpretation at all. The fundamentalist concern is and always has been wrapped up in protecting the inerrancy of the Bible. As James Barr rightly notes, “In order to avoid any imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non-literal interpretation…indeed he has to do so in order to obtain a Bible that is error-free.”1
One reason why fundamentalists are so concerned about inerrancy is because they believe that the Bible is the word of God and cannot error. Furthermore, it is believed that if one accepts the existence of any sort of error in the biblical text, it makes the whole Bible unreliable. Of course, here one can already identify a common logical fallacy. Logicians call this the fallacy of composition: the concept that attributes of a part necessarily represents the attributes of the whole. Unreliability, it seems is one of the greatest fears among fundamentalists. For if the Bible is unreliable historically, theologically, or even geographically, then this also makes belief in God unreliable. Thus, any acceptance of error in the Bible has the potential to lead the fundamentalist to complete rejection of faith in God and Jesus. This is one reason why fundamentalists believe any one who is not a fundamentalist is not a true believer, for they do not believe that which is of ultimate importance, the reliability of the Bible and God. From this one may validly deduce that to fundamentalist faith belief in God and the inerrancy of the Bible are inseparable.
Perhaps, there are other reasons why inerrancy is so important to fundamentalists. James Barr has suggested that fundamentalists are especially concerned about the Bible in “correspondence to external reality.”2 Thus, it is believed that every event in the Bible occurred in history in exactly the way as it is recorded in the Bible. Not only does this belief refer to historical events recorded in the Bible, but also aids in the interpretation of present and future events. If a catastrophic national or world event occurs, such as a massive hurricane, a terrorist attack, or a war, then a fundamentalist might be inclined to turn to her Bible for an explanation. One might turn to apocalyptic images in some of the prophetic books in order to understand these events in the context of God’s plan as laid out in the Bible.
In order to make effective and convincing criticisms of Protestant fundamentalism, one’s argument must be biblically grounded. In other other words, one must attempt to interact with fundamentalism within its own framework and terms of thinking. Is there a biblical case to be made against a biblically centered Christianity? If a convincing case could be made, it would pose a challenge to both mainline Protestantism and its fundamentalist offshoots. For biblicism is not only found in marginalized fundamentalist churches, it is widespread among all forms of Protestantism, because the nature of biblical authority is a difficult matter for Christian faith.

The following is a part of a project I am doing on fundamentalism. It focuses on views of justice and peace.It is frequently said that Christian fundamentalism is a uniquely Protestant phenomenon, which has its historical roots in late nineteenth and twentieth century North American culture. Indeed, most popular and scholarly discussions on Christian fundamentalism agree on this description. Although common usage of the term usually refers to this American Protestant movement, in broader terms the word fundamentalism predicates a deeper phenomena that exists among almost all religions, not exclusively Protestant, Christian, or North American. For example, one may speak of Catholic fundamentalism or Islamic fundamentalism. Thus, the Christian Protestant North American fundamentalism, as mentioned above, ought to be seen as one form of fundamentalism among many other fundamentalisms.The North American Protestant form of fundamentalism, which is the topic of this discussion, is itself not theologically or doctrinally united by document or practice, as one might say about Catholicism. There are in fact various sub-groups within this movement making it particularly difficult to define its basic beliefs. There are, however, some discernable core beliefs of the movement, which have allowed us to ascribe a term for the phenomena.The topic of this discussion is the fundamentalist movement that emerged from within the Protestant church in North America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In more recent times the term fundamentalism has fallen out of favor among constituents of this movement. Instead, the term ‘conservative evangelical’ is now preferable.4 In my opinion, the use of the term conservative evangelical is misleading. Thus, the term fundamentalism will be employed even in reference to those groups who would likely prefer to be called something different, such as conservative evangelical. This essay will focus on this form of Christian fundamentalism and their views on issues of justice and peace. Because of the difficulties in speaking generally about a movement that has no official doctrine, we will look at fundamentalist social and political movements and the views of some prominent contemporary figures, in order to understand the core moral values of the movement.Most scholars agree that since the late seventies there has been a resurgence of fundamentalism in North America. It has been marked by the political and social activism of what is commonly known today as the “religious right.” Speaking of the moral decline of the United States, religious figures such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have captured the hearts of many conservative and socially conscious Americans. These figures, among others, have led a strong conservative movement focusing on many social issues of justice and peace, such as abortion and the protection of the “traditional family, the basic unit of society.”6 Judging by recent United States political history, I think it is safe to say that they have been extremely politically effective, at least in terms of support. As a result, the Republican party in the United States has gained ground, employing rhetoric that assures socially conservative fundamentalists that they too are dedicated to these same issues of justice and peace. In particular, President George W. Bush, former Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, and George H. Bush have had a considerable influence gaining support from fundamentalists by actively supporting the conservative fundamentalist movement by inviting their leaders to the White House and attending fundamentalist rallies. In order to gain a better understanding of the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism in North America, it is important to retrace the historical context in which it emerged during the early twentieth cenury. Indeed, the present form of Christian fundamentalism has undergone many changes in its short modern history. As with any religious, social, or political movement, views change over time and new concerns arise depending on the current events of the time. However, a notable characteristic of fundamentalism is its consistent and adament stance toward certain key issues and fundamental values.Christian fundamentalism in North America derived from what Marsden calls “a mosaic of divergent and sometimes contradictory traditions and tendencies that could never be totally integrated.” It is evident that the reaction against traditional doctrinal formulations was common place within the fundamentalist movement. One view sought to bring the message of the gospel back to its most basic form in the saving message of Jesus Christ, and saw doctrinal formulations of any kind as a stumbling block to this message. Another prominent perspective, which was also staunchly opposed to the traditional doctrinal claims, formulated theological claims based on a supposed “literal” and orthodox interpretation of the biblical text.However, fundamentalist interpretations have usually been quite creative, and far from what has traditionally been conceived as orthodox. For instance, the fundamentalist insistence on the historical accuracy of the creation story in Genesis can hardly be regarded as orthdox. Christian thinkers throughout history have interpreted this in a number different ways, most of which have not come close to the modern day fundamentalist approach. The fundamentalist insistence on a “literal” interpretation of the biblical text arises from their belief in the inerrancy of the Protestant biblical canon. Furthermore, it must be noted that we speak of “traditional doctrinal claims,” we mean those that “stray” from the biblical text. The presupposition here is that doctrinal formulations are subject to human error, but the Bible is not. This is the main distinguishing feature between Catholic fundamentalism and Protestant fundamentalism. In essence, it is an emphatic harkening back to the teaching of Sola Scriptura in Luther and Calvin. It is characteristic of social movements to emerge as the result of strong feelings about cultural issues. Thus, the North American Christian fundamentalist movement began, like most movements, as a reaction. In particular, many Protestant evangelicals reacted against the supposed growth of liberalism, progressivism and modernism in North American culture. These Protestant evangelicals believed that America was in the midst of a vast moral decline. Many believed that the United States was rapidly becoming less and less Christian, almost to the extent of being anti-Christian. According to G.M. Marsden, “The Civil War, widely interpreted as ‘a true Apocalyptic contest,’ had been the greatest test of American evangelical civilization.”Marsden argues that by 1870, the United States was viewed favorably as a “Christian nation,” at least among most Protestants.  Thus, the idea that America was becoming a secular liberal nation disturbed many. These converging strands of Protestant Christianity gave rise to fundamentalism in North America. The divergence of both of these perspectives, among others, created the conceptual framework in which views on peace and justice could be constructed. Some fundamentalists viewed political action as irrelevant and distracting from spreading the message of the gospel to the ends of the earth. Many who held this belief were more concerned with the Rapture and the second-coming of Christ. Of course, “saving” souls was of crucial importance, for the fulfillment of the apocalyptic and eschatological visions of the book of Revelation and other prophetic Old Testament books was immanent. Others believed political action was particularly important and necessary in order to fight the battle against the liberal secular attack on American culture.However, these feelings alone did not cause a popular political uprising, but rather it was when Protestant evangelicals began to feel threatened by what was seen as the liberal secular attack on public schools. In particular, the teaching of the Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools ignited a battle between fundamentalist Christians and those who accepted critical scholarship and modern scientific thought. Fundamentalist Christians were impressively unified on the severity of this issue, for it questioned deeply held and foundational religious beliefs, namely, the historical inerrancy of the Bible. With William Jennings Bryan leading the anti-evolutionism movement, by 1920 it had become something of a national fad. Anti-evolutionist rallies and meetings around the country helped to unify fundamentalists of varying perspectives, including fundamentalists who had previously seen political action as irrelavent, and other non-religious conservatives.12 Ammerman writes, “People throughout the country became convinced that the future of civilization depended on banishing this atheistic and harmful dogma from the schools.”

While researching Christian fundamentalism, I found that there exist a variety of different brands. Perhaps, we ought to speak of the fundamentalisms within Christianity rather than a single fundamentalism. For instance, one could be an evangelical charismatic and be a fundamentalist, or one could be an evangelical dispensationalist. Notably, I have also found that there is a distinct form of fundamentalism within the Catholic Church. However, for my vicarious experience I decided to attend an evangelical dispensationalist church. After the service I had a chance to sit down and interview the pastor. The following is a summary of my own experience at an evangelical dispensational fundamentalist church.
My wife, Marcia and I woke up on Sunday morning in time for the 11 o’clock (post-Sunday school) service at Blessed Hope Baptist Church in Coon Rapids. Of course, we wanted to be dressed properly, but we weren’t quite sure what that meant. I searched the church website for pictures. I found a few. No, I was not going to where a purple sweater with polka dots and a turtleneck underneath. I compromised by wearing a nice sweater (blue) and a pair of khaki pants. Marcia decided against a dress because it showed a little leg. She compromised with a long skirt and a sweater. Overall, I think it was good we checked, because when we arrived people were dressed like the pictures we had seen. I expected people to be offended by my long hair, scraggly beard, and nose ring, but I was not about to change everything, and no one ever commented.
We pulled into the church parking lot a little before the service. We noticed a number of bumper stickers saying things like, “Don’t wait for the Day of Judgment it will be too late,” and “Heaven or Hell? You Chose!” Marcia told me to park so no one could see my bumper stickers, which include, “Critical Thinking: Another National Deficit,” “John Kerry,” “Insatiable Is Not Sustainable,” and “The University of St. Thomas.” Plus, we drive an old Volvo, which screams liberal. Instead, I decided to park so that all stickers were visible.
When we walked in people stared at us and smiled. Evidently, our efforts to “fit in” did not help too much. We sat near the back next to a number of books that were for sale. Actually, most of the books were King James Version Bibles that varied aesthetically only. A stand of about 30 different tracts stood next to the KJV’s. They each addressed something different and were available for free. I told Marcia to shove some in her purse. Included in our collection is “Allah Had No Son,” “Why is Mary Crying?,” “Are Roman Catholics Christians?,” and “Bad Bob!.” Each has a moral to them. The following is a direct quote from “Are Roman Catholics Christians?”:
Many Roman Catholics are doing their best to serve God and to please Him. That is why this false religious system is so evil. Those trapped within it may be sincerely seeking God, but if they are not serving God according to His Word, they are sincerely wrong…Jesus hates this false religious system. It has blasphemed His Holy Name, His Holy Word, and has deceived billions of people. He calls her The Mother of Abominations (Rev. 17:5) and has promised to utterly destroy her, and all those with her. But He loves you enough to warn you, and call you to Himself. Jesus says: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive no her plagues” (Rev. 18:4).

The others have a similar attitude and incorporate a similar use of language. All tracks end with a four-step process for salvation and a prayer. For instance, in the same tract about Roman Catholics the reader is told to pray,
“Dear God, thank you for showing me what You think about Catholicism. I also reject it! I accept Christ’s sacrifice as perfect and complete. Please forgive me in Jesus’ name. I invite Jesus Christ to come into my life and I place my trust in Him alone for my salvation. Thank you for giving me eternal life right now.”

The service began when pastor Kyle Stephens came to the front of the church and told everyone to stand and open their hymnals. An Elderly woman was playing the piano, some kids were playing brass and wind instruments, and an older man was playing the Cello. We all sang a few hymns, and pastor Stephens directed us. Next, there was a time for announcements. Pastor Stephens reminded the men about the “Men’s Offensive” this weekend, which involved camping, fishing, and “shooting things…because shooting things is fun.” The minimum age is twelve for safety reasons. Someone from the congregation stood up and announced that there will be “street preaching” this Thursday night, and everyone interested should meet at the church. After announcements Pastor Stephens invited the congregation to share any prayer requests. A man stood up and asked for people to pray for his mother to be saved, because she was sick and dying. Another man stood up asked the congregation to pray for his health, because he was very sick. We were asked to “bow our heads in prayer” and the pastor prayed the following, “Lord, all of these things are very minor. For the most part you have been very good to us. If there is anyone in this room who is not saved, I pray that you will nudge at their hearts.”
After the prayer, Pastor Stephens started to preach about the “delusion of man.” He said, “Man is deluded about many things…without the Bible man is perpetually brainwashed…if I had a machine to take out all the education, the religious education in your brains I would. Then I would replace with Bible.” He explained how everyone makes God look like themselves; the environmentalists, vegetarians, liberals, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Anglicans, even fundamentalists and Baptists, all believe God thinks like them. “Guess what,” he said, “ God does not think like them or any of us.” “Man is so deluded.” He continued to preach about the delusion of man, frequently quoting from various passages out of the KJV, and noted that man’s ultimate delusion is time. He elaborated by saying we are running out of time, and many lost sinners are about to go to burning hell. Then, he talked about the nature of ministry. “Ministry is about people…its about the study of people… the study of all the lost sinners in this world.” He compared the study of people with fishing and hunting analogies. Just as one studies his prey in order to kill, so should one study people in order to save. Time is running out.
After the service, I had a chance to sit down with Pastor Stephens. I asked him to explain his core beliefs in one phrase. He told me in one word, “the Bible.” I asked him his views on dispensation, the King James Version, human violence, war, and natural disasters. He told me that he believed in a moderate dispensationalism. In his view, God still does miracles and heals, but not through healers or miracle workers like Benny Hinn (who in his view is from the Devil). God can heal through prayer. He supported this argument by saying Paul traveled with a doctor, therefore, he must have no longer been able to heal people. Speaking in tongues, prophecy and other “spiritual gifts” will return during the premillenial, pretribuatonal rapture of the Church.
Pastor Stephens believes that the King James Version of 1611 is the only perfect and infallible word of God. According to him, this particular translation was “divinely preserved” until it reached its final form. In Blessed Hope Baptist Church’s Statement of Faith the belief is expressed in the following words:
…the AV 1611 (Authorized Version or KJV) preserves the very words of God in the form in which He wished them to be represented in the universal language of the last days: English. Each word is therefore sacred and as such is, in our minds, exempted from the pilferage of presumptuous scholars, whether they be of the Alexandrian variety or of the “conservative,” Traditional (Byzantine) type.

I asked Pastor Stephens if he thought the original languages were inspired. He told me that he didn’t think they exist anymore. He said that every other translation was corrupt because they are all offshoot translations of a corrupt Alexandrian community. He explained that he could not get into the complex defense of the King James Version. He informed me of the year long course he teaches on the subject. I asked him what people who do not read English are to do. He told me they should read in their own language, preferably a translation based on the KJV.
In response to my question of human violence and war, he told me he believed in a Christian soldier. However, as a soldier a Christian is to apply some degree of morality. In other words, a Christian soldier should not torture or rape. He said he doesn’t agree with all wars, and does not always agree with U.S. foreign policy. In the case of natural disasters, such as hurricane Katrina, Stephens explained that God allows certain things to happen, and sometimes God’s vengeance is involved.
At the end of interview, Pastor Stephens asked me if I was saved. Afraid of his response, I answered “yes.” He asked me if I was “some sort of born again Catholic.” I told him that I was not Catholic and that I was not quite sure of my denominational affiliation. We shook hands and I hurried out the door.