Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Pope to Chile: Church and State should respectfully Collaborate
Sarkozy Gets Cozy with the Pope
Monday, October 25, 2010
Pope Wants Sunday As Day of Rest Starting in 2011
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Vatican synod ends with criticism of Israel
Other interesting news
A Dominionist Prayer from Janet Porter: Damascus Moments and the Wall of Separation
This site has some interesting things today:
Candid Conservatives
Phew! 2012 Doomsday Date May Be Wrong
Friday, October 22, 2010
Glenn Beck: What if God made us from monkeys?
Source
Other Interesting News
Janet Porter Prays For Control Of the Government
The rise of The Right in Europe....
Iran, Venezuela leaders seek 'new world order'
Source
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
SOURCE
Related News:
mainstream-media-ignorant-of-first amendment
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Surviellance GPS Illegal
Friday, October 15, 2010
Tea Party Christians and Conservatives
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Biden and 5 Supreme Court justices attend controversial 'Red Mass'
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Papal Move to Revive Christian Roots of Europe
“Pope Benedict XVI formally created a new Vatican office… to revive Christianity in Europe, his latest attempt to counter secular trends in traditionally Christian countries.”
In a new decree, Ubicumque et Semper (everywhere and always), which established the new council, the Pope said the new office would promote church doctrine, use the media to get the church’s message out and mobilize missionary-type activities.
The president of the new Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, said that “Europe will have to be the dicastery’s first priority, since that is the continent suffering the most aggressive process of dechristianization.”
It is also important from another perspective. With a huge decline in the traditional European population, and the rise of large numbers of Islamic immigrants in Europe, the Papacy sees that she might eventually be unable to establish herself as the cultural and religious center of Europe. So there is special urgency for reviving the Roman Catholic Church in Europe. The Vatican must re-establish her political control of Europe. In order to accomplish that, she must also resurrect her spiritual control of Europe in tandem.
But that’s not all. “Benedict has made reviving Europe’s Christian roots a priority. While the decree listed no specific geographical areas of concentration, the evangelization office is expected to also pay attention to Latin America, where evangelical movements are making inroads in traditionally Catholic countries such as Brazil.”
“In the decree, Benedict lamented that with tremendous scientific, social and cultural progress over the past century, parts of the world that once had strong Christian roots had grown to believe that they can exist without God.”
The Holy See must become the master of Europe if ‘all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him.” Revelation 13:8. The papal effort to revive the Christian roots of Europe is vital to Vatican’s future destiny.
Related News
Sarkozy Wonders after the Beast
French President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Pope Benedict XVI on October 8, to “confirm constructive collaboration with the Catholic Church, after differences that have arisen in recent months.” A communiqué from the Vatican affirmed their “joint desire to maintain permanent dialogue at various institutional levels, and to continue constructive collaboration on matters of mutual interest.”
But this nice sounding statement is really typical Vatican-speak that obscures what really happened.
The French President, a Roman Catholic himself, and an honorary member of the clergy, met with the Pope for 30 minutes and then as usual for state visits to the Vatican, he met with the Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and other diplomatic leaders.
Sarkozy requested the meeting because, apparently, enough French Catholics who voted for him in 2007 were alienated from his party because of the expulsion of gypsies from France. The bishops had been outspoken on the matter. And on August 22, the Pope exhorted French Catholics gathered at Castel Gandolfo to “accept legitimate human differences.” In other words, he was saying that the French people should be accepting of the gypsies.
The pope slapped Sarkozy’s hand. He used the expulsion of the gypsies to the advantage of the Vatican by exhorting French Catholics to oppose the French government’s actions. This made Sarkozy realize that he needed to make amends and seek a high-profile political visit to the pope in the interest of cooperation with the Vatican – and perhaps reconciliation.
During the meeting the two men discussed “the importance of the ethical and social dimension of economic problems, in light of the encyclical ‘Caritas in Veritate,” the papal encyclical published last year.
In other words, they discussed (or perhaps Sarkozy was lectured on) proper social policy as defined by the Vatican in Caritas in Veritate. The pope used the occasion to instruct Sarkozy on the moral principles of Rome in dealing with social problems such as the gypsies.
The Pope remarked about his affection for France by remembering his visit there in 2008 for the 1500 year anniversy of the baptism of Clovis, the first Catholic king of the Franks, in 508. So in spite of secular legal nature of the French government, Benedict invoked the Catholic soul of France in his remarks seeking to re-affirm the papal supremacy over French social life.
The president and his delegation later prayed in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel, before the altar of Our Lady of Perpetual Help and at the altar of the Confession, and the tomb of St. Peter. This may be surprising for the leader of a nation that prides itself in a secular government to do this. But students of Prophecy will recognize this behavior as part of the fulfillment of long-established prophetic principles.
Sarkozy, the head of a secular government, revealed his political preference for Catholicism by this official state visit to the Vatican. It is evident that Being caught in a political bind has led Sarkozy to wonder “after the beast” (See Revelation 13:3).
At a lunceon later in the day, the president publically stated that he seeks to promote relations with the Church and to defend its positions. Sarcozy is not hiding his desire to take France back to its Roman Catholic roots and heal the deadly wound inflicted by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798.
“France does not forget that it has a common history of 2,000 years with the Church and that today it shares with her an inestimable treasure of moral values, of culture, of civilization, which have been inscribed in its identity,” said Sarkozy.
Sarkozy doesn’t remember his history very well. French history with the church not 2000 years. It has only been 1502 years. Nevertheless Sarkozy’s remark affirms Rome’s claim to be the cultural and religious center of French social and political life.
France is one of the most powerful and influential countries in the European Union, and as she is being brought more and more under Vatican control, she will have a strong influence on other nations as they follow the beast. Rome is working to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire in Europe and subtlety uses politial events to manipulate the nations into her orbit.
Sarkozy needs the Catholic vote to stay in power. His insecurity in light of their lack of support and even defection from his party, is revealing. There is great danger when national leaders think they have to court Rome in order to retain the Catholic vote.
“Rome is aiming to re-establish her power, to recover her lost supremacy. Let history testify of her artful and persistent efforts to insinuate herself into the affairs of nations; and having gained a foothold, to further her own aims, even at the ruin of princes and people. Romanism openly puts forth the claim that the pope“can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the right of nations, to the law of God and man.” [THE “DECRETALIA.”] Great Controversy, p. 580.
National Catholic Reporter Online Honorary Clergy
http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/cardinal-mahony-notre-dame
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
History is Powerful -- And PBS Gets It Wrong
God in America seeks to present a fresh narrative of the story of religion in America. While the first two chapters, presented back to back seem good, (albeit overly slanted towards the role of evangelical Christians), there is a glaring error I want to highlight that goes to the heart of the story of religious freedom and the right of individual conscience.
That this PBS documentary joins the Religious Right in eliding this important part of our history is disturbing.
So let's correct the record.
The film and the related web site contradicts itself each time the role of religion in the Constitution is mentioned:
The section on the drafting of the Constitution on the web site's "time line" of religious liberty is headlined: "U.S. Constitution drafted; no guarantee of religious liberty."
The discussion under this headline states:
"God and religion are scarcely mentioned in the document. Wanting to create 'a more perfect union,' some of the Constitution's framers fear that statements on religion would be divisive."
While it is true that there was concern about how best to approach the matter of religion, in fact there was a major statement regarding religious liberty in the Constitution thus it was not "scarcely mentioned" nor can anyone fairly say that there was "no guarantee of religious liberty" when in fact, Article Six made an extraordinary and unprecedented first cut at doing just that.
But even that dubious claim is more accurate than what is stated in the film itself. Thetranscript states:
NARRATOR: "And when, a year later, the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, Jefferson and the Baptists hoped that their hard-fought principle of separating church from state would be part of the country's founding document.But when the Constitution was presented in September 1787, in not one of the seven articles was there any guarantee of religious liberty or other individual rights."
But this is a semantic spin on the facts. Article Six of the Constitution declared:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
This was the real break between the theocratic norms of the colonial era and the democratic values of religious equality that stand at the center of the struggle of the American experiment to this day. Understandably, it was a big issue at the time, since religious oaths had been standard, and perennially controversial in most of the colonies. The abolition of "religious tests" set in motion the disestablishment of the state churches. (I wrote about the significance of Article 6 an essay, History is Powerful: Why the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Matters in The Public Eye magazine in 2007.)
Indeed, a great deal of opposition to ratification of the Constitution centered on religion. While it is true, as the film emphasizes, many were concerned about the absence of any mention of God or Christianity in the text, many opponents were also opposed to the banning of religious tests for public office.
The Constitution was ratified by a majority of the states, but part of the politics of getting there, was a deal made with civil libertarians like Jefferson that they would support ratification for a document that they felt insufficiently guaranteed religious liberty, in exchange for the promise that the Constitution would be amended later. They did, and it was.
In an online debate at Religion Dispatches (an outgrowth of a panel at Netroots Nation in 2009), I added:
"Barring religious tests for public office in Article 6 also obviously meant that there would be no religious test for citizenship. (You can't be elected to office if you are not a citizen.) Thus the framers were clearly not solely concerned with whether or not we had official federal or state churches, but first that the right of belief resided with individual citizens.
The plumb line of this principle is clear. When Thomas Jefferson first proposed the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1777, he stated that this right of individual conscience must be extended to everyone, including: "the Jew, the Mohametan, and the Hindoo." Jefferson was not arguing the demographics of majority and minority religions, but first principles. It took time to advance them, even then. James Madison as governor of Virginia managed to push Jefferson's bill through the legislature in 1786--the year before the drafting the federal Constitution, of which Madison is credited with being the principal author--as well as the principal author of the First Amendment. Virginia had already disestablished the Anglican Church, the day after it joined the revolution in 1776. So there is no mistaking the meaning of formally extending religious liberty to all in the wake of disestablishment and as a famous forerunner to the Constitution itself."
In fairness, any story necessarily includes some facts and leaves out others in order to keep the narrative clear.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The EMERGENT BLUEPRINT
What does the Emergent Church have in common with the New Apostolic Reformation? Everything! They are two sides of the same coin.
The same template has been followed for both – the very sameblueprint was used from day one. The rising political power and influence of the New Apostolic Reformation, and the simultaneous growth of the Emergent Church movement, is no accident. It was planned all along. And New Ager Jeremy Rifkin wrote the "blueprint" for it!
This blueprint for an "emerging order" was published as a book, significantly in the year 1979, just after the Evangelical Consultations on the Future,[2] and before the rapid rise of the political Right in the early 1980s. Titled The Emerging Order: God in the Age of Scarcity,[3]Rifkin's book, at first blush, appears to be a manifesto for environmental stewardship. And that is indeed one of its objectives. But that's not its full purpose, as New Age expert, author Constance Cumbey, noted. She wrote about it in her book A Planned Deception,[4] where she explained how Rifkin had passed himself off as a Christian during the era in which The Emerging Order was published:
"Rifkin has deceived many Christians and he has used his friendship with Pat Robertson to help do it. In 1980 Robertson praised Rifkin'sEntropy unpublished manuscript. (p. 157)
"Pat Robertson sent a newsletter endorsing that book while it was still an unpublished manuscript! Pat Robertson's Perspective of June/July 1980, rather than exposing this horrible threat to Christianity, almost made it sound Christian...." (p. 161)
Cumbey detailed the many New Age connections and philosophies embraced by Rifkin, and then explained that "Rifkin also wrote The Emerging Order. There he made it clear that the evangelical church would be their primary instrument to bring the new world order to birth." (p. 162)
Rifkin's book was touted as a blueprint. The cover jacket for The Emerging Order states, "In this provocative book, the authors provide a blueprint for American culture that is staggering in its implications. Beyond being yet another indictment of the liberal welfare state, their thesis points to a major cultural reformation in which religion will play a leading role in the rearrangement of our nation's priorities."
The book was also called "a blueprint for the economic and spiritual challenges facing the Christian community in the remainder of this century" by Senator Mark Hatfield, a key member of the secretive Washington Fellowship ("The Family").[5] Hatfield's endorsement of the book may become increasingly significant.
A "second Protestant reformation" –
"a great religious awakening"
In the introduction to The Emerging Order, Rifkin lays out hisblueprint, stating that he believed that "we are in the early morning hours of a second Protestant reformation" which is evident by "the shift now taking place in Protestant doctrine."(p. ix) In the late 1970s, noticing the rapid rise of "church renewal" that was taking place across America, he expressed the hope that this event would "give form to a new theological construct; one whose sweep is so broad that it could well consume the theological world view of the Reformation." (p. ix) He wanted to hitch a ride on the renewal train, and his blueprint told how to commandeer the train and turn it onto a new track.
This seemed impossible at the time. But Rifkin outlined a specific plan. He proposed jumpstarting a "second Reformation" with the missing element of mysticism. The emphasis on the "supernatural" would "provide a bridge" to acceptance of both new doctrines and a global economic transformation, he suggested. The basic blueprintfor using mysticism was articulated as follows:
"Today's Christian renewal movement is a two-pronged phenomenon. First, there are the millions upon millions of Charismatics, whose belief in supernatural gifts of faith healing, speaking in tongues, and prophesy represents a monumental assault on the modern age itself. For the Charismatics, these supernatural powers are beginning to replace science, technique and reason as the critical reference points for interpreting one's day-to-day existence. If this unconscious challenge to the modern world view continues to intensify, it could provide the kind of liberating force that could topple the prevailing ethos and provide a bridge to the next age of history." (p. x)
The blueprint also called for a corresponding more rational approach, a pseudo-intellectualism that could concoct new doctrines, especially doctrines that would lead Christians to embrace a "new covenant vision" and a "new world view."
"While the Charismatics are generating a potential liberating impulse, the more mainline evangelical movement is beginning to provide the necessary reformulation of theological doctrine that is essential for the creation of a new covenant vision and a new world view." (p. x)
What was to be the key doctrinal shift for this Emerging Order? Rifkin identified Dominionism, especially the early chapters in Genesis, as the core doctrine that must be "redefined." The process of "redefining" Dominionism is explained in this manner:
"God's very first commandment to humankind in the book of Genesis is being redefined. Its redefinition changes the entire relationship of human beings to both God and the temporal world. In the beginning, God says to Adam 'have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.' 'Dominion,' which Christian theology has for so long used to justify people's unrestrained pillage and exploitation of the natural world, has suddenly and dramatically been reinterpreted. Now, according to the new definition of dominion, God's first instruction to the human race is to serve as a steward and protector over all of his creation." (p. x)
Note how easily this "redefinition" of Dominion caught on. There was virtually no opposition to this heresy!
"It is interesting to observe that this most fundamental reconception of God's first order to his children on earth has been accepted by Protestant scholars, ministers and practitioners in just a few short years without any significant opposition being voiced. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a leading Protestant scholar anywhere today who would openly question this new interpretation of dominion in the Book of Genesis.... While it is true that the new interpretation of dominion is also being promulgated by the mainline Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church, it is the evangelical community, with its resurgent spiritual vitality, that has the momentum, drive and energy that is required to achieve this radical theological transformation in American society." (p. x-xi)
Rifkin was right. Protestant and Catholic scholars had begun developing this Dominion theology. But by the mid-1970s, changing doctrines had also become a major project of Fuller Theological Seminary and its evangelical cohorts. C. Peter Wagner, Ralph Winter, and other professors began to chip away at traditional orthodoxy, slowly concocting a strange brew of ever-evolving progressive "revelations," heading towards an outright Dominionist theology. Thanks to Ralph Winter, Mission Frontiers, and the U.S. Center for World Mission, the "redefinition" teachings of Dominionism were standard fare in the global mission movement by the mid-1990s.
But all of this activity was still missing a critical ingredient Rifkin had identified as necessary to shift over to "a great religious awakening" – the mysticism. He wrote:
"If the Charismatic and evangelical strains of the new Christian renewal movement come together and unite a liberating energy with a new covenant vision for society, it is possible that a great religious awakening will take place, one potentially powerful enough to incite a second Protestant reformation." (p. xi)
Here it was, The Master Plan for the next "great religious awakening." It took one man, C. Peter Wagner, to ignite the fuse according the plan laid out in Rifkin's blueprint. Wagner became a key player in a confluence that began to have massive repercussions throughout the rest of evangelicalism. It began to take off when John Wimber of the Vineyard Movement connected with the Kansas City "prophets," part of the old Latter Rain cult. John Wimber had previously been hand-picked as an “experiment” by C. Peter Wagner as part of his Fuller Theological Seminary class on “signs and wonders.” Wimber’s connection to the Kansas City group proved to be the catalyst for the beginnings of "The Third Wave," what C. Peter Wagner was to later call the “New Apostolic Reformation.” In short order the esoteric doctrines of the Latter Rain movement trickled into mainstream evangelicaldom and gradually became an integral part of the postmodern evangelical canon. And because of Wagner’s influence, Latter Rain leaders such as Mike Bickle and Rick Joyner, who were obscure in 1991, are now widely known throughout evangelicalism. The Latter Rain cult, most notable for its anomalous signs and wonders, would pick up steam and continue to provide the necessary "powerful," "liberating energy" to fuel the blueprint.
Jeremy Rifkin's "great religious awakening" went a step further. It called for a "new Protestant conservation ethic, ready-made for the new age of scarcity the world is moving into."(p. xi) To accomplish this he called for a "great economic transformation," an "economic shift," the intended result of the "theological spark" created by "the evangelical awakening that is spreading across America and... the... second Protestant reformation emerging between now and the year A.D. 2000."(p. xii) This economic shift would be nothing less than a global redistribution of wealth. This theme was dutifully picked up by the New Apostolic Reformation as an abiding prophecy, and continues to gather steam as it co-mingles with Dominionism.[6]
There was still another missing ingredient. It took an entire generation to come up with it, but after oodles of money, gigantic publishing contracts, and massive stealth "change agent" training, Leadership Network became a leading player in the more mainstream evangelical world. It began by dialectically facilitating both components of the blueprint for transformation. It developed a church structure that modeled corporations in a form of extreme pragmatism that rewrote the basic biblical doctrines of "church." It then hijacked the consumer-driven train and turned the church into its own marketing agent for the blueprint. And it simultaneously launched the Emergent Church movement, which added the necessary pizazz of mysticism to blunt rational thought. Its leading Emergent spokesperson from early on, Brian McLaren, would serialize Rifkin'sblueprint in his successive books, each more fine-tuned than the last, systematically destroying the old order theology while laying the groundwork for the new order theology.[7]
Just how did Rifkin propose to implement such a monumental scheme? In 1980 it seemed far-fetched and nearly impossible. But the wholeblueprint is fully operational today, thirty years later, and no longer a plan but a reality.
To be continued. . . .
The Truth:
"Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me:" (Isaiah 54:15a)
Endnotes:
1. Constance Cumbey, "THE PLOT TO USE THE CHARISMATICS," New Age Monitor, May-July 1986, p. 11, links added. See http://cumbey.blogspot.com/ for more readings by this author.
2. See Part 4 of this series: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/09/concocting-great-awakening.html. The Discernment Research Group first broke this story in September 2005 in a series of posts that ran into October 2005. One can look through the posts to read more details about these consultations. http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.htmland http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html
3. Jeremy Rifkin with Ted Howard, The Emerging Order: God in the Age of Scarcity (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1979).
4. Constance Cumbey, A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age "Messiah," 1985. This rare book can now be downloaded by going here: https://public.me.com/cumbey
5. To understand the significance of this point, see Jeffrey Sharlet's two books: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Harper, 2009) and C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy (Little, Brown and Co., 2010). Also read "Early Experiential Emergents" http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/009/discernment/5-emerging-2.htm
6. See "The Great Outpouring of Wealth," http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/08/great-outpouring-of-wealth.html
7. See our Herescope series "The Emerging Church - Circa 1970" and follow the links and footnotes:
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/05/emerging-church-circa-1970.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/05/early-experiential-emergents.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/06/retro-emergent.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-thing.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/07/emergence-towards-convergence.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/07/envisioning-emergence.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/07/quantum-eschatology.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/08/reinventing-clergy.html
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2009/08/celebrating-open-inclusiveness.html
Note: The word blueprint is emphasized throughout this article, even in quoted material.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
It's Their (Tea) Party - And The Religious Right Is Invited: Poll Shows Movements Closely Linked
The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that nearly half (47 percent) of Tea Party activists consider themselves part of the Religious Right. They are also overwhelming Christian, with 81 percent identifying with that faith.
And what about all of that talk about the Tea Party being heavily libertarian and composed mainly of secular conservatives who just want low taxes and less government spending? This survey casts doubt on that. Sixty-three percent say abortion should be illegal, and only 18 percent favor same-sex marriage.
Finally, like the Religious Right, the Tea Party is quite partisan, leaning heavily Republican. Seventy-six percent say they belong to the GOP.
It's clear that Religious Right leaders hope to harness the energy of the Tea Party movement and use it to help elect favored candidates and push its theocratic agenda.
NPR reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty put together an interesting piece recently on the Tea Party and religion. Hagerty quoted John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron, who pointed out that the Tea Party came along at just the right time.
"There was an opening on the right for organizations and candidates and groups that could appeal to different elements of the religious coalition," Green said. "In many ways, the Tea Party has filled that niche."
It's also important to remember that some Religious Right groups helped the Tea Party grow. I first heard of the movement in 2009 through e-mails sent by the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA). The AFA sent so many of them that early on I made the mistake of assuming that the Tea Party was a project of that group.
The new poll shows that about 11 percent of Americans identify with the Tea Party movement - a number that tracks roughly with the number who say they belong to the Religious Right.
That may not seem like a lot, but remember this: These people are motivated and politically active. With so many Americans staying home on Election Day, a determined minority can have a disproportionate impact on the results.
Vatican: Dialogue takes more than talking
Dialogue, said the archbishop, extends to the “exchange of words and the search for balance between opposite interests to a real sharing of wisdom for the common good.”
Who is to define “wisdom” and the “common good?” Through these moral and ethical terms, Rome is telling the UN that their actions need to be defined by her moral teaching.
The Archbishop however affirmed that the UN was still of great interest to the Holy See, as the overall agenda of the UN is to unite the nations of the world under a new world order.
Archbishop Mamberti said that the history of human rights “shows that respect for religious liberty, which includes the right to express one’s faith publicly and to spread it, is the essential stone of the whole building of human rights,” the prelate affirmed.
Becoming the champion of Religious Liberty is ironic since throughout the dark ages, Rome was its destroyer.
“The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O’Connor: ‘Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world…’ The archbishop of St. Louis once said: ‘Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes…’” Great Controversy, p. 565.