In our continuing effort to remain as journalistically accurate as possible, we offer the following correction:

GORBACHEV DISPELS 'CLOSET CHRISTIAN' RUMORS; SAYS HE IS ATHEIST 

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made clear this past weekend that he is an atheist after European news agencies last week claimed that he had confirmed his Christian faith during a visit to the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy. 

Gorbachev, the last communist leader of the Soviet Union, confronted speculations that he had been a closeted Christian during an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax. 

"Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies – I can't use any other word – about my secret Catholicism, citing my visit to the Sacro Convento friary, where the remains of St. Francis of Assisi lie," Gorbachev said, according to an Interfax article posted Friday. 

"To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist,” he stated. 

Rumors for decades had circulated that Gorbachev was a Christian after he moved to loosen restrictions on religious worship and expressed to a party congress a year before the communist state dissolved that “spiritual rebirth is as essential to society as oxygen,” according to the Chicago Tribune. 

As a result, media agencies had jumped to conclusions when Gorbachev visited St. Francis’ tomb last Wednesday and was seen kneeling for half an hour in silence at the tomb. 

But Gorbachev, who was baptized Russian Orthodox as a child, explained that his visit to the tomb was as a tourist and not a pilgrim. He acknowledged the important role religion plays in society and said he looks forward to visiting Orthodox churches in Russia, Catholic and Protestant churches in the United States and Europe, synagogues in Israel and mosques in the Arab world, according to Interfax. 

"But all these years, it has never occurred to anyone to list me among followers of any faith on that basis," Gorbachev noted. 

Back in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church seemed unimpressed with Gorbachev’s visit to St. Francis’ tomb. 

"In Italy, he spoke in emotional terms, rather than in terms of faith," a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox patriarch Alexei II told the Russian media. 

"He is still on his way to Christianity. If he arrives, we will welcome him." 

Sorry, Gipper.

Will Hillary make a similar clarification in August after she loses?

Rumor has it that may not be the only thing she'll clarify.

-joebib   

This one's just in from The Christian Post:

OBAMA SUGGESTS JESUS CHRIST NOT THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN 

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina. 

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., speaks at a town hall meeting in Greensboro, N.C., Wednesday, March 26, 2008. While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times. 

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press. 

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.” 

"[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known," Obama said, according to the Times. "I'm sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to." 

Obama’s response came amid the recent controversy surrounding his former Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made inflammatory remarks about race and America in sermons he delivered many years ago. 

The Illinois senator, who has made religion a cornerstone of his campaign, has denounced the comments – which included “God damn America” for its racism – but refuses to distance himself from the pastor, whom he compares to an uncle. 

During his response on Wednesday, Obama praised his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, especially its choir, and said it was very warm and welcoming and is like any other church in America in that it exists to praise God. 

Obama also said he believes in putting the Gospel to action here on Earth and treating people with “dignity” and “respect” as children of God, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Currently, Obama is leading the Democratic race with 1,622 delegates compared to Hillary Clinton’s 1,485, according to CNN.

That's just great.

(And just when I thought I had this whole thing figured out…)

-joebib  

I don’t know. Maybe I shoulda never cancelled my Sacramento Bee subscription. I'm always the last one to find these things out.  

But, in the wake of my “Gorbachev A Christian?” post, now comes news that I must perhaps address Ms. Rodham-Clinton as “sister!” 

This is starting to get difficult. 

I guess I need a scorecard. Let’s see, first it was Charlie Sheen, then Stephen Baldwin, then Barack Obama…and now Hillary. I mean, who’s it going to be next, Bill Clinton? Hey! That's not a bad idea. At least then, husbands, fiancés and boyfriends all across the U.S. could sleep nights. 

If this is true, one wonders…can Osama bin Laden be far behind?

-joe

H/T: Albino Hayford

“Deliver Us From Evil” (DVD) tells the story of a former Catholic priest and pedophile, Oliver O’Grady. As a young boy, Oliver committed incest with his two brothers and his sister and was also molested by a Catholic priest. When he eventually became a Catholic priest himself, he became a rapist and child molester of both boys and girls. His youngest victim was 9 months old. His oldest victim was a mother of children with whom he had sex in order to get to sleep with her children. He would sleep over night on the weekends with trusting Catholic families and slip into the children’s bedrooms at night. He would threaten the children if they told. 

When his two bishops were told about this, they both generally ignored it. Instead of reporting Oliver to the authorities, both of them simply kept moving him to more remote parishes in California. Bishop Mahoney did not want to risk losing his upcoming appointment from Archbishop of Los Angeles to Cardinal in Rome. Personal ambition and protection of public image were higher values than the lives and souls of innocent children. 

After O’Grady was finally arrested, the Church’s lawyers came to him in his cell and offered him a lifetime annuity if he would not tell the authorities and  move to Ireland. To date, O’Grady is living in Dublin with a family, according to the documentary, were not informed by the Church ahead of time of Oliver’s criminal behavior in the United States. 

When a family of two victims went to Rome along with Tom Doyle, a priest and canon law expert, to meet with the leaders of the Church, the Vatican guards barred their way. When the present Pope, Benedict XVI, was going to be indicted for charges of conspiracy and cover-up, as he was in charge of these kinds of situations before he was elected Pope, President Bush granted him amnesty from prosecution. 

Produced by Lionsgate Films and directed by Amy Berg, this documentary interviews victims, victims’ families, and shows actual footage of depositions of the perpetrators. It shows unmistakably that lies, deceptions, bribery and cover-ups are actively present today at every level in the Catholic Church - from its priests, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals even to the Pope himself. 

Note: I am also aware of two cover-up situations in my area that occurred in Protestant churches.  

I came across this article under the Q & A section of John Piper’s excellent blog.

Inasmuch as "the homosexual question" just won’t seem to quietly go away from the lofty threads of C-BUS-C — see the debate under the Obama And Same Sex Union thread — I thought Dr. Piper's take on the matter, this aspect of negative/positive confession, was interesting. 

In the original article, he provides a link to a position paper he helped draft on homosexuality, which I have appended. It all runs rather long, and will perhaps be a bit tedious to some, I still think it's some good food for thought. At the very least, it will help keep us occupied till Cat gets back and starts earning his pay again.

I just hope I’m not in violation of any copyright laws in cutting and pasting this stuff here.

{{Shudder}}

“How can we help Christians who are struggling with homosexual desires?” 

(By John Piper January 16, 2008.) 

(The following is an edited transcription of the audio.)  

How can we help Christians who are struggling with homosexual desires?  

I would encourage them to be careful not to define themselves as "homosexual." Don't say, "I am gay," or "I am a homosexual." Say, rather, "I struggle with homosexual desires." That's a very small—and huge—distinction.  

There was a Christian brother in our church who had AIDS due to his history in the homosexual lifestyle. The Lord wonderfully saved him from that, and he taught me so many things over the 10 years or so that we were together. He also helped me draft a one-page statement of conviction and compassion with regard to homosexuality.  

He, Joe, said to me: "Don't ever let any man tell you he is a homosexual. Always correct his vocabulary, because in Christ Jesus that is not who I am. In Christ Jesus I am a new creature."  

Just like John Piper is a new creature in Christ, even though he still struggles with the sins of impatience, lust, and pride, Christians who struggle with homosexual desires are not homosexuals. In Christ they are new creatures who struggle with the temptations of homosexuality. And I just want to come along side them and say, "Get that as your paradigm, and let's struggle together in chastity and in purity until we're dead."  

Who knows how much healing may come? There is an article I read recently in Christianity Today about Exodus International ministries. It talks about people experiencing true change, healing and victory over homosexual temptations. It doesn't mean that those feelings go away entirely, but many in time are able to enjoy heterosexual lives or lives of contented, chaste singleness despite a history of homosexual sin.  

I don't want to create the impression that this is a taboo subject at my church or that I won't be patient and compassionate with those who are struggling with it. They have enough burden of their own.  

I just heard of another young man who is suicidally depressed because of who he thinks he is. Everything in me wants to say to him, "I'll stand by you all the way to my grave or your grave, but don't give up this battle and don't think God doesn't have you here, with this struggle, for a purpose that you can find and flourish in."  

Bethlehem's Position on Homosexuality

(By John Piper August 6, 2003)   

In view of the recent actions of the Supreme Court in regard to Sodomy laws, and the controversy over actively homosexual bishops in the Episcopalian and Anglican denominations, it is important to bring forward again the position of Bethlehem Baptist Church which the Elders established in the fall of 1992. I drafted this statement with the help of Joe Hallet who came out of the homosexual life by the power of Christ and lived faithfully with AIDS, and eventually with his wife, until his death in 1997. 

Beliefs about Homosexual Behavior and Ministering to Homosexual Persons

Our affirmation that the Bible is the infallible Word of God with "supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct," and our affirmation that "a Christian should live for the glory of God" include the following six beliefs about heterosexuality and homosexuality: 

1. We believe that heterosexuality is God's revealed will for humankind and that, since God is loving, a chaste and faithful expression of this orientation (whether in singleness or in marriage) is the ideal to which God calls all people. 

2. We believe that a homosexual orientation is a result of the fall of humanity into a sinful condition that pervades every person. Whatever biological or familial roots of homosexuality may be discovered, we do not believe that these would sanction or excuse homosexual behavior, though they would deepen our compassion and patience for those who are struggling to be free from sexual temptations. 

3. We believe there is hope for the person with a homosexual orientation and that Jesus Christ offers a healing alternative in which the power of sin is broken and the person is freed to know and experience his or her true identity in Christ and in the fellowship of his Church. 

4. We believe that this freedom is attained through a process which includes recognizing homosexual behavior as sin, renouncing the practice of homosexual behavior, rediscovering healthy, non-erotic friendships with people of the same sex, embracing a moral sexual lifestyle, and in the age to come, rising from the dead with a new body free from every sinful impulse. This process parallels the similar process of sanctification needed in dealing with heterosexual temptations as well. We believe that this freedom comes through faith in Jesus Christ, by the power of his Spirit. 

5. We believe that all persons have been created in the image of God and should be accorded human dignity. We believe therefore that hateful, fearful, unconcerned harassment of persons with a homosexual orientation should be repudiated. We believe that respect for persons with a homosexual orientation involves honest, reasoned, nonviolent sharing of facts concerning the immorality and liability of homosexual behavior. On the other hand, endorsing behavior which the Bible disapproves endangers persons and dishonors God. 

6. We believe that Christian churches should reach out in love and truth to minister to people touched by homosexuality, and that those who contend Biblically against their own sexual temptation should be patiently assisted in their battle, not ostracized or disdained. However, the more prominent a leadership role or modeling role a person holds in a church or institution of the Conference, the higher will be the expectations for God's ideal of sexual obedience and wholeness. We affirm that both heterosexual and homosexual persons should find help in the church to engage in the Biblical battle against all improper sexual thoughts and behaviors. 

Pastor John

Late note: I just noticed Cat also posted something by Dr. Piper — his tirade on the Prosperity Gospel — and all I can say is…Cat and I apparently think very much alike.

-joebib

Norm! sends in an excellent two minute clip from Pastor John Piper where Piper discusses his hatred for the Prosperity Gospel.

John Piper and the Prosperity Gospel

It's a brilliant sermon. And is the best explanation for why this blog continues.

"The Israelites were a religious people. Pilgrimages to Bethel, Gilgal, and Beer-sheba, the sacred precincts of Israel, were commonplace (Amos 4:4; 5:5). Freewill and thanksgiving offerings and tithes were performed regularly (4:4), and there were many religious assemblies and festivals (5:21–23). By all criteria, then, the Israelites assumed that they were performing the cultic and ritual requirements necessary to appease Yahweh. 

Furthermore, they considered their wealth and security as evidence that Yahweh was pleased. They assumed that their steadfast devotion to cultic ritual exempted them from the requirements of righteousness and social justice and from the consequences of wrongdoing. Through sacrifice they could guarantee divine favor and their own survival. The peace and prosperity the nation enjoyed must have, to many Israelites, validated their lives, values, and assumptions as the chosen people of God. 

Yet the people had turned the official view around and were reasoning in reverse: their prosperity proved that they were righteous. The distinction, while a fine one, is nevertheless important: the obligation of the covenant was to pursue righteousness and justice; prosperity would follow as a by-product of God’s pleasure. The pursuit of wealth rather than righteousness was an unacceptable short cut, and wholly abhorrent to Yahweh, according to the prophet. 

‘Amos’ severe judgment is a repudiation, not of the cult [worship system] itself, but of the cult as it was practiced in the eighth century B.C.E. …One’s conduct in the marketplace must always conform to one’s attitude in the holy place’ (King 1988: 89). 

And Israel’s did not. Amos decried the social injustice, the oppression of the poor, and the lack of any moral or ethical values on the part of the rich and powerful. According to Amos, the spokesman of Yahweh, Israel was a violent, oppressive, and exploitative society. The poor had to sell themselves into slavery to pay off trivial debts (2:6; 8:6). The rich falsified weights and measures (8:5) and traded dishonestly (8:6). Even the courts, the last bastion of hope for the poor, were corrupt. Judges were bribed to cheat the poor out of what little they had (2:7; 5:10, 12). In fact, Israel was no longer capable of acting with justice (3:10; cf. 5:7, 24; 6:12). Truth and honesty were now hated (5:10).” 

Source: Bruce E. Willoughby, Amos, the book of, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, pgs. 203-212 (for entire article)

The Phantom was a disfigured man. His face was ugly to behold. As a young boy, an older man physically abused the Phantom by putting him in a cage, hitting him with a stick and selling tickets to the public to come and see the boy with the bag over his head which covered his disfigured face, whom he advertised as “the devil’s child.” When the young boy kills his perpetrator and escapes his cage, he hides in the basement of the nearby opera house. There, in total isolation, shamed by his disfigurement, he lives alone in perpetual darkness and yet becomes a genius: an architect, inventor, magician, singer and composer. 

One day, he hears the lovely singing voice of Christine in the opera house above. He begins to obsess for her. When he learns that Christine’s beloved father is about to die, the Phantom takes advantage of Christine’s emotional vulnerability and pretends to be her father’s voice talking to her as she sits in the candle-lit room with stained glass window of an angel overhead. Christine believes that she hears the voice of her dying father telling her that after he is dead, he will send her an Angel of Music. 

When her father passes, the Phantom pretends to be the Angel of Music promised to her by her father. In her dreams as well as her waking hours, the Phantom never leaves Christine; he helps to develop her voice into a sound of matchless beauty. The Phantom believes that Christine owes him a commitment to marriage since he was the one who enhanced her gift of song as her unknown but real mentor of success. 

Enchanted by the Phantom’s musical abilities, she follows him one night into the depths of his world under the opera house. She discovers, however, that the Phantom’s love is one that is self-serving, possessive and even violent: He will destroy anyone and anything that will get in the way of him possessing Christine’s voice and form as his very own. He will have her - even against her own will! 

Raul, a childhood sweet heart of Christine’s, enters her life and rekindles their long lost love. His love for Christine is pure, selfless and protecting of her from the destructive possessiveness of the Phantom. When Christine visits the grave of her dead father in order to seek his guidance about how he could have sent her such an Angel of Music that was so devilish and destructive, Raul cries out to her about the voice that she hears coming out of the red-lit tomb, “This is not the voice of your father!” 

At the crescendo of the movie, which takes place in the Phantom’s caverns under the opera house, the Phantom gives Christine a choice: either marry him and sing for him forever, or else he will murder Raul who he is ready to hang at the end of a rope, as he has killed all of his other victims.  

In a moment of insight into human nature and unconditional acceptance, Christine wades through the waters of the cavern toward the Phantom and sings to him,  

“Beautiful creature of darkness; what life have you known; you are not alone!”  

She then passionately embraces and kisses the Phantom as a woman who was deeply in love with him. By doing so, she shows him her unconditional acceptance of him as a man despite the shame of his facial disfigurement which she has personally witnessed several times. Christine’s love and acceptance break the Phantom’s heart, and he releases both Christine and Raul to leave his dwelling of darkness completely unscathed.  

The Phantom then tells them that he will accept his life of complete loneliness. As a sign of future hope, however, Christine comes back to the Phantom’s room and graciously returns to him the wedding ring that he had given to her (so that he might use it again someday for another woman after his transformation is complete?)

*   *   *  

In my view, The Phantom of the Opera can be seen as a Christian allegory of the two kinds of love available in the world today: the “love” of Evil and the love of God. The Phantom’s passion can symbolize the self-centered, over-controlling, possessive and destructive paramours of the Evil One. As he was clothed in black and red throughout the film, using deceptive words to “help” Christine’s singing career, so the Evil One attempts to seduce innocent Christians (symbolized by the name “Christine”) into selling their souls out to his own control because of how he may have appeared to have helped them along their career path of success. 

Are not all human beings “beautiful creatures of darkness,” i.e., sinners dearly loved by the heart of God? God’s “kiss” of unconditional love and acceptance through the cross of Jesus Christ, stands as a constant reminder of how he does not allow the ugly disfigurement of their souls to stop his divine passion toward them. Christ’s love melts the hardened heart and releases the sinner from the bondage of sin and darkness. As Raul went to any lengths – even to the point of self-sacrificing death – to save Christine, the woman he loved; so Jesus went to the cross to save the woman he loves, his beloved Church. Jesus causes the Evil One to flee from the lives of those who love him as they receive a Love that is not scared away by their soul’s imperfections but reaches out and meets them even at the point of their deepest and darkest shame. 

On March 21, 2008, the 700 Club aired an amazing story about how God's grace saved and restored the lives of John and Debbie Lowe. Debbie was a former stripper. The way that the 700 Club portrayed Debbie's former life concerned me. In my viewed, it raised the question: How "true-to-life" and explicit do Christian broadcasters need to be in order to communicate their message?  Here is what I emailed the 700 Club. What do you think?

As a regular viewer of the 700 Club and donor to Operation Blessing, I so appreciate how you use personal testimonies to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. When I viewed the segment that described Debbie Lowe's former life as a stripper, however, I felt very disappointed. In my view, it was not necessary to show a woman on a stage sensually dancing, stripping, throwing off her top, leaning over and offering her body to men who were lusting after her and coming on to John as a buxom, wanton prostitute.

I realize that you want to make your segments "realistic" but, in my opinion, this was too realistic. It was a stumbling block to me which Paul says Christians should avoid putting in front of their fellow believers (Romans 14:13). The segment could have been presented in a much more tasteful way by simply not showing as many dark behaviors.

In my view, everyone knows what strippers and prostitutes do. In the future, I hope that I do not see similar characterizations involving such unnecessary and sordid details. 

Respectfully Yours in Christ,

David

To view the John and Debbie Lowe story see:   CBN Media Center - Browse. Search. Watch. Share.

Andrew Sullivan quotes C.S. Lewis in defending the notion of staying in a church, even when the pulpit preaches falsely:

From C.S. Lewis

What He wants of the layman in church is an attitude which may, indeed, be critical in the sense of rejecting what is false or unhelpful, but which is wholly uncritical in the sense that it does not appraise - does not waste time in thinking about what it rejects, but lays itself open in uncommenting, humble receptivity to any nourishment that is going.   … There is hardly any sermon, or any book, which may not be dangerous to us if received in this temper."

Sullivan adds his own personal experience:  

God knows my own church has hurt me and others as deeply as anyone can be hurt. And I have felt very estranged and lost these past few years. But I cannot search for another church as if it were another club and I cannot and will not leave in my heart the church that taught me the greatest truths about human love and life, and that brought me the astonishing good news of Jesus. Church is like family. It heals and it wounds; goodness knows how it wounds. But it cannot and should not be disowned.

To be fair, Sullivan is talking about the Catholic Faith and not one specific church in general. I know a lot of people have left the City Church family, but still remain Christians.

However, it does beg the question, at what point do you disown a church? For me, it is when the church becomes nothing about Christ and everything about personal wealth. In my mind, a church that preaches wealth over compassion, deserves to be disowned.  But I wonder what it is for the rest of you? I know some people have remained at the City Churches in the hopes of creating change, and honestly, I understand that setiment.  I guess to each his own.