Bill Randles speaking in Upper Hutt 16-17 October 2015

Pastor Bill Randles an International Bible Teacher who left the Word-Faith movement in 1982 and
founded Believers in Grace Fellowship in Marion. Pastor Bill has authored numerous teaching and
discernment books and video productions namely; “Making War in the Heavenlies”, “Weighed & Found
Wanting”, “Beware the New Prophets” and “Mending the Nets”. His latest book ‘A Sword on the Land The
Muslim World in Bible Prophecy’.He has often toured South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, England, Australia, New Zealand, India, Russia and the Philippines, preaching the gospel and contending earnestly for the faith. Bill and his wife Kristin have six children and ten grandchildren and we are pleased that Kristin
Randles will accompany Bill during the tour.
Promoter and Sponsor of NZ Tour 2015 -  Moriel Ministries NZ

End Times, Prophecy, Salvation, Repentance and whatever else the
Lord puts on his heart.
Friday 16th October, 7.30PM
Saturday 17th October, 10.30AM
Calvary Chapel Wellington
The Kings Arms
Trentham Racecourse
Contact: Rick Jenkins (04) 237 0888

Beatles Christianity -the ‘Emerging’ Church

So, what’s so dangerous about the emerging church, a Christian movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries? The full force of emerging church theology, a movement that claims to be Christian, visited two Truth Watch members the other day – in the form of a 60s-something couple from Alabama, USA. A conversation was sparked after reading the inscription on the back of the man’s tee-shirt – something to the effect that Jesus is a problem for organised religion. The couple soon proved the reverse of their tee-shirt wisdom. According to them there is no hell. Rob Bell, founder of Mars Hill Bible Church and hipster pastor, has obviously spread his poison far and wide. Everyone is going to heaven. Misquoting the “no one comes to the father” phrase in John 14:6 they insisted it meant ALL will be drawn to the Father, due to the boundless grace and love of Jesus. Apparently, God’s love is so far-reaching and all-embracing that sin is not an issue. No need for deliberate repentance. God must perform some totally unbiblical alchemy, as the unregenerate pass through the vale of death, to convert the sinful soul into one cleansed of all unrighteousness. What a revelation! All those Christian martyrs could have avoided torture and execution.

So Jesus never really needed to die on the cross. It was, according to these emergent disciples, just a useful device to get the Jews on side. By getting the scriptural record wrong again they were adamant Jesus had to die on the cross because no Jew would accept him otherwise. You see, Jews insist there can be no redemption without the shedding of blood, so Jesus had to shed his blood, just for them. The fact that it was God, not the Jews, who mandated the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins, had been completely missed by his couple. Another contradiction also manifest itself. The Alabamians argued when Jesus said on the cross that it was finished he meant all sin was done away with so all would be welcomed into his kingdom. Oh, don’t forget the eldership issue. Male eldership is rank misogyny. See our women in leadership article.

All of this is little more than Beatles ‘Christianity’ – “all you need is love, love: love is all you need”. Now, of course, God is love, but it is a love infused with holiness so he cannot countenance sin in his kingdom. Our false evangelists of their new religion insisted love and relationship is the Alpha and Omega – no strings attached. Never-mind, for instance, that God tells us we must prove our love is real by obeying his commands. This is apparently an inconvenient truth best ignored.  If ignorance doesn’t work then just redefine God’s commands to mean the opposite of their plain meaning.

No one can be received into God’s kingdom unless they are regenerate; having confessed their sin, asked for repentance and by faith received that saving grace that expunges sin. The Roman’s 10:9 faith-based transformation must occur in this act of repentance, otherwise there is no born again transaction and without that there is no salvation. Emerging theology denies all of this when it insists all are saved. This false theology had reached the zenith of its obstinate apostasy in this couple. The fear of God and his holiness has well and truly been lost. By re-branding God’s love, grace and mercy as a free pass for all-comers, Beatles Christianity must come seriously close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

On the day of judgement will Jesus look on this poor American couple and say, depart from me, I never knew you? The emergent gurus are convincing otherwise faithful Christians that they can break the second commandment and mould a god in a man-made image that would have unrepentant multitudes in God’s holy kingdom. It is hard to imagine idolatry more perverse than this. Jesus warned that he will turn many away with his ‘go, I never knew you’. In this one phrase Jesus confirms the heresy in the all-are-saved dogma. If it were true then Jesus would not be turning anyone away. If he rejects many who think they know him by what means could he possibly accept those who never claimed to know him or actively rejected him? False emergent teachers have successfully blinded their followers to this obvious fact. The western Church is facing a full blown gnostic challenge that inoculates emerging church adherents against truth. Sadly, the western Church is unprepared for this assault. There is little doubt a very public schism must come between true believers and the emerging heresy.

Atheisms False Apostles, Prophets and Mullahs

The likes of Chris Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dennett and Hedges have become the celebrated apostles of a naturalistic faith. Their assumptions about the validity of reason over faith start with their adherence to evolutionary natural selection. Other assumptions about the nature of Christianity flow from that. Having become the darlings of an anti-Christian deconstruction of real truth they promote their false religion all over You Tube and around the universities and public auditoriums in Billy Graham like crusades to convince the western world that their nihilistic nonsense is the stuff of rationality and social progress.

Why would they dedicate their lives to dismantling the Christian world view; the philosophy and faith system that has given us such things as love your enemy, do good to those who would harm you, love your neighbour as yourself, turn the other cheek, forgive as you have been forgiven, don’t murder, steal, covet what others have, or cheat. Why on earth would they want to deny many the hope of life after death and the promise of forgiveness of sin. What about the Christian doctrines of free will, individual responsibility and good citizenship from which the western world developed its belief in human rights and personal freedom. It didn’t come from the Greeks, the Romans, the enlightenment or any foreign philosophy. The Greeks and Romans were slave centered societies that self-destructed in civil war. The enlightenment gave us the French Revolution with its bloody tyrannous and European wide war contrast with the Christian-based American Revolution.

Jesus said by their fruit you will know them. What has been the fruit of the naturalistic philosophy that has blossomed as today’s liberal humanism? Vast numbers of humans have been killed in wars and genocides on an unprecedented scale as naturalistic Marxism and evolutionary humanism took hold. About 260 million were killed by atheistic governments in the last century alone. Contrast that with Christianity’s record. According the Encyclopedia of War only about 3% of all wars have some direct connection with Christianity, so causalities caused by such wars, compared with the toll exacted by atheism, has been tiny by comparison. Don’t forget too that conflict attributable to Christianity, like the Thirty Years War and the Crusades were fought for just and compelling reasons, while the huge conflicts arising from other reasons were more often than not largely unjustified. The First World War and the genocide committed by Marxist regimes are obvious examples. After all, if people are merely evolved animals arranged in economic classes, relying on a moral system that relies solely on only man-made law alone, where are the compelling reasons to respect human life or human rights. True to the logical conclusions to be drawn from naturalism what is wrong with culling humans in their tens of millions to achieve goals justified by a man-centred ideology. It’s just survival of the fittest. Ask Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and the aristocracies of the first world war era. With no God to answer to they felt justified in sacrificing millions on the altars of their self-interest, positional power and pride.

Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Atkins, Hedges and Hitchens (who is now, in death, discovering the terrible realities of a misdirected life) deserve the vitriol Christ reserved for the false religious leaders of his time. They are the proselytes of wicked ideas, high priests of death, apostles of nihilism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, deluded, arrogant and insolent apostles of a monstrous fraud.
Christopher Hitchens may have won the Oscar for the lowest it is possible to go when he claimed in a public debate that it was Christendom that orchestrated WWI. Like all good lies his argument was based on one author’s claims in a book on the subject. Manifestly, the First World War was the product of ambition, pride and the will to power – all ‘attributes’ scorned by true Christianity. Its orchestrators may or may not have claimed a Christian faith, but since they were not practicing it claiming they were representing its tenets when they took Europe into war is false. If any of those who made WWI possible attributed their motivations to Christianity they were misrepresenting Christian doctrine and philosophy. The only one with any right to orchestrate war under the Christian world view is God himself. In all other circumstances the Christians only justification for war is a purely defensive action based on established just war principles. Christians are not called to be pacifists, but neither are they called to be protagonists. If anyone is responsible for war it is the Austrian aristocracies determination to blame the whole of Serbia for the actions of one man and Germany’s willingness to support that course of action.

Christian apologists need to stop being nice to the likes of Harris and Dawkins et al. It’s possible to take 1 Peter 3:15 too far. As a general rule Christians should be respectful, understanding and calm, in the face of unbelief, but that deference should not be extended to those who peddle the doctrines of demons. Jesus called a spade a spade when it came to false teachers and the Apostles followed his example. The gloves should come off. By all means conduct public debates with these gentlemen, but move beyond philosophic argument to direct attacks on the harm their thinking has and will cause to society and to individuals.   Let’s just give what has been said so far some more shape by quickly outlining the fraudulent creed these snake oil charlatans are peddling:

First and foremost they trumpet their central dogma – evolution. Without a belief in evolution the default condition is theism, so evolution is the most important doctrine of atheism. But its validity is paper thin. Most people don’t know this because they never bother to look closely at the alternative evidence. They have been so thoroughly brainwashed in true Goebbels-like fashion, that they accept an unproven theory as truth. There are alternative non-evolutionary evidences for every aspect of evolutionary dogma. We recommend reading Milton’s Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis.  The You Tube Video Priveleged Planet is also an excellent documentary. How anyone can think everything there is came from nothing calls for a blind faith par excellence. A Christian faith is never blind, but ultimately faith in evolution is. Boiled down, the built in genetic ability of species to adapt to their environment, is blown out of all proportion to justify all that evolutionary theory is. The very idea that a genus of apes hoped out of the trees defies any concept of natural selection and the survival of the fittest and yet it is the central dogma of the man from apes nonsense.  What’s more evolution cannot be applied to the origins of life and the cosmos since it can only works on existing genetic material.

The application of atheistic ‘reason’ lead to humanistic travesties. Reason, based on a misguided world view is a false god and a very unreliable friend. It led to evolutionary theory when reason itself is defied by the sheer complexity at the molecular level. Human reason has not even come close explaining the very start of life. Dawkins admits this but in an act of blind faith he dismisses this yawning gulf in knowledge by simply claiming we will understand it one day. Is this the reason he relies on? Hypocritically, evolutionists accuse Christians of a blind faith (not true) when they have to rely on it themselves. Reason indeed. Then there is the reason that guided enlightenment philosophers like Hegel, Nietzsche and Rousseau.  They helped spawn the bloody French revolution, the Marxist horror and Nazi fascism.  Reason is a very poor rationale for human fallibility and inhumanity. It is a false God.

Like Hitler and the Nazis atheists shout ‘Juden’ about Christianity and have encouraged all sorts of legalised persecutions against Christians in the so-called free west. Reason has dictated intolerance and ostracism.  Dawkins recently appeared at a public rally and urged the crowd to publicly ridicule and despise Christians. Soon he will be demanding Christians have a white cross sewn onto our clothing so we can be easily signaled out for derision.

Atheistic reason has given us the terrible neo-liberal economic model, with its reliance on large corporations with no allegiance democratically to human rights or justice, mountains of unsustainable debt that is enslaving future generations to even bigger state sponsored theft in the form of taxation and inflation. This is human reason?

Christianity relies on truth. The truth is this: the existence of God is the best explanation for a well-ordered and finely tuned cosmos. The tenets of biblical philosophy have always provided the best principles for an ordered and advance human condition. As atheistic social policy has moved away from this standard western societies have become increasingly strained by dysfunction, dependence and the threat of a dystopic future. The cost in lives, taxation, debt, crime, family breakdown, mental disorders, child abuse, poverty and substance dependence has been huge. Abortion coupled to rising rates of death caused by moral decline and lost hope have been the West’s post-WWII holocaust. Victory for the principles that made western civilisation possible have been turned into an irresponsible licence to overturn them by a self-indulgent generation happy to squander the legacy handed down to them by their forebears. Human rights and technological progress only originated in the Christianised states of the West; something atheists, despite this obvious fact, deny or ignore by the application of their much vaunted but extremely selective reason. Christians embraced science as the best basis, next to biblical theology, for the advance of humanity. Nearly all the ground-breaking scientists were devout Christians, as were those who led the advances in human rights. The illogic of atheistic reason denies these obvious and basic truths.

Let’s close with this observation by a leading Chinese scholar who has this to say about western success: “…In the last twenty years we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. This is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.” From David Aikman’s 2003 book: Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power.


Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus a Theological Flop

On the 3rd April 2015, Good Friday,  Killing Jesus, the movie from Bill O’Reilly’s best seller of the same name screened on Discovery Chanel.  If a church bell chimed every time the script dropped a clanger the poor bell-ringer would have eventually dropped from exhaustion.  O’Reilly, a catholic, fronts Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, the top rated cable news show for the last 16 years – and counting.  Books are also published under his name, with the profits going to charity.  They generally sell really well so there must be a number of charities doing well from Bill’s efforts.

When he chose to do a book on Jesus it was almost a foregone conclusion that it would barely cover the essentials of Jesus’ ministry.  If the film version is anything to go by the prediction proved to be right.  What a travesty the movie is.  Without going into a blow by blow account lets deal with the main problems.

First up, the adult Jesus had to be convinced he was the Messiah, when in fact the Bible narrative confirms Jesus knew who he was from a young age.  At age 12 he was in the synagogues teaching and proclaiming he was the Messiah as foretold in Isaiah 61.  Next there were the miracles.  They confirmed Jesus was the Son of God, but they hardly get a look in in Killing Jesus.  One exorcism is depicted, but it would hardly rank as a miraculous event. There is no command given to the demon to go, no prayer, only some baleful looks into space that were supposed to pass for something vaguely mysterious.  Jesus is even shown as a little surprised when the boy returns to normal.

John the Baptist is given something resembling a star billing as he works on Jesus to start being the Messiah. This, of course, is completely a-biblical.  When John baptises Jesus Christians who know their Bible, even at a basic level, would have been waiting to here God the Father’s pronouncement that he was pleased with his son.  No, that was all missing too. In fact throughout the movie God hardly gets a look in. John is shown as the premier religious leader whom Jesus publicly defends, once John is arrested.  The sense of it is that Jesus was just filling in after John had gone.  The whole nature, purpose  and meaning of the Messiah is almost entirely missing because Jesus’ central connection to universal salvation for all who believe is never explained.  Instead he is made out to be more of a champion for Jewishness and a rabble-rouser who is able to raise a following after John’s arrest.  When Jesus tells the high priest he is indeed the Son of God the story writers have Caiaphas misquote Jesus, by denouncing him as prophet and not as the Messiah.  Once again the deity of the Christ is reduced.  He is merely denounced as a prophet.  Hardly a reason to have him crucified.

The book/movie’s Catholic influence comes out in two obvious ways.  First of all, Mary is given a larger role than any biblical narrative gives her.  There is little evidence beyond the water into wine miracle (not shown in the movie) that Mary played any central role in Jesus ministry, but it is depicted otherwise in the movie.  At one point he looks to Mary and says, “the pain of absence has been terrible.” There is no record of Jesus saying this in the gospels.  It is simply added to convey a sense that Jesus as somehow dependent on Mary.  Then we have the post-crucifixion period.  We never see the resurrected Jesus!  The actual resurrection and its significance is brushed over, like the miracles and the gospel itself. We are left at the end of the movie with Peter in his boat praying for a net-full of fish and then gazing into the heavens in wonder as the fish come.  This and an earlier miss-application of Jesus’ reference to Peter and the rock upon which his Church would be built was an obvious allusion to the Catholic claim to a papal, vicar of Christ, line of succession from Peter.

From a properly Christian perspective Killing Jesus is a very poor presentation of Jesus’ significance.  His deity and his purpose are hardly touched on.  The non-Christian is likely to think Jesus was just a motivated factional leader and some sort of prophet, assuming they even know what the word signifies.  The true Christian just feels cheated and indignant.  At best the movie illustrates the extent to which the meaning of Christ Jesus amongst us 2000 years ago has been lost or ignored.

If this movie reflects the tenor of his book then O’Reilly has done the cause of Christ a disservice, and backhanded the gospel. If people are taking the book and the movie seriously they are truly deluded, or ignorant of the truth.











Bible in schools

Liberals and atheists are constantly trying to eliminate any references or public demonstration of Christianity from the public square.  They make the arrogant and intolerant assumption that their beliefs are all anyone should be exposed to.  This fascist attitude defies the western tradition of freedom of speech.  They hide behind the claim that church and state have to be separate.  The institutions should be, but Christianity’s ideas and principles should be as freely available and discussed in all spheres as any other idea, world view, culture or philosophy.  More often than not atheists have never read or studied Christianity in any text that comprehensively defends it.  When they do snatch at a Bible passage its is always simply to use it as a means of discrediting Christianity.  They love to listen to those who speak out or write against the faith, without any critical appraisal of the veracity of their arguments.  Ironically, they actually confirm the Bible which tells us people will gather around those telling them what they want to hear, while their hearts and minds are ‘seared’ against any contrary information of evidence – no matter how reasonable, logical or factual it may be.

Recently (2015)  a Truth Watch associate became embroiled in a debate with atheists trying to eliminate Bible teaching (to those voluntarily wanting to be there) in a school in the Rodney District of New Zealand.  Here are two of his letters in a debate conducted in a local newspaper

First letter:

The Editor,

In his letter to the Rodney Times, March 3, Ross Miller claims to be a Christian and yet believes that the Bible is mythological. I find this curious. Anyone who has actually read the gospels will know that Christ himself held the Scriptures to be inviolate (e.g., John 10:34-35; Matthew 5:17-20). In the words of John Wenham: “To Christ the Bible is true, authoritative, inspired, to him the God of the Bible is the living God, and the teaching of the Bible is the teaching of the living God. To him what Scripture says, God says.”

Ross Miller also perpetuates a common misunderstanding in using the label “fundamentalist” in an attempt to discredit those who believe the teachings of the Bible. By definition, a fundamentalist is simply someone who believes in the fundamental principles of something. It is not fundamentalism per se which is the issue, but rather it is the principles in which one believes that is important. Compare, for example, the teaching of Christ on loving your enemies (Matthew 5:43-44) with that of Muhammad on killing and torturing unbelievers (Sura 9:5; 5:43). Surely, the former principle is better than the latter.
In regard to the personal attack of Jeff McClintock on optional Bible teaching at Red Beach School (Rodney Times, February 24), I would like to offer the following quotes. From Woodrow Wilson (a Christian): “A man has deprived himself of the best there is in the world who has deprived himself of a knowledge of the Bible”; and from Immanuel Kant (an atheist): “The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.”


Second Letter:

The Editor,
As reported in “Bible fight escalates” (Rodney Times, February 24, 2015), Jeff McClintock ‘s attack on optional Bible education at xxxxx School is motivated by his allegiance to the “Secular Education Network which aims to remove religious instruction from New Zealand state primary schools.” In reality, this group is simply looking to remove all opposition to their own religion, namely, atheism. But their cause is ultimately self-defeating. G. K. Chesterton summed it up well: “When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believes almost in anything.”

On the face of it, this battle appears to be an attack on Christian teaching in state schools. But at a more fundamental level, I see it as an attack on the very heart of Western culture, founded as it is on the Judeo-Christian ethic. It is this very culture from which we derive our personal freedoms, values, and sense of justice. It is who we are as a people, and what distinguishes us from cultures founded on other religions. Well done to Red Beach School for standing up to these bullies.


ISIS is Islam

Here are two letters written by two Christians intent on informing politicians and the general public about the realities behind the Islamic threat. Their latter’s ignorance about Islam is truly astounding. A Princeton Islamic scholar, Bernard Haykel, has recently ‘come out’ by acknowledging the jihadists in ISIS and other Islamic terror groups are acting in accord with the teachings of the Koran and the example set by their prophet, Mohammad. This will be a revelation to many who listen to silly rhetoric claiming the terrorists are not properly following their religion. They are, it is just that most Muslims don’t want to go around killing people. They don’t really understand their faith, preferring to sideline the teachings that tell them Islam is all about bringing the whole world into submission to their Allah – by persuasion or violence. They can’t live up to the full demands of their faith because they just want to live peaceful lives. It does not take much to radicalise elements within the Islamic world because, being zealous for their faith and because they want assurance of salvation they turn easily to violence when incited to do so. This is not about cultural differences and the need to ‘understand each other’. This is spiritual. Islam is, at its heart, a vicious theocratic world view and has demonstrated its thirst for violence ever since its inception.
Here are the letters. A quick note concerning the context for each precedes them:


Letter One: Sent to New Zealand politicians in response to their concerns over sending a small training team to Iraq to help prepare Iraqi troops in their fight against ISIS.

I am writing to you and other MP’s to say some things that seem to have been left out of the debate on the Islamic issue. I’ve been into Muslim no go zones in the UK, faced off against Islamists in London and been into Islamic countries:

1. When NZ faced the Nazi threat, along with its allies, it saw not just an ‘existential threat’, but genuine evil. Now when confronted with the manifest evil in ISIS and the existential threat posed by the possible emergence of an new caliphate, along side a possibly nuclear armed Iran, we prevaricate over sending a mere training unit. All I’m seeing here is self-serving weakness. Australia already has 600 troops in Iraq while we huff and puff. I was opposed to US action in Iraq but the wolves have now been let loose – like it or not

2. The constant statements that Islam is a religion of peace and the jihadists are an extremist aberration is nonsense. This is what their prophet said to his followers; “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” (Stark, 2009, God’s Battalions) Islam reveres its prophet who ordered over 60 violent jihads and led close to 30 of them personally. The so called extremists are only obeying their prophet and their ‘holy’ book. In the Koran there are 100+ calls to violence and jihad on an unrelenting basis until all are submitted to Allah.

3. Most of the ‘violent’ verses (e.g. in Surah 9) are in later surahs which under Muslim rules of exegesis abrogate earlier verses. So the ‘peaceful verses’ are abrogated. Thus the peaceful Muslims are in fact simply nominal Muslims. Their desire to live peaceful lives has nothing to do with Islam. What the violent Muslims are doing today is entirely in accord with Islam and consistent with the great swath of Islamic history from the 7th Century to 1683 when they were stopped at the gates of Vienna (not for the first time).

Its time you MPs grew a spine, woke up and spoke up. There is much more at stake here than your precious parliamentary careers. You need to put NZ, civilisation and humanity first.
< signed >
Letter two: Sent to a prominent national New Zealand radio host ho went on to read it on air:

Congratulations on your interview re Islam…a rare ray of light among dark clouds of apparently intentional misinformation. ISIS conforms exactly to the central authorities of Islam: the Koran, the Hadiths, and the example of Mohammad himself as portrayed in Islamic literature. The Islamic understanding of these was locked in over a 1000 years ago and any deviation from this understanding is apostasy. ‘Reformers’ are killed.

Mohammad authorised lying – Taqiyya – to further the Islamic cause, thus the deceptive claims by Muslims that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. By ‘peace’ is meant the final state they envisage when Islam controls the world. Until then there is bloody war with all opposition to Islam, following the example of Mohammad. Some peace. Western leaders who recite this mantra are water carriers for Islam.

Mohammad oversaw and personally participated in the beheading of 700-900 Jewish men in Medina on one day, who had surrendered to him in good faith…and dispersed their women as sex slaves to his followers. Thus the contemporary mass beheading of those who oppose Islam and the taking of captured women as sex slaves.

Mohammad married his favourite wife Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9 and he over 50. This is confirmed by several Hadiths attributed to Aisha herself. Thus the legitimisation of child marriage by Muslims. It must be legitimate because the Islamic ‘perfect man’ did this.

Such behaviour has gone on consistently for the 1400 years of Islamic history with an estimated 270,000,000 people dying as a result of Jihad during that time.

ISIS is the authentic historic face of orthodox Islam.
< signed >

False prophet and heretic Rob Bell

Truth Watch has no need to wax lyrical on Rob Bell.  It became apparent years back that Rob Bell was going to take the emergent church movement to new heights of theological degradation.  He is now calling on Christians to embrace homosexuality.  See for a good round-up of the Bell sage and the depths to which he has been plunging.

Islamic extremism

This entry follows the recent Islamic attacks on a French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram’s mass killings in Nigeria and then the mass beheading of Egyptian Coptic Christians in Sudan…

On-going Islamic atrocities continue to be met by a steadfast refusal, on the part of western leaders, to link it directly to Islam.  It’s possible their insistence it represents an extremist betrayal of the fundamentally peaceful nature of Islam may only be a political and diplomatic device.  If they were to publicly acknowledge the obvious and decry Islam’s avowed intent to Islamify the world, by force and extreme violence whenever necessary (Surah 9:5, 29 for example), what would happen? They would confront the millions of usually nominal Muslim’s in the West with the fact that their religion does indeed call for violence against non-Muslims.  Its their duty -their salvation is at stake if they resist Allah’s will. They would then be presented with various choices: defy Koranic teaching by remaining Muslim, renounce their faith, or become actively jihadist.  The first option would create a great deal of internal angst and eventually force them into one of the other two options. The second choice would leave them exposed to sharia death penalty laws for renouncing the faith and the last choice would mean they would  have to start covertly working with jihadists in the West.

Western leaders will not see a good side to any of this.  All those millions of passive Muslims would start making choices and those choices would all spell social disruption, exposing the false nature of multiculuralism, long supported by these leaders and their political parties.  Its a Catch 22 situation entirely of their own making.  Ultimately, they are going to be forced into either capitulating to Islamic demands within the West, especially as the Muslim population is, by natural increase, growing rapidly.  If they do that they will risk civil wars as Europeans eventually revolt against laws and restrictions on rights which are anathema to western values.  Their other choice, to openly and honestly acknowledge the violence inherent in Islam, will also lead to serious social disruption for the reasons given.  Despite that it would be the correct path, simply because unless Islam is confronted and dealt to decisively it will continue its crusade to enslave us all.

Where should the Church be in all of this. It should certainly not be seeking common ground with Islam as it is at present.  It could, instead, be actively and vociferously  proclaiming the truth that Islam is violent to the bone, while calling on nominal Muslims to either change the laws on abrogation so that the early Koranic ‘peaceful verses’ are reinstated, or leave Islam. This of course is to provide some legitimacy for Islam as a religion, something Truth Watch could not support, therefore this option should not be followed.

The correct course is to boldly denounce Islam for the violent and oppressive religion it is and actively proselytise amongst Muslim communities at a level that would almost certainly promote a violent backlash – similar to the persecution early Christians experienced when they challenged the Roman world’s paganism.  Publicising Islam’s violent history would also be a good tactic.  It is long past time the West woke up to the fact that for the last 1400 years it has been at war, intermittently, with Islam. Islam has never been at peace with the West.  The latter’s dominance and the Islamic world’s own backward weakness has kept them quiet since the Muslim Caliphate was wound up following the First World War.

A third more moderate option would be to simply push for strict integration.  No more Muslim enclaves.  Muslims would need to under-go training in core western values and acknowledge their supremacy in the country they have chosen to adopt.  No more calls for Sharia Law.  Unfortunately, this option will run into liberal multicultural conditioning that will likely make such a policy weak and ineffective. Muslim resistance would almost certainly grow too and effete western liberalism is no match for militant Islam.  Attempts at stronger integration would probably fail and cause the internal divisions and violence it was supposed to prevent.

Thanks to western liberal multiculturalism and its associated immigration policies the West has created an enemy within.  For 1400 years we fought to keep them at arms length.  Now, in our ‘enlightened’ liberal era we have simply opened the gates and let them flood in. The ludicrous and unnecessary apology the Pope issued over the Crusades is now exposed. Why should the West apologise for fighting to hold the Muslim armies at bay in the Levant as they repeatedly attempted to topple the Byzantium flank to Europe.  If it had fallen in the Twelfth Century the West, in its fractured state, would have been hard pressed to resist the attack that would have inevitably come from both the east and the west (through Spain).

The Church is complicit in this sad state of affairs.  It has remained silent on Islamic immigration, which in OT terms would have been the equivalent of inviting the Philistines to occupy Israel.    The Church could have followed Israel’s example, since it clearly had God’s sanction.  Instead it defied biblical example and sought to find common cause with an implacable enemy.

Rick Warren exposed

Watch this video for an in depth examination of Rick Warren’s ministry.  Draw you own conclusions, but this documentary highlights many of the issues Truth Watch has been talking about for more than a decade.  Warren’s mentor was Peter Drucker who openly acknowledged he was not a Christian and had no interest in Christianity.  To him it was just one of many faiths, but he was interested in promoting community projects using the church model.  Warren and Hybels used Drucker’s ideas for church growth to build mega-churches off a marketing strategy and not the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life was simply an extension of Drucker’s church building formula.  Warren used proof-texting from Scripture to justify his promotion of a self-centered ‘christianity’ that he knew would be more appealing than the real message of the Bible.  Many in church leadership have tried to emulate his success at the expense of truth and the gospel.

Friendship evangelism fails the western Church

Despite decades of pushing friendship evangelism the western Church has not seen much growth.  In fact the reverse is true.  Acceptance of Christianity, especially amongst youth  continues to shrink in the face of a concerted anti-Christian campaign, as Barna research (Read U Turn by George Barna) proves.  Church leaders have consigned the Church to a modern wilderness by refusing to confront secularisms drive to marginalise Christianity while simultaneously adopting management marketing principles to recruit church goers, rather than to disciple true believers.  There has been an escalation of commitment to seeker-friendly friendship evangelism by leaders, especially through the emergent church movement and the mega-church influence of Rick Warren’s purpose driven me-ism and Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek. This escalation has continued in the face of abundant evidence that it is failing to produce true followers of Jesus Christ.  Barna catalogues this failure with plentiful statistical evidence in U Turn. In a 2014 article on this issue Truth Watch explains why friendship evangelism is failing to live up to expectations.  The issue we cover include presenting the real Jesus, developing a comprehensive Christian world view, the importance of apologetics, the law to grace method of evangelism, the church’s defencelessness and the church’s teaching treadmill.  All is explained in the article.