God Bless The Philippines And Filipino People

God Bless The Philippines And Filipino People


I want to shout out to the Philippines and all Filipino people. I did not feel like I needed to instantly blog about the hurricane that hit (Haiyan, AKA Yolanda) but waited until the news was clearer. I do want to say that I have personally been praying for the Philippines to recover and for Filipino people to be drawn to God’s sovereignty and total control of all things in the world. I hope more missionaries and evangelists will reap a strong harvest of Filipino Christians. I have love for the Philippines and Filipino people in general and I was able to take a trip there in 2009. I appreciate the culture and met a lot of great Christians who live in poverty but are very faithful to God. My goal was to be a missionary there, but God has people wait or makes us be patient before everything can happen.

I may not have a lot of money or anything to send but I do pray and I do hope many people who do have money will send aid through food, water, and repairs as well as help Christian churches help their own people. I believe this is a wake up call for all people in general not to get caught up in every day life and be carefree and unconcerned, and assume you have forever to live to do whatever you want. Take time to focus on the important things in life: spiritual realities through God and striving hard for God’s honor and glory. There are people suffering. So do what you can through prayer and support.


Atheist Blogger’s Illogical Argument About God’s Eternality

Atheist Blogger’s Illogical Argument About God’s Eternality

        Recently an Atheist blogger must have read my article, along with other articles from various blogs speaking about God’s eternality or the issue of whether God exists and is eternal or not. He listed my article at the end of his blog post along with other blog posts that were related. Of course he believes God does not exist and that it makes no sense God would be eternal which I believe is wrong as this Atheist’s arguments are very weak. He had linked to my article called God Is Eternal, Infinity Is A Paradox which I wrote in 2011.

        Some of his arguments were:

· If logic did not exist, what logical steps did God use to create the universe?

· If knowledge did not exist, then what knowledge did God use to make it exist and create it?

· If reasoning did not exist, what reason did God have to create anything?

· If critical thinking did not exist, what critical thinking skills did god use determine (sic) that he needed to create a universe?

· If perfection did not exist before, what made him perfect?

These arguments assume way too much. They assume that none of those things existed in God, and that everything had to be created to exist. Christians believe that God was not created and exists because He is eternal. Christians also believe that God’s nature consists of all of those things and without God none of those things would be understood.

My response to this Atheist’s assumptions are that God’s nature is logic, knowledge, reasoning, critical thinking, and perfection. That is who He is. He consists of all of those things. God is intelligence and order. He is rationality. All of the created things that exist teach us about God and who He is and His nature, and of course the Bible is the perfect teaching of God explained. Science and mathematics only speak of God’s working in the universe and how things are in order and in place. God is also moral. This is why there is a moral law in the universe that everyone understands. Stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, murder is wrong etc. God eternally existed in His nature and did not have to create His own nature. This is obvious.

The Atheist thinks he has destroyed God with his absurdity. So what is logic and what is reasoning then? Was it created or did it evolve? Or is it eternal? Where did this intelligence exist outside of intelligent beings? Where did logic come from? Where did reasoning come from? Oh he thinks it evolved I bet…from what? Primordial slime? Where did that come from? Nothing? So Nothing now has intelligence to create intelligence? The Great Eternal Nothing caused the Universe? This is absurd!

He also stated:

“I will present another argument in this format: 1) Anything that exists occupies space and time. 2) God does not occupy space and time. 3) Therefore God does not exist.”

Was he serious with that one? I guess so…His premises are false. The logical conclusion to his argument would be:

His thoughts do not occupy space and time, therefore his thoughts do not exist.
Logic does not occupy space and time, therefore logic does not exist.
Mathematics do not occupy space and time, therefore mathematics do not exist.
Philosophy does not occupy space and time, therefore philosophy does not exist.
Imagination does not occupy space and time, therefore philosophy does not exist.
Beliefs do not occupy space and time, therefore his beliefs do not exist.
Morality does not occupy space and time, therefore morality does not exist.
Immorality does not occupy space and time, therefore immorality does not exist.
Atheism does not occupy space and time, therefore Atheism does not exist.
Nothing does not occupy space and time, therefore nothing does not exist (Wait what? You just blew my mind! Existence itself does not exist? What exists does not exist!?).

See how absurd this reasoning is? It makes no sense.

What about people who died? Did they ever really exist? By this logic anything that does not (which could apply to no longer) take up space and time does not exist. George Washington does not take up space and time, therefore he never existed therefore he is just in our imagination (wait imagination does not exist either because it does not occupy time and space). All that exists is right now. There is no past or future just now. This would be very absurd but that is how his logic ends up. But then he might say that since George Washington had bones and flesh, it decomposed and turned into other types of material things in the universe such as gases, dust…etc. Then how could he prove it?

Magnetic fields do not occupy space, but we see its effects and power in the universe. There are other things in the universe that exist which are invisible or are not something that occupy physical space but are very real. Likewise, God exists outside of time, does not have to occupy physical space, yet he actively works inside of time and space while still being eternal because He is everywhere present.

        God is spirit and invisible and is everywhere present. He does not have to be a physical thing to exist. He exists outside of the physical realm, the realm he created. This is why God is not a material created physical being, but a supernatural (beyond nature and the universe, completely “other” than what is natural) BEING that is ETERNAL.

At some point in history all things lead to a beginning that was caused. The illogical believes nothing created everything. The cause for the universe was nothing…yeah that makes sense. No, actually it does not.



Reformed Calvinist Gospel Presentation

Reformed Calvinist Gospel Presentation

        I was very impressed with this gospel presentation. Steve Lawson explained the gospel very matter of factually at the Strange Fire Conference last month, and it was personal. So often in Reformed churches the pastor seems to be almost too careful not to make it sound personal because they think that somehow if they speak in a personal and persuasive manner it would get in the way of God’s choice for election and becomes emotional manipulation.  But I say that is nonsense. This could not be further from the truth. We are God’s instruments to present salvation to sinners. Calvinists should still present the Gospel in a personal way that burns at the heart of individuals. Emotions are not the enemy if the message is clear and correct. The way Steve Lawson presents the gospel does not get in the way of God’s election and does not emotionally manipulate; yet it is personal and still impacts the heart. More Reformed churches need to tie the Gospel into their sermons. Watch below:

Charismatics Seem To Lay Hands On Anyone Who Comes Up To Them

Charismatics Seem To Lay Hands On Anyone Who Comes Up To Them

        How many of you have seen a charismatic preacher, speaker, or been to some charismatic event where everyone is laying their hands on everyone. That means putting your hands on the person’s body. It could be anywhere like their head, shoulder, back, arm. Sometimes there is a chain, or train of hands connected to bodies in a large group which is often funny to see. They seem to hold no discretion on who they lay hands on. In my experience charismatics do this in order to transfer power from the Holy Spirit into, or onto another person. This could be for a variety of reasons such as miraculous healing, spirit empowerment, giving someone an ecstatic experience such as “slain in the spirit,” giving people miraculous tongues, or reading their minds, or actually transferring the Holy Spirit into someone for conversion. Charismatics do not all hold to every idea here but this is just a list of random reasons that do occur from people professing to be charismatics and from what have personally observed in real life.

        In the bible, the laying on of hands was not some mystical power transfer, but simply a sign of confirmation. When the term “laying on of hands” is used it is directly related to a confirmation by one church member of authority giving his blessing or God’s choice for someone to act in the role of an important position, or travel on some mission. It is nothing more than a symbol. An example is Acts 13:3, “Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.” Another is Acts 6:6, “These they set before the Apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.” The Apostles hands did not give powers to someone, and the physical act of hands did not give special authority or blessings either. It was actually God Himself who gave any power or confirmation on someone, yet it was the hands that symbolized this working of God in people. It is much like baptism. Baptism does not actually cause your sins to be washed away for that would be works, but it is a symbol of going into the grave and dying to self and being raised up to life in Christ clean and new (Colossians 2:12). It is a confession as well to the church that you hold to the faith and are repentant and regenerated by God. The laying on of hands is a symbol and ritual that God uses for identification purposes on church members.

        The books of 1 and 2 Timothy teach about the ways of running a church properly and certain expectations a pastor must have. Paul mentions the laying on of hands in 2 Timothy 2:6 which says, “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of hands.” Paul was reminding Timothy that he gave him pastoral authority and blessings by God symbolized through the laying on of his hands.  1 Timothy 4:14 is another convincing example of this, “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” So apparently, the early church would have its elders lay hands on someone to symbolize to the church their acceptance and authority to lead. The gift Paul was speaking about was the ability to teach, preach, and lead as a pastor. Nothing else is mentioned as a gift in these contexts. So one cannot use such verses to promote the idea that ecstatic experiences, babbling tongues, the Holy Spirit transferred, or special “knowledge” is given through the hands. 

        In other circumstances when people were healed there were times when physical touch was involved. An example is Acts 2:28 where Paul put his hands on someone and healed him. Yes, Christ touched people’s body and healed their injuries and sicknesses. Yes, Apostles also did, but that does not mean the “laying on of the hands” does this. There is a difference between miraculous healing actions in the bible and the laying on of hands.

        The examples in Acts previously stated above about sending people off also confirm this, yet there is one passage that says “The Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands” in Acts chapter 8. The story is about Peter and John finding out a group of people did not receive the Holy Spirit. The people were Samaritans who had just recently accepted the message of Jesus Christ from Philip. Before this time the Holy Spirit only came down on the Jews in Acts 2. Now it was the Samaritans turn, and this sign of the Holy Spirit was given as confirmation that even Samaritans can be saved and come to salvation in God. So Peter and John laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. This occurrence of the baptism in the Spirit was a sign to the Jews that even Samaritans, half-breed Jews previously viewed as impure, were also part of the kingdom of God. During this event there was a sorcerer named Simon who saw that “the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands” (Acts 8:18). He assumed it was a power he could buy. But Peter harshly rebuked him and told him he hopes his silver will be destroyed with him for assuming the gift of God (salvation, or Apostolic authority) could be obtained by money. These events were rare occurrences and not the norm of how people were saved, and after the stories in Acts no mention of such activity is made in the Bible. These were specific events just like what happened at Pentecostal which never happened again in history.

        To prove the point that the Holy Spirit is not supernaturally transferred (for salvific, or non-salvific power purposes) by physically laying hands on people one should look at Acts 10:44-45,

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded, because the Gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

The Holy Spirit came down while Peter was speaking and was not laying his hands on them. So in Acts 8 the laying on of hands occurred, obviously as a symbol to recognize Samaritans, and in this case in chapter 10 the hands were not necessary as the Spirit chose to go into Gentiles who believed. This was another instance of recognition that not only Jews could be saved, but others as well (Samaritans in chapter 8, and now Gentiles in chapter 10.) They laying on of hands was not necessary.

        The point this article is making is that the laying on of hands is not a magic power, or some super ability of miraculous nature that causes healing, signs, words of knowledge-fortune telling style, or transferring the Holy Spirit for ecstatic experiences or giving salvation to someone. It is purely a symbol God commands to be used for church leadership. That being said the charismatics are guilty of misusing this symbol of blessing and authority by laying their hands on anyone all the time. How often have you seen charismatics putting their hands on everyone’s head who walks up to them at some “worship meeting” or on the streets to people who most likely are not even saved? And there is no way to evaluate their salvation.

        Paul commands Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:22, “Don’t be too quick to lay hands on anyone, and don’t share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.” Charismatics constantly violate this command and lay their hands on random people all the time as if it’s some powerful miracle ritual to cause the Holy Spirit to do something. An example of this violation is Mattie Montgomery from the evangelical, metalcore band For Today, preaching in the rain and laying his hands on anyone he sees who happens to be standing there (in the video below), saying things such as “I declare that your sins are forgiven in the name of Jesus!” while he pats people’s heads. He also says, “Holy Spirit take possession of every body here!” and “Receive the Holy Spirit! Receive the Holy Spirit!” patting each kid on the head. He believes he is giving people a “fresh touch from God.” This is clearly violating the command that one should not be “too quick to lay hands on anyone.” How can he know someone is saved who is standing there? Does he have some super power of knowledge from God that typical Christians do not have? Where was the open repentance by anyone in the crowd?

        The symbol of church leadership confirmation and blessings are being abused. There is no doubt men like Montgomery are being sincere in their behavior and genuinely care about these people, but they are still wrong and contradicting the correct biblical teaching of how sins are forgiven and people receive the Holy Spirit as well as abusing the sign of authority that is the laying on of hands“. People will see that some kid had some charismatic preacher lay his hands on his head, and will thus assume this kid had a religious experience and is now somehow a Christian with the Holy Spirit. Yet, that kid could still be just as unregenerate and sinful and unrepentant as he was before he met that charismatic preacher. This totally mocks the laying on of hands that the bible teaches and profanes the Holy Spirit and such behavior should not occur in bible believing, Christ-centered churches or by individual Christians on the streets. The charismatic who would disagree with this article has yet to properly interpret the bible and explain why he is using his hands in such a way when Timothy was strictly warned by Paul not to do the very thing he is doing.

In This Offend-Me-Not Culture Pointing Things Out Is The Christian’s Duty

In This Offend-Me-Not Culture Pointing Things Out Is The Christian’s Duty

        The culture of today is completely obsessed with the idea that no one is allowed to offend anyone, and if you offend someone then you are doing one of the worst things imaginable in the entire world, and are a very mean and nasty person. They cry out “intolerance” and “I’m offended” over and over and make a lot of noise. This is seen all over the politically correct media when someone makes a silly joke that happens to offend someone or a person expresses their conviction that the media propagandizes as hate. What is really sad is that the current Christo-religious culture embraces this attitude. In this squishy, soft, “evangellyfish” culture— in order to impress the world and look nice— evangelicalism has also adopted this philosophy. The current church, or non-church (or whatever-you-want-to-do-style religion of the day) is preoccupied with this nonsense that everyone has a right not be offended, and it saturates their interpretation of the bible and attitude about Christian living. This is the idea that truth is hard to know, or unknowable, except for a few positive-only things from the Bible. If it is negative then we can’t really know if it is true or not, or it must be interpreted differently and spun towards a positive nature so it won’t offend anyone. For example, the doctrine of hell has to either be ignored, or claimed unknowable, or only be something in the past that may or may not have happened, or it’s not really speaking about people in real life. And often times people refuse to admit someone is most likely going to go to hell. This is basically what Rob Bell did a year or so ago in his book Love Wins.

        Nonetheless, people claiming Christian are constantly yelling out the “don’t be judgmental!” fallacy when anyone brings up a point of truth, or points something out that is wrong. This is especially true when someone *gasp* dares to name someone’s name! Now THAT is the ultimate cardinal sin for evangelicals it seems. Don’t you EVER says someone’s name. EVER! And do not point out a belief, or group of people who hold to a belief, you find is wrong. After all you don’t know them personally. This is a completely fallacious argument that is spoken by people who do not love truth, but are unconcerned with what is true and are steeped in false humility with a skewed idea of what is and is not a “loving” attitude. I have written an article responding to a critic a year ago who was using the That Is Unloving Fallacy where I list a bunch of Scripture commanding people to argue, rebuke, exhort, correct, debate, call out, reject, fight against, and condemn for what is true. In this article though, I will take a look at 1 Timothy 4:6-7 which says,

If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished by the words of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. But have nothing to do with irreverent and silly myths.” 

        The context of this passage is speaking about false teachers who promote lies propagated by demons. In other words, false religion. The previous verses in the chapter (1 Timothy 4:1-5) explain that people will “depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons.” Then it explains, they listen to the hypocrisy of liars and their consciences are seared and that these types forbid marriage, and command people to abstain from certain foods. This was in the context of certain groups as the the Jewish Essenes mixed with contemporary Greek thought which promoted such ideas as physical things in this world being evil and being preoccupied with marriage or eating food is impure. MacArthur (1997), in his study bible explains they “viewed matter as evil and spirit as good” (p. 1866). He also states, “[The teaching] contained elements of truth, since Scripture commends both singleness…and fasting” (p. 1866).

        The point of Paul warning Timothy to be aware of false Christians who would “depart” from the faith was not to specifically warn him of ONLY the Essenes at his time, but it was a universal call to be wary of many apostates that will come, and who already have come. Paul was generally explaining that the Spirit of God has warned about future apostates, and Paul was tying it into what the current situation was with their current false teachers in their time. Paul was explaining some people who will participate in church and claim Christian will learn some new teaching from a false teacher and will be led astray and “depart from the faith.” The unsure, evangelical who does not embrace logic will try to argue that that verse can ONLY be applied to the people who forbade marriage etc. This is a nonsense argument. A rational understanding of the passage, after reading it, has the attitude of all false religion being evil and demonically inspired. The rest of the Bible is pretty clear on the issue of warning about all false-doctrines, false-christs, false-brethren, and false-gospels, that they do indeed exist, have existed in the past, and will be created in the future, and should be argued against and pointed out to keep the church pure. This means even doing one of the things that these evangellyfish believe is absolutely an extreme sin….NAMING PEOPLE’S NAMES! “Oh no! Not that!” you say? Why, yes Paul in chapter 2 of the same letter names 2 men named Alexander and Hymenaeus who were among people Paul has delivered up to Satan. Delivering someone up to Satan is a pretty extreme thing to do but necessary. Therefore, according to Scripture it is not a sin to call out someone’s name and tell Christians to avoid them. The absurd notion that you have to know them in person before you do that and can only privately talk to them first about it is irrelevant. This is painstakingly obvious. Public delcarations spoken to a wide range of people deserve a public and wide reaching rebuke. These types of people who promote this silly idea do not even live it out in their daily lives outside of their religious conversations. Did they have to meet Osama bin Laden in person before they could talk to their friends about how evil he is? Do they have to meet Kim Jung Eun of North Korea to know he is an evil dictator? Did they have to actually meet James Whitey Bulger to know he was a mafia boss and murderer before they could tell their friends about him? Did they have to personally know Saddam Hussein before they would declare he is evil and gassed his own people and is not a true believer in God? The answer is an obvious no! Such people who hold a belief you have to actually personally know someone in order to know if they are real or not, and then only can you in private talk to them are hypocrites because they don’t even live this out in real life towards other people.

        Now back to chapter 4 of 1 Timothy and taking a look at verse 6 where Paul commands Timothy to “point these things out to the brother” it is obvious it is every Christian’s duty to be aware of these demonic doctrines and to point them out to Christians, warn them, and guide them into the truth. To express truth you must correct error when it comes around. Popular teachers, rockstars, hipster-missionaries etc. have a wide influence and much of the time Christians might become influenced by them. It is the informed Christian’s duty to warn the other Christian not to follow them or listen to them. If a false teacher claiming Christ openly declares a false belief publicly and has high popularity in the media then speaking out against it publicly is the only option. This is not a private and intimate matter. It does not matter if it offends people, or the actual false teacher becomes offended and goes on a tirade about “unloving, judgmental judgers.” That is simply his deceptive defense to avoid actually providing evidence through Scripture for his claims of belief. This should be obvious to any Holy Spirit filled believer of Christ.

        The Christian should not pay attention to “irreverent, and silly myths.” The Christian should not be associated or be “having anything to do with” such ideas. Paul was declaring to Timothy that it is his duty to point out these false beliefs and silly myths and to separate from them and teach his church members to do the same. If this causes offense, then so what?

        What is true belief and true faith is found only in Scripture; the way God speaks to us. It is not a matter of private ideas or an imagination that reads between lines and comes up with faulty interpretations based on stupid reasoning. For instance, Tommy Green’s faulty interpretation of Revelation 1:9-18 and Philippians 1:12-18. He says since God has a voice that sounds like “many waters” it must mean God speaks in many ways that are different from one another therefore, contradicting ideas, as long as they say the name Jesus, are okay and acceptable; and that means Joel Osteen is a Christian who saves souls despite the fact his “ministry” is completely devoid of the Gospel! This is just absolutely ridiculous. So because he “feels” God’s voice sounds like many waters he is going to use his imagination and come up with the idea that “controversy in the bride, and conflicting dogma and theology” are acceptable even if it is outright heresy apparently.

         Reality though, the explanation of those passages is that “many waters” is only talking about the sound of God’s voice and how intense and powerful His Word is, not that He has many messages or conflicting pastors teaching random things in His name. Also, the term “many” is actually more correctly understood with the idea of “cascading” or “rushing” waters. As explained, simply the sound of his voice being powerful to the Apostle John.

        Green uses the Philippians passage to state that even if preachers are in it for themselves we cannot judge them and should not be against them. Again reality though, the Philippians passage is easily understood that if people preach the gospel and do it to show off or be cool, (for their own personal gain) then the Gospel will still be heard and the message itself stands as true. It does not say the messenger is okay and should be allowed to preach. It is simply stating the idea of the Gospel not being inhibited by the speaker. The Gospel cannot be stopped and it does not matter even if the messenger is corrupt. And pay attention the the fact it is THE GOSPEL! Probably about 00.001% of arrogant, prideful, self-serving preachers teach the true Gospel for their own personal gain. Most of the time they are occupied with false doctrines that promote heresy and do not save souls at all. So 99.999% never preach the true Gospel. Once in awhile such heretics might mix a little truth in, in order to look legitimate to gullible people so they can argue that they are orthodox, but still they are dangerous and should not openly be supported by real Christians.

        As Paul told Timothy, point them out!!! Well, at least Tommy Green isn’t offending people and hurting their feelings by saying someone is wrong, that is unless you disagree with him then of course you are wrong and it is okay to offend you. In fact it is a virtue to offend you according to their mindset because it is okay to offend people who they deem offensive. What a self-refuting mindset!

        Now it is easy to see how far out teachings can get if someone makes up their own ideas about a passage and then starts telling the Scripturally-ignorant church-kids and “unsure evangelicals” to follow their advice. Thomas R. Schreiner (2001) in his book Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, A Pauline Theology, expresses the concern for preaching the truth to christians relating to the 1 Timothy 4:6-16 passage:

Paul does not contemplate some mysterious and private interaction between people and God. It is necessary to hear a spoken and articulated word [from Scripture] in order to become right with God. In both Colossians and Ephesians Paul prays for boldness, for the spoken word is often offensive. And Paul does not only pray for opportunities to proclaim the message; he also prays that people will be saved” (pp. 65-66, emphasis mine).

If a teacher is preaching a false message people are not going to get saved. If a preacher who is well studied in the Bible is preaching, then such truth will be offensive to those who do not embrace absolute truth; but on the other hand people will actually get saved.

        It is clear that Paul was commanding Timothy to point out those who contradict the Gospel, and it is plain that the Scripture teaches through 1 Timothy 4:6-7 that it is the Christian’s duty to point out false teachers and warn people not to stray from the truth that was taught to them.

Works Cited

MacArthur, J.F. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible. Thmas Nelson, Inc.: Nashville, TN.

Schreiner, T.R. (2001). Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL.

Charismatic Missionaries Causing More Problems Abroad

Charismatic Missionaries Causing More Problems Abroad

       *This article is going to first criticize the ignorant opinion and propaganda of Roger Ross Williams and his anti-Christian and pro-gay agenda. Then it will criticize the bigger issue of the problems charismatic cults are causing in the mission field. 

        Roger Ross Williams is a documuntary filmmaker who recently made a film called “God Loves Uganda” which is extremely critical of evangelicalism in Africa as a whole. Instead of actually looking into specific cases of groups who have specific beliefs he does what the rest of the media and anti-Christian people do: lump all religious groups claiming “christian” into one. An article on Yahoo News has an interview with Williams who claims Christians are causing extreme hate towards homosexuals in Africa and causing violence and that by law there is the death penalty for homosexual conduct. He says in the past before there was a Muslim dictator who outlawed Christianity and would not allow missionaries to come in Uganda. Williams seems to be saying Uganda was better off during that time for homosexuals with a Muslim dictator named Idi Amin. It seems Williams is ignorant of the fact Muslims are against homosexuality, and in other African countries like Libya  they torture homosexuals and execute them. So to think Islam is somehow more tolerant of homosexuals and is in no way bad like Williams’ idea of “evangelicalism” is asinine. Even charismatic groups like IHOP, or YWAM are not at all finding homosexuals and killing them. If one wants to, they can find a video on YouTube of a Libyan military, anti-homosexual group that is torturing a gay man by sticking the barrel of an AK-47 on an accused homosexual male’s anal area and beating his buttocks severely. They executed the man later. But I suppose as long as Islam is finding Christians and torturing them— as well as murdering them in droves— all over Africa it’s a good thing because eventually “evangelicals,” who in Williams’ deluded mind assumes they hate gays, will be “taken care of.”

        Also, Idi Amin is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people (est. 100,000-500,000 killings), I think this is by far worse violence than an anti-homosexual law. He left Uganda a legacy of bloodthirsty killings and economic mismanagement. Roger Williams seems to think that without Christianity all of the violence and death in Africa towards gays would not occur. And since violence specifically against homosexuals did not occur it trumps any other violence that had occurred. This is an ignorant idea steeped in bias towards Christian faith.

        Williams followed the group IHOP (International House of Prayer), an extreme hyper-charismatic cult, and lumps them together as “evangelicals.” As if all evangelicals hold to IHOP’s beliefs. This kind of biased journalism and propaganda is only encouraging intolerance towards Christians by labeling us the same as any terrorist or hate group. Roger Ross William’s anti-Christian agenda is clear and he should not at all be taken seriously.

        On the other hand, there is something to take seriously from this report. The fact Williams states that IHOP, or these types of religious people (the Charismatics) have not done ANYTHING good to help the society. He makes the claim, “They don’t do any humanitarian work. They don’t build schools or hospitals or help people. … It’s a numbers game, convert souls, and that’s it.” The theology of IHOP comes from the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) movement which believes in territorial evangelism where territory, cities, streets, and more are inhabited by demonic forces keeping people from God. This means they must win territory in a warlike fashion. This is a spiritual warfare movement and such ideas are known theologically as “Dominionism.”  Todd Bentley, mega-heretic, used the term Joel’s Army to describe the types of spiritual people who will take over the earth for Jesus by winning territory and spiritual battles. The language and ideas are radical, war-like, and extreme. Another heretical-charismatic-dominionist-cult is called YWAM (Youth With A Mission) who have had a number of complaints by concerned parents, as well as former staffers (accusations such as brainwashing etc.).

        These types of movements are radical and have a skewed view of biblical evangelism and missionary work. They are part of the plague of anti-intellectualism, and anti-biblical-doctrinal movements that have come out of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. The accusation of Williams stating that groups like IHOP do not do anything like building hospitals are schools is true. The recent conference called “Strange Fire” which was headed by pastor John MacArthur from Grace Community Church in Santa Clarita, California made waves in the Christian media for his accusation that the Charismatic movement on a whole has not contributed to any humanitarian work as there are no schools, hospitals, etc. MacArthur’s conference promoted the idea that Charismatics left chaos and nonsense in their wakes and have led to all kinds of problems. I find it interesting a godless person who is biased towards Christianity also noticed this same thing.

        One of the main arguments against the Strange Fire conference was that John MacArthur refused to acknowledge the good things charismatics did around the world and is painting the entire movement with a wide brush. But the truth is the charismatic movement has yet to measure up their likely-very-very-small amount of humanitarian work with the multitudes of hospitals, schools, orphanages and other such long lasting infrastructure created by other religious groups. Yes, Charismatics have built schools or set up orphanages here and there, but often times such “refuges” etc. are suspect and totally fail and are not longstanding or beneficial to the local cultures; but often times are problematic. They also need to admit the majority of the movement as a whole has promoted all kinds of bad teaching and social problems, and the more orthodox and less problematic ones are the actual fringe. Not the other way around, such as the “wide brush” claim.

        The conclusion from all of this is that the Charismatics are giving Christian missionaries a bad name. The Media will always label Christians with the most extreme and wrong examples in order to propagandize that they are terrorists or hate groups while acting as if Islam is somehow ultra-tolerant and embracing to gays (yea right…), and true biblical Christian missionaries have to compete with other groups claiming to use the Bible who are promoting false spirituality and a severely screwed up idea of evangelism. Liberals will always bash on conservative, evangelical values and faith and it is to be expected. Now if biblical missionaries in Uganda only had to deal with other religions it would be easier; but the fact the NAR cult groups like IHOP— which promote heresy and social problems everywhere they go— and YWAM talk like they are Christians it  makes Satan’s work easier to accomplish while deceiving delusional superstitious people who join them and causing more thoughtful, and educated people to become hostile towards the Bible and Christianity. It is very sad that the majority of the evangelical culture in America has embraced this profane spirituality of false miracles, false prosperity, and political activism where evangelism only is concerned with changing society around and getting numbers to join to win over territory instead of quality Christian faith in individuals lives.