Tuesday, March 19, 2019



The president throws down the gauntlet against leftists, NeverTrumpers, and weak-kneed Republicans

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
After Congress voted to overturn President Trump’s emergency declaration to divert federal funds to build a wall on the nation’s porous border with Mexico, the president issued the first-ever veto of his administration to keep the declaration intact.
The veto is Trump’s effort to defend the emergency he declared Feb. 15 under the National Emergencies Act of 1976.
Trump invoked the act as Congress gave final approval to a $333 billion omnibus spending bill. The legislation provides $1.375 billion for 55 miles of border barriers in Texas, well below the $5.7 billion Trump sought for a border wall and the $25 billion he originally said was needed. The emergency declaration moves around $6.7 billion in funding that was previously appropriated for other projects, largely for military construction. In his new fiscal 2020 budgetary blueprint provided to Congress March 11, the president is seeking another $8.6 billion to build the border wall.
On March 14 the Republican-dominated Senate approved a resolution 59-41 disapproving of Trump’s emergency declaration as 12 GOP senators joined Democrats. On Feb. 26 the Democrat-controlled House approved the disapproval resolution introduced by leftist Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) on a vote of 245 to 182.
The vetoed resolution now heads back to Congress where hostile lawmakers probably won’t be able to get the two-thirds supermajority in both chambers needed to override Trump’s veto and invalidate the emergency declaration.
But that won’t stop the open-borders crowd from trying.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday the House will try to override the veto in a vote March 26. She accused Trump of a “lawless power grab” and said the House “will once again act to protect our Constitution and our democracy from the president’s emergency declaration.”
Trump rejects the specious reasoning of the Left and NeverTrumpers.
In federal law, statutes are presumed to be constitutional and no one appears to have challenged the National Emergencies Act before Trump became president.
Trump didn’t go against the will of Congress, as his critics claim –he acted in accordance with the express will of Congress which, when Gerald Ford was in the White House, gave presidents the power to declare emergencies within certain parameters. If lawmakers are uncomfortable with the president possessing the power to move appropriated monies around, they should repeal the law that Congress passed instead of hiding behind dishonest, dumb reasoning. According to media reports, lawmakers are now considering repealing or changing the law.
But Trump, grounded in reality, is dealing with the law as it currently exists.
“Consistent with the law and the legislative process designed by our Founders, today I am vetoing this resolution,” Trump said in the Oval Office on the Ides of March.
“Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution, and I have the duty to veto it. And I’m very proud to veto it.”
Trump continued:
As president, the protection of the nation is my highest duty. Yesterday, Congress passed a dangerous resolution that, if signed into law, would put countless Americans in danger — very grave danger. The Democrat-sponsored resolution would terminate vital border security operations by revoking the national emergency issued last month. It is definitely a national emergency. Rarely have we had such a national emergency.
Therefore, to defend the safety and security of all Americans, I will be signing and issuing a formal veto of this reckless resolution … Congress’s vote to deny the crisis on the southern border is a vote against reality. It’s against reality. It is a tremendous national emergency. It is a tremendous crisis.
Last month, more than 76,000 illegal migrants arrived at our border. We’re on track for a million illegal aliens to rush our borders. People hate the word ‘invasion,’ but that’s what it is. It’s an invasion of drugs and criminals and people. We have no idea who they are, but we capture them because border security is so good. But they’re put in a very bad position, and we’re bursting at the seams.
“There has been a nearly 2,000 percent increase in border-related asylum claims over the last decade,” Trump said. 
“Part of the reason is because our country is doing so well economically that people are coming up in droves. The vast majority are rejected, but smuggling organizations — making a tremendous amount of money, like they’ve never made before — are using these people to crash the system. Our immigration system is stretched beyond the breaking point.”
This “mass incursion of illegal aliens, deadly drugs, dangerous weapons, and criminal gang members across our borders has to end.”
Trump noted that presidents have declared 59 national emergencies, mainly dealing with foreign countries, since 1976, “yet Congress has not terminated any of them.”
But the “only emergency Congress voted to revoke was the one to protect our own country.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen added “the fact that this is an emergency is undeniable.”
“The system is breaking. Security is at risk. And the very humanitarian protections that we hold dear in this country are at risk in terms of our ability to provide those to vulnerable populations.”
Attorney General William Barr told Trump his “declaration of an emergency on the southern border was clearly authorized under the law and consistent with past precedent.”
“What you’ve done from a legal standpoint is solidly grounded in law. And from the standpoint of protecting the American people, it’s imperative.”
Trump also issued a new executive order under the National Emergencies Act on March 15, titled an Executive Order on Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations.
The new order amends President Obama’s Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011 blocking property of transnational criminal organizations “in view of the evolution of these organizations as well as the increasing sophistication of their activities, which threaten international political and economic systems and pose a direct threat to the safety and welfare of the United States and its citizens, and given the ability of these organizations to derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct…”
Obama issued his order to fight drug cartels, including Los Zetas in Mexico, according to Breitbart News.
Obama’s order allowed the U.S. to block the property of any group of persons that “engages in an ongoing pattern of serious criminal activity involving the jurisdictions of at least two foreign states.”
Trump’s new order expanded the definition to apply to a group, “involving the jurisdictions of at least two foreign states, or one foreign state and the United States.”
“It’s a very good emergency that he signed,” Trump said last month. “And we’re going to use parts of it on our dealings on cartels. So that would be a second national emergency. But in that case it’s already in place.”
There are also multiple lawsuits filed by George Soros-funded advocacy groups and Democrat-controlled states like the lawless California pending against the Feb. 15 emergency declaration.
If Trump’s enemies –leftists, NeverTrumpers, and weak-kneed Republicans— fail to halt the emergency declaration in Congress, there is a good chance their allies, the politicians in black robes, will do their bidding.
Using the courts is, after all, their favorite way of undermining America.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
My friends, it could be time for me to be saying goodbye. Leftist and Islamic groups have been trying for years to silence all criticism of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others, and in the New Zealand massacre they see the best chance in a long time to move in for the kill. I (along with other foes of jihad terror) could be banned from everything and rendered a non-person, a la Alex Jones, any day now.
This is no exaggeration. Meeting in Istanbul, the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) has called on non-Muslim countries to ban “Islamophobia,” which means criticism of Islam, including analysis of the motivating ideology fueling jihad terror. IUMS President Ahmed al-Raisouni said Friday: “IUMS calls on non-Muslim countries to ban the spread of hatred against Islam and Muslims.”
Since analysis of the motivating ideology behind jihad terror is routinely smeared as “hatred of Islam and Muslims,” this will likely outlaw all such analysis and make opposition to jihad terror effectively impossible.
And these bans are very likely coming. In America, they won’t take the form of actual laws forbidding criticism of Islam (although remember that Tom Perez, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, refused to rule out the implementation of such laws a few years ago, when he was Assistant Attorney General in the Obama administration). They’re more likely to take the form of a complete deplatforming. We will be able to speak, but no one will be able to hear us, as we won’t be allowed on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the rest.
IUMS was not alone. Saudi King Salman tweeted: “The heinous massacre that targeted worshippers in the mosque in New Zealand is a terrorist act, and it reaffirms the responsibility of the international community in combating hate speech and terrorism that is not condoned by religions or the values of tolerance.” Apparently terrorism that is condoned by religions is fine with him, as in “strike terror in the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). But by “hate speech” he almost certainly means honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence.
Domestically, the call for censorship came from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has for years been trying to shut down all opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. They have succeeded in fooling many people into thinking that it is “bigotry” and “racism” to oppose jihad terror, and have made those who discuss the motivating ideology behind jihad terror toxic in the public square. Now Hamas-linked CAIR is attempting to use the New Zealand massacre to achieve total victory: the complete closure of all media platforms to foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression.
In its press conference on the New Zealand mosque shootings, CAIR top dog Nihad Awad (pictured above) named Donald Trump as responsible for the massacre, despite the fact that in the murderer’s insane “manifesto,” he asks himself: “Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?,” and answers: “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.” The “symbol of renewed white identity” part is all that the media is quoting. He never says he was incited to violence by Trump, or says anything about Trump and Muslims at all.
Awad also named Pamela Geller and me: “Years ago when another terrorist attacked in Norway he quoted islamophobes like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.” Yes, he also quoted Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy and Charles Darwin and a host of others. He said he was inspired to violent actions by al-Qaeda. Awad does not, of course, say anything about that.
Anyway, CAIR’s press conference was a full-court press for censorship, and it painted, yet again, a large target on our backs for increasingly unhinged and violent Leftists, as well as jihadis. CAIR calls for a total silencing on all platforms of so-called “hate groups,” i.e., those who dare to note that jihad terrorists are inspired by Islamic texts and teachings. It is likely that the social media giants will comply; it will not be at all surprising if they succeed in getting us completely silenced.
Not surprisingly, it was in Britain that police moved most swiftly on this. The BBC reported Saturday that “a 24-year old from Oldham” was arrested for a social media post “making reference and support for the terrible events” in New Zealand. Approving of a massacre is disgusting, and if he was calling for or approving of violence then there is no justification for that. At the same time, the BBC report says: “Social media firms and some news outlets have been criticised for sharing livestream footage of the attack and failing to address far-right extremism on their platforms.”
Calling for or justifying a massacre of innocent people is one thing. But that "failing to address far-right extremism on their platforms" is quite another. For years now, Leftists and Islamic supremacists have insisted that opposing jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women and others constitutes "far-right extremism." So it is likely that those who will be shut down will not be limited solely to people such as this “24-year-old from Oldham” who was “making reference and support for the terrible events.” It will include foes of jihad terror.
If and when we are all silenced, however, the jihad will not stop. The multicultural paradise will not dawn on the planet; in fact, there will be more jihad violence and strife than ever. There just won’t be anyone around who dares to oppose it.
* * *
Photo capture from YouTube
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational 
and research purposes:

[Sandro Magister | Lifesite News] It is a fact, not an opinion. The words “adultery” and “homosexuality” have both disappeared from the Magisterium of the Church, the highest, that which reports to the Roman pontiff.

About the first word this was already known. It disappeared completely just when it would have been most natural to say it, at the two synods on the family and shortly afterward, when Pope Francis settled the accounts in the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”
The disappearance of the second is more recent. And this too happened right at the moment at which it seemed impossible not to say it: at the February 21–24 summit at the Vatican on sexual abuse committed by priests and bishops, almost all of it against the young and very young of the same sex.
“It is known that when one wishes to marginalize or eliminate some truth, there is no need to contradict it openly; on the contrary, this would be the worst strategy, because it would prompt open reactions and draw attention. Much better, instead, to pass over it in silence, not talk about it anymore, to lock it up with the old junk in the attic or the basement, and over the span of some time all memory of it will be lost, and life will go on as if it were no longer there.”
This observation was made by Dom Giulio Meiattini, a Benedictine monk of the abbey of the Madonna della Scala in Noci, professor of theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm in Rome, in the preface to the second edition of his book “Amoris laetitia? The sacraments reduced to morality.”
The preface can be read in its entirety on the blog of Aldo Maria Valli. But it is enough here to sample the passages most focused on the banning of these two words.
Dom Meiattini writes:
The first change, which does not seem to have been grasped in its effective gravity because it has been dissembled, is the complete disappearance, not to say the banning, of the word ‘adultery.’ This is entirely absent from the two ‘Instrumenta laboris’ preceding the synods of 2014 and 2015, absent from the respective intermediate relations (‘Relationes post disceptationem’), never used by the two final documents submitted for the approval of the synod fathers, and finally definitively buried by ‘Amoris Laeitia.’ Not a detail of little account. The teaching of the Church, from the time of the Fathers, has always made unmistakable reference to the evangelical and New Testament texts relative to adultery as an essential part of its teaching on indissoluble marriage, with the relative consequences on pastoral practice and canonical discipline. In the aforementioned presynodal, synodal, and postsynodal documents, however, these passages are never expressly cited, apart from a couple of fragments of Mt 19:8-9, from which however is censored precisely the passage that makes explicit reference to adultery.
It is the passage in which Jesus says that “whoever repudiates his wife, except in case of concubinage, and marries another commits adultery.”
Dom Meiattini continues:
One must have the honesty to say it and to recognize it: already for some time in the Church there is very rarely any use of the word ‘adultery’ in preaching or in catechesis. Now instead, in deference to chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ the preference is to use the neutral and innocuous term ‘frailty,’ which in most cases also replaces the very word ‘sin.’ Occasional conjugal infidelity or stable new unions subsequent to the sole marriage celebrated before God are no longer designated with the appropriate term with which Jesus and the Christian tradition define them: adultery. … In the two synods and in ‘Amoris Laetitia’ the sin of adultery has been erased not with a sponge stroke, but rather with a stroke of silence: it is simply no longer spoken of. And what has become of all of those New Testament passages, above all from the gospels, that speak of it openly? All that appears of them is a faded reference in parentheses, preceded by the initials ‘cf.’
The disappearance of the second word from the Church’s magisterium — Dom Meiattini points out — has happened more gradually — first with a change of meaning and therefore of judgment, and then with its total abandonment.
The key moment of the change of judgment on homosexuality can be seen in paragraphs 50, 51, and 52 of the “Relatio post disceptationem” made public halfway through the 2014 synod on the family.
When on Ocober 13, 2014 the “Relatio” was presented to the press, cardinal delegate Péter Erdő — who formally figured as the author of the document — dissociated himself from those three paragraphs and attributed their surreptitious composition to Bruno Forte, appointed by the pope as special secretary of the synod. And the next day another cardinal of the highest rank, the South African Wilfrid Napier, denounced the irreparable damage that had been done with that coup de main: “The message has gone out: This is what the synod is saying, this is what the Catholic church is saying. No matter how we try correcting that … there’s no way of retrieving it.”
What was written, in fact, in those three paragraphs? That homosexual behaviors must be “accepted” and that “mutual support to the point of sacrifice constitutes a valuable mainstay for the life of couples of the same sex,” better still if gladdened by children.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Sandro Magister and first published at Lifesite News. This is not an endorsement of the theology of Lifesite News]


NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JANUARY 20: Desmond Napoles attends Derrick Barry Presents BRITNEY’S CIRCUS: The 10th Anniversary at Damrosch Park, Lincoln Center on January 20, 2019 in New York City.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[Amanda Prestigiacomo | Daily Wire] The parents of 11-year-old Desmond Napoles, a so-called “drag kid” known as “Desmond is Amazing,” have been investigated by authorities for alleged child abuse, confirmed mother Wendy Napoles via Instagram on Saturday.
As reported by The Daily Wire in December, Desmond, dressed in full drag, danced in a sexually suggestive manner on stage at a New York City-based gay bar called 3 Dollar Bill. As Desmond took off his jacket, howling men in the audience handed him dollar bills, as one might see at a strip club. The Daily Wire confirmed the existence of the disturbing “performance” but has chosen not to link to the exploitative footage.
Since the incident, authorities have been asked by concerned citizens to investigate the family for abuse. According to Life Site News, “Child Protective Services (CPS) investigated Desmond’s family, as did the New York City Administration for Child Services (ACS), the New York Police Department (NYPD), the Child Advocacy Center, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Department of Labor, and the District Attorney’s Office.”
The boy’s mother said in a post that authorities have claimed the abuse allegations are “unfounded.” Wendy evidenced this with screenshots of such determinations via social media.
“We have been accused of child abuse, exploitation & maltreatment to the point that we have been backed into a corner trying to defend ourselves,” she said, fashioning herself the victim. “We have been under a microscope since early December. I never thought I would have to breach my own privacy & confidentiality to provide proof that has been demanded of us out of malice,” she added. “ACS has investigated us thoroughly,” the mother continued. “Because of the number of reports they received, our case went all the way to the Governor’s office. We had announced visits & unannounced visits to our home nearly daily & at all hours & Desmond’s school. Our family was probed more intensely than any other case before. All allegations were ‘unfounded’. … On the plus side, ACS has been offering us many support services.”
“In addition, we were investigated by the NYPD, the Child Advocacy Center, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Department of Labor, and the District Attorney’s office. No abuse or maltreatment was found. No regulations for child performers were broken. No illegal activity has occurred,” she said.
“We deal with hate crimes & death threats perpetuated by ‘concerned citizens’ & have been stalked,” claimed Wendy. “The NYPD is assisting us. Desmond has extra security measures in place at his school. All of this because we allow Desmond to be himself & do what he loves. We are a loving and supporting family. Anyone who knows us or met us can attest to that.”
During a 2018 interview with The Daily Beast, Desmond said he’s happy to help “the LGBTQ community fight for our rights” and noted that his parents “love” that he does drag.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Amanda Prestigiacomo and originally published at the Daily Wire. Title changed by P&P.]


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
If you didn’t think there would ever come a day that the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination historically known for conservative values, would align with a gay Anglican priest, there’s bad news.
That day is today.
To be fair, this isn’t the first time that ultra-progressive Russell Moore has joined with the homosexual to advance a leftist agenda. Moore, the president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religous Liberty Commission, had previously partnered with the homosexual in a conference about the family, in which Allberry espoused his beliefs that the church should honor and respect “non-traditional” families. Allberry has also used his platform to encourage churches to endorse homosexuals adopting children. He has also encouraged homosexual men to have “intimate and physical” relationships with other homosexuals, so long as intercourse is not involved.
Allberry is popular among the Social Justice movement in Reformed evangelicalism, and is often highlighted at The Gospel Coalition, where he in an editor and writer. Sitting on TGC are men who were recently sitting on stage at John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference, including H.B. Charles, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and Mark Dever. During the ShepCon Q&A, Mohler said that “those who I platform…speak for where I stand on [Social Justice]. In all of Mohler’s career, it is doubtful that he has ever ‘platformed’ someone more than Russell Moore, who is now joining with Allberry for “The Dignity Revolution Q&A,” an event in Indianapolis on April 2nd.
Other Southern Baptists speaking with the homosexual priest are Dan Darling (the VP of Communications at the ERLC) and Trillia Newbell (the Director for Community Outreach at the ERLC). Jasmine Holmes is the daughter of Voddie Baucham, a fierce opponent of Social Justice, but is the wife of fully-woke racialist, Phillip Holmes (a “content strategist” for Desiring God” and Director of Communications at the James Riady-funded Reformed Theological Seminary).
Allberry claims to be a celibate homosexual. He does not believe, and neither does he teach, that God will renew the mind and heart of homosexuals upon conversion to desire heterosexuality. Allberry has been pivotal in turning the tide of opinion against the sinfulness of Same-Sex Attraction, teaching instead that the desire to sodomize others and to be sodomized is not a sin unless acted upon.
The Dignity Revolution Q&A is just one of many initiatives participated in by the ERLC – an organization in partnership with George Soros – to slowly change the voting habits of evangelicals as a part of a political mission.
Like Jim Wallis of Sojourners (with whom Russell Moore serves on Soro’s Evangelical Immigration Table), Moore and the Southern Baptist leftists on this panel shroud gay rights, socialism and the redistribution of wealth, and illegal immigration under the banner of ‘human flourishing,’ ‘human dignity,’ and ‘justice.’
[Editor’s Note: Contributed by JD Hall]


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Born in 385 in Roman Britannia in the town now known as Dumbarton, Scotland, Patrick is rightfully considered one of the greatest evangelists in Christian history. Considered a Catholic holiday by many, Protestants need not be afraid of taking part in the less-debaucherous festivities…so long as they’re wearing the right color.
Patrick begins his autobiography by writing these lines:
My name is Patrick. I am a sinner, a simple country person, and the least of all believers. I am looked down upon by many. My father was Calpornius. He was a deacon; his father was Potitus, a priest, who lived at Bannavem Taburniae. His home was near there, and that is where I was taken prisoner. I was about sixteen at the time.
Patrick’s father was a bishop (pastor) in the ancient ‘British’ Church (he was a Roman who came to Britain to govern the colony, and made his way to Scotland), long before the Roman Catholic church reconquered the West for paganism. He was taken captive by Irish pirates, who took him to Ireland and left him more than 200 miles inland, selling him as a slave. Patrick took upon himself to farm labor, tending sheep. Six years later, Patrick made a break for freedom and traveled back to the coast, where he caught a ride home.
During Patrick’s captivity, his faith grew, as it had to in order to give him the courage and will to survive. As he arrived home, his attention turned from mere survival to compassion for his former captors. He became a clergyman like his father before him, but longed to return to Ireland with the Gospel. Unlike his native home, Ireland was almost thoroughly pagan, with no Christian influence or had not undergone evangelism whatsoever.
Although certain of the details have been distorted by history and stretched by Romanists who later claimed him as one of their saints, we know that Patrick returned to Ireland with a Bible and with a dagger, in case he ran into trouble. It appears he first went back to his slave-master, and God converted him. Then, Patrick set his eyes upon the wicked king of Ireland, Loegaire.
Marching dramatically near the King’s castle with an army of newly converted Irishmen, Patrick refused to relent despite threats of death. Surrounded with the Gospel and the fearless Scotsman, Loegaire appears to have been legitimately converted by the Holy Spirit. By the time Patrick died in 461, Ireland had become thoroughly Christianized and Druidism was entirely absent.
Myths about Patrick range from fanciful to plausible. Patrick didn’t scare away the snakes of Ireland (they are not native to the Island nation, but may be a metaphor for the eradication of Druid priests). However, he probably did use the Shamrock as an object lesson about the Holy Trinity so that the pagans could understand the Triune God.
Ireland is now mixed between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and is a battle that is as much political as it is spiritual. On festive occasions, the Romanists decorate with green. But the Protestants decorate with orange. Protestants in Ireland (and around the world) revere William of Orange, the Protestant King who brought religious toleration to Great Britain. It’s for this reason that Protestants in Ireland have typically been loyalists to Great Britain and the Catholics have been dissenters from their union.
Most of the Irish immigrants to the Americas were disgruntled and disenchanted with the British empire adopting Protestantism, and so they brought with them their Irish tradition and the color green. So then, a green “St. Paddy’s Day” is all most Americans know.
For Protestants, however, we wear the color orange. So grab that orange-colored garment and throw it on this St. Paddy’s Day. When people try to pinch you for not wearing green, explain you’re a Protestant…and you preach the Gospel back at them.
While it is true that Patrick wasn’t a Protestant to the extent that his tradition came from the Protestant Reformation (he lived more than a thousand years before), he was no Roman Catholic. He was what Ian Paisley (a famous and sound Irish preacher) would call a proto-Protestant. Listen to that sermon here.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
If you had the chance to meet Joel and Victoria Osteen, two of the world’s most prominent purveyors of the prosperity gospel, would you beg them to stop twisting God’s word for profit? If you were able to sit down with Brian and Bobbie Houston, the founders of the worldwide prosperity movement that is Hillsong, would you rebuke them? If you had the opportunity to go on television with Matt and Laurie Crouch, who broadcast heresy into nearly every household in America through their TBN network, would you beg them to stop fleecing shut-ins for “seed money?” Each of the parties mentioned above are ravenous wolves. They are the very type of people that the Apostle Paul warned Titus about when he wrote the following:
For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
Titus 1:10
Titus was under Paul’s instructions to appoint elders in local churches. Paul very clearly instructed Titus that he should appoint no elder who was fond of sordid gain. To the contrary, Titus was to appoint men to lead churches who could rebuke the kind of ravenous wolves who taught the type of false doctrines purveyed by the Osteens, Houstons, and Crouches. This rebuke was to be done out of a proper understanding of God’s word.
Beth Moore is perhaps the most popular Bible teacher in America. She is, being a woman, not eligible to hold the pastoral office. Nevertheless, she teaches the Scriptures to as many women, if not more, than any pastor in the country. Beth Moore should know how to handle heretics like the Osteens. Beth Moore should know what to do with wolves.
Beth Moore, I believe, is a wolf. Birds of a feather flock together, wolves run in packs, and bad company corrupts good morals. When Beth Moore literally embraces heretics like Brian Houston and the Osteens, what else can I think? Beth Moore is clearly in the God business, right along with the Crouches…and it is a profitable one. In the course of her business, Beth Moore is set to appear this month for one of her Living Proofconferences at the flagship church of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bellevue Baptist in Memphis. That church is pastored by former SBC President Steve Gaines, who was a member of the study committee that helped to draft the official confession of faith of America’s largest protestant denomination. That church was formerly pastored by the great Adrian Rogers, who chaired the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Committeeand led the Southern Baptist Convention back from the brink of liberalism in the early 1980s.
Surely, Joel Osteen would never be allowed to host a conference or fill the pulpit at Bellevue Baptist Church…but Beth Moore is coming and being embraced with open arms. Is Steve Gaines letting a wolf in his pulpit? Sadly, that’s a moot point. Adrian Rogers’ old pulpit at Bellevue is already filled by a man who would preach prosperity theology. That man is Steve Gaines himself, who once warned his congregation that their children would get sick if they didn’t tithe (to his church).
Beth Moore isn’t someone to warn Bellevue Baptist members about, she is a judgement upon them. They already tolerate Steve Gaines. Surely the women there hunger to hear a speaker like Moore, and this March they will flock to her. God only knows if their kids, in the midst of allergy season in the south, will get runny noses.
*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use. I exhort you to read the powerful testimony of a pastor’s wife named Lauran who grew up at Bellevue and now seeks to warn other women about Beth Moore and her ilk.