"NOAH" MOVIE'S "ARTISTIC LICENSE" BY FOUL MOUTHED PRODUCER RESULTS IN UNBIBLICAL PERVERSION OF STORY

The Noah Movie Deception; 

Promotes an Environmentalist Religion

SEE: 

Russell Crowe’s ‘Noah’ Film – A Warning For Christians

http://beginningandend.com/russell-crowes-noah-film-a-warning-for-christians/

Published on Mar 27, 2014 on YouTube: 

This video explores Paramount Pictures' movie "Noah," starring Russell Crowe and directed/co-written by Darren Aronofsky.

Did you know that Noah was a liberal, eco-warrior and the world's first environmentalist? Did you know that Noah was really an uncaring, "dark," murderous, axe wielding person? Did you know that Noah threatened to kill his eldest son's wife and her unborn daughter because he didn't want the earth to be re-populated? Did you know that Noah's really old pal Methuselah was a witch doctor who helped guide Noah spiritually? Did you know that Noah enlisted the help of Satan's fallen angels to protect him while building the ark? What? You didn't know all of this? Of course not! Because none of it is true!
To read our in-depth article on the movie Noah, please visit:
http://www.goodfight.org/a_v_noah_mov...
To learn more about our ministry, please visit:
http://www.goodfight.org

The Noah Movie Deception Message Part 1 by Joe Schimmel:

Published on Mar 24, 2014

In this sermon, Pastor Joe Schimmel reveals the twisted story line of the new movie Noah and how it is the most unbiblical Bible movie ever made.
Joe Schimmel is pastor of Blessed Hope Chapel in California www.blessedhopechapel.org
and founder of Good Fight Ministries www.goodfight.org
He is author of the video series' such as "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll", "Hollywood's War on God" and the "The Submerging Church" among many others.
You can download all Joe's sermons on podcast by searching "Blessed Hope Chapel" in the iTunes store, and subscribing.
In my opinion Joe Schimmel is the most doctrinally accurate minister I have ever heard and is more in touch with what satan is doing in our modern culture than any man on earth today.

The Noah Movie Deception Message Part 2 by Joe Schimmel:

The Noah Movie Deception and the Last Days:

SEE ARTICLE BY JOE SCHIMMEL:

http://goodfight.org/a_v_noah_movie_deception.html; page 1 of 5:

By: Joe Schimmel

Did you know, according to Hollywood, that the main reason God destroyed the ancient world with a flood was because of a lack of environmental activism and overpopulation? Did you know that Noah was a liberal eco-terrorist and the world’s “first environmentalist”? Did you know that Noah was really a callous, dark person? Did you know that Noah was a drunken, axe-wielding murderer? Did you know that Noah threatened to kill his eldest son’s wife and her unborn daughter, because he didn’t want the earth to be repopulated? Did you know that Noah’s old pal Methuselah (really old pal) was a witch doctor who guided Noah spiritually? Did you know that Noah enlisted the help of Satan’s fallen angels to protect him while building the ark?

What? You didn’t know these things? Weren't you listening in Sunday school as a child? Did you miss all of this when you first read the biblical account of Noah and the great flood in the book of Genesis? Of course you didn’t miss these things, because they never happened! The Noah movie, released by Paramount Pictures on March 28th, 2014, will not be the first film used by the liberal Hollywood elite to target Christians and exploit, politicize and twist biblical truth. Nor will it be the last time Hollywood engages in a colossal effort, to the tune of a $160 million, to deceive and make a buck off the faithful. (Source)

The reason I have entitled this article “The Noah Movie Deception and the Last Days” is because Christians are being herded like lost sheep to see a movie which does not reflect its biblical billing. Many, after viewing Paramount’s misleading trailer and reading their bogus claim that the movie “is inspired by the story of Noah” and “is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide,” (Source) are in for a very rude awakening!

Who are you to believe? Paramount, who wants to make big money off of unsuspecting Christians on their whopping investment, or Noah director, Darren Aronofsky, who blatantly admits about the movie “Anything you're expecting, you're f**king wrong,” and “Noah is the LEAST BIBLICAL film ever made.” (Source)

Paramount’s Conundrum

The truth is, reviews of screenings of the movie Noah reveal that it is an utter corruption of the Word of God and actually turns the bible inside out. It is especially telling that Paramount ended up in a huge conundrum after press reviews of the initial screenings found that many Christians were upset because the Noah film was not true to the biblical narrative. This should not be a great surprise, as Noah director Darren Aronofsky, promotes Antichrist, occult and Gnostic elements by the boat load in his other movies (more on that later in this article). Add to this the fact that Aronofsky approaches the Noah story as a “great fable,” and has no reason to approach the sacred story with any sense of sanctity or reverence for God. Aronofsky admitted:

“I don’t think it’s a very religious story...I think it’s a great fable that’s part of so many different religions and spiritual practices.” –Darren Aronofsky, Variety 2012

However, there are many Scientists who believe there was a worldwide flood and that Noah was a real person. If there had been a worldwide flood, we would expect to see evidence that the highest mountains were once under water, and so we do. We would expect to see evidence of mass fossil graveyards throughout the earth, with millions of creatures suddenly buried in flood sediments, and so we do. We would expect to have extra biblical accounts of a worldwide flood from other cultures around the world and again, so we do! Most importantly, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself confirmed the historical event of Noah and the flood by repeatedly warning that the end of days, before His glorious return, would in fact be like the days of Noah, before the flood (Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 17:26-30).

Making things even worse for Paramount was the FDC’s (Faith Driven Consumers) revelation that the result of a 5,000-person survey found that 98 percent of Christian consumers would have no interest in seeing a movie about Noah, if it was not biblically based. To which the very arrogant Aronofsky responds "I don't give a f*** about the test scores. My films are outside the scores." (Source)

Aronofsky seems to have no qualms about alienating Christians who might have otherwise been bamboozled to see he film by Paramount’s bogus, biblically based claim. His penchant for repeatedly dropping F-bombs and telling believers how “f**king wrong" they are to expect Noah to be biblical and “I don't give a f*** about the test scores,” further admitting that “Noah is the LEAST BIBLICAL film ever made," will not go over well with sincere Christians.

Paramount sought to do damage control by cutting a more biblically-based edition of the movie, which the New Yorker characterized as “an 86-minute beatitude that began with a montage of religious imagery and ended with a Christian rock song.” (Source)

However, Aronofsky’s perverse version will be the one that hits theatres March 28, 2014. The Los Angeles Times reported that Paramount wanted “to make a more biblically-accurate film, while filmmaker Aronofsky had different ideas.” However, unfortunately for Christians, Aronofsky boasted, “My version of the film…was greenlighted,” and the Hollywood Reporter revealed that “Paramount is fully supporting his version,” of the Noah story. (Source)

No wonder Paramount posted a “disclaimer” on their website referencing “artistic license,” allowing the movie plenty of unbiblical and diabolical wiggle room. Perhaps it would have been more accurate if Paramount used the disclaimer “narcissistic license,” as Aronofsky appears to be using the movie to tell us more about his own story and his liberal views, rather than God’s version of Noah’s story!

Should we expect more from a director who has made a slew of Gnostic themed movies and who praises the Nephilim (“fallen ones”)? When Aronofsky tweeted that Nick Nolte would be playing the role of the fallen angel Samyaza (another name for Satan) who, according to the extra-biblical book of Enoch, is the one who led a revolt where the “sons of God” took for themselves the “daughters of men,” begetting Nephilim, Aronofsky praised the evil Nephiim, tweeting, "just added the legend in #noah . long live the nephilim! it was an honor." (Source)

Obviously, Aronofsky’s triumphant praise of God’s enemies, “long live the nephilim!” is something no God-fearing man or woman could ever utter.

Was Noah the First Environmentalist?

Sadly, the Noah movie, rather than pointing people to the need to repent of the wickedness that was so prevalent in Noah’s day, and for which the world was then destroyed, Aronofsky chose to use the film to blaspheme God’s righteous and loving character and to propagate the leftist global agenda of environmentalism. In fact, Aronofsky tells us what the Noah story is really about:

“It’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist.”(Source)

Aronofsky’s propaganda is seen in a script of Noah that was released online. According to the script, Noah’s wife Naameh asks him why God is about to destroy the world. Noah is then given a vision by God of the original pristine creation, before man destroyed the environment. Noah replies to his wife, “Because it [the creation] is dying already. At our hand, all he created is dying…If we work to save it, perhaps he will too.” Hence, according to the Noah movie, the way to be saved is not though the grace and forgiveness of sin that comes through repentant faith, but by doing enough works to save planet earth and by becoming a good little environmentalist. Indeed, later in the movie, Noah says, “We must change. We must treat the world with mercy so that the Creator will show us mercy…We must respect the ground, respect the rivers and seas. Respect the other beasts of the Earth.”

However, when we read the biblical narrative the environment is not even at issue! Rather, humanity's wicked defiance of God’s moral law, including perpetual violence and rampant sexual perversion, are the reasons that God gives in His Word for flooding planet earth:

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”… Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:4-7, 10-11).

(Continued...)

____________________________________________

Ray Comfort: 'Noah' Movie Disrespectful, Not Biblically Accurate:

Noah Film is Massive Anti-Human Propaganda:

Published on Apr 1, 2014

David wraps the days broadcast discussing the current media attacks on global warming skeptics, the propagandizing of the story of Noah from the Bible as a story of global warming dangers.

In "Noah", The Fallen Angels Are The Good Guys:

Published on Apr 1, 2014

As we've reported NOAH, completely corrupts the biblical version of events to paint a picture of an earth suffering under the environmental extremism of man, but it also fully distorts the biblical story of Noah by making the fallen angels the good guys. The nephilim of the Bible corrupted the human race by mating with the sons of man; creating hybrid nephilim, teaching humans sorcery and war, and convincing man to worship the nephilim and their hybrid offspring as gods. It is this corruption of the human race that brought the floods, yet Hollywood now wants to rewrite history by portraying these fallen angels as the heroes in the story.
http://www.infowars.com/in-noah-the-f...

From Lighthouse Trails Research at: 

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15024:

According to New Noah Movie, Noah Was An Ungodly Man:

 March 29th, 2014 |  Author: A Ministry in His Service

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. . . . Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.—Genesis 6:8-9

“The Noah Movie Deception and the Last Days”

By Joe Schimmel
Good Fight Ministries

Did you know that Noah was a liberal, eco-warrior and the world’s first environmentalist? Did you know that Noah was really an uncaring, “dark,” murderous, axe wielding person? Did you know that Noah threatened to kill his eldest son’s wife and her unborn daughter because he didn’t want the earth to be re-populated? Did you know that Noah’s really old pal Methuselah was a witch doctor who helped guide Noah spiritually? Did you know that Noah enlisted the help of Satan’s fallen angels to protect him while building the ark? What? You didn’t know all of this? Of course not! Because none of it is true!

What? You didn’t know these things? Weren’t you listening in Sunday school as a child? Did you miss all of this when you first read the biblical account of Noah and the great flood in the book of Genesis? Of course you didn’t miss these things, because they never happened! The Noah movie, released by Paramount Pictures on March 28th, 2014, will not be the first film used by the liberal Hollywood elite to target Christians and exploit, politicize and twist biblical truth. Nor will it be the last time Hollywood engages in a colossal effort, to the tune of a $160 million, to deceive and make a buck off the faithful. Click here to read this entire article by Joe Schimmel. See Good Fight Ministries video on Noah movie below.

______________________________________________________________

From Lighthouse Trails Research at:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15030

Mark Driscoll’s Distorted View on Noah and Salvation . . . (And How Some People Have a Very Strange Idea as to the Meaning of God’s Salvation)

 March 30th, 2014 |  Author: Lighthouse Trails Editors

LTRP Note: With the release of the Hollywood movie Noah and its blasphemous representation of God’s truth as told in the Bible and an outright attack on Bible-believing Christians, coupled with emerging Christian figures (such as Mark Driscoll who misses the point while trying to make a point in his claims that Noah was not a righteous man1), the article below by Dr. Harry Ironside is timely.

Unfortunately, teachers like Mark Driscoll further confuse the Gospel message. In Driscoll’s so-called defense of the biblical account of Noah, he says that the Noah account was an example of God’s grace and that it had nothing to do with Noah’s righteousness or even Noah’s faith in God. And in fact, in a sermon by Mark Driscoll, he says that Noah was “bad all of the time” (see video clip below). This is a commonly believed and twisted view of God and salvation that says God chooses some and rejects others, based on nothing more than God’s own personal whim rather than on one’s  faith or trust in God (“without faith it is impossible to please [God]“—Hebrews 11:6). In actuality, the story of Noah is about God saving the one man on the earth who had faith in God as Dr. Ironside explains below. And Scripture is very clear that God called Noah a righteous man.

In this day and age when not only the world but also Christian leaders are turning a blind eye to sin, looking for an excuse to sin (such as World Vision’s recent announcement that they were going to start hiring homosexual couples2), let us, as Bible-believing Christians, remember that while we know we are saved only by God’s grace and of no righteousness of our own, we are to strive to be holy (sanctified, set apart) as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16), forsaking the ways of the world to walk with Him. It is the life and righteousness of Christ in us that compels us and gives us the strength that we so desperately need.

By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:2)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it isthe gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9)

Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. (Genesis 6:22)

And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. (Genesis 7:1)

The word of the Lord came again to me, saying, Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it: Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God. (Ezekiel 14:12-14)

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)

By Dr. Harry Ironside

Salvation is beautifully illustrated away back in the Old Testament. You remember when God was about to bring the flood of judgment upon the earth, He commanded Noah to build an ark for the saving of his house. Then when the ark was all completed, God said to Him, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark.” When they entered the ark, they were safe there until the judgment was passed, until in God’s due time they came out upon a new earth.

Noah, like Abraham, is a very striking example of one who has been declared righteous because of his faith. It was faith that led him to prepare an ark for the saving of his house, when there seemed no evidence of a coming flood. It was faith that led him to obey God and enter that ark, with all his family, when commanded to do so by God. Inside the ark all were secure until the deluge was over. They were kept by omnipotent power. The ark bore all the brunt of the storm. Noah and his household were shut in by God, who had Himself closed the door. The same hand that shut them in shut all the unbelieving antediluvian world outside. The ark was a type of Christ. All who are in Christ are eternally secure.

Suppose when the ark was completed God had said, “Now, Noah, go and get eight large, strong spikes and drive them into the side of the ark.” Imagine Noah procuring these spikes and doing as commanded. Then when each spike was securely fastened, let us presume that God said, “Come thou and all thy house and take hold of these spikes, and all who hang on to the end of the flood will be saved.” How long do you think Noah and the rest would have been secure?

I can imagine each one taking hold of a spike—then the waters rising as the rain poured down. In a few minutes, they would have been soaked to the skin. Then think of the terrific strain on joints and muscles as the ark was lifted from the earth and began its perilous voyage through the raging waters. I think I hear Noah calling to his wife, “Mother, how is it going; all is well?”

And she calls back, “I’m holding on. Do pray for me that I may be able to hold out to the end!”

Soon poor Mrs. Ham would cry out, “It’s no use, can’t hang on any longer. I am going to backslide.” And she would let go and be swept away by the flood. How long do you suppose it would be before every one of them would be obliged to let go and so go down to death?

Thank God, that is not a true picture of His salvation. He is not calling men to hang on to Christ. But just as Noah entered into the ark and found there perfect security, so every believer is in Christ and saved for eternity. It is not a question of our ability to hang on, but of Christ’s ability to carry us safely through to the glory. He who has begun the good work in us will perfect it until the day of manifestation.

When God justifies a sinner, that sinner is in Christ; and there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. It is true that inside the ark order should prevail. I have no doubt that Noah and his family all sought to behave themselves inside the ark as those who owed everything to the matchless grace of God which had delivered them. So you and I should devote all our lives and powers to the glory of Him who has saved us. But our salvation does not depend upon our devotedness and faithfulness. It depends upon His faithfulness. “He is faithful who hath promised.”

(From Dr. Ironside’s book, Great Words of the Gospel – chapter 10 – public domain)

Video clip of Mark Driscoll saying Noah was not a righteous man:
(posting this video is not meant to be an endorsement of the source but rather posted for informational and research purposes)

Mark Driscoll Loves Theology More Than Scripture - 

Re: Noah Wasn't a Righteous Man:

The Globalist Agenda Behind Noah:

Published on Apr 3, 2014

Alex Discusses the new film Noah and how it's just another propaganda tool for eugenics and how the NWO wants us to believe how God works.
http://www.infowars.com/in-noah-the-f...
http://www.infowars.com/elite-eugenic...

ARONOFSKY’S GNOSTIC RENDITION OF NOAH 

(Friday Church News Notes, April 11, 2014, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from “Sympathy for the Devil,” Brian Mattson’s review of the movie Noah starring Russell Crowe, April 2, 2014, drbrianmattson.com: “I discovered what Darren Aronofsky’s first feature film was: Pi. Want to know its subject matter? ... Kabbalah. ... The world of Aronofsky’s Noah is a thoroughly Gnostic one: a graded universe of ‘higher’ and ‘lower.’ The ‘spiritual’ is good, and way, way, way ‘up there’ where the ineffable, unspeaking god dwells, and the ‘material’ is bad, and way, way down here where our spirits are encased in material flesh. ... Kabbalah has a pantheon of angelic beings of its own all up and down the ladder of ‘divine being.’ And fallen angels are never totally fallen in this brand of mysticism. ... They redeem themselves, shed their outer material skin, and fly back to the heavens. ... What!? Demons are redeemed? Adolphe Franck explains the cosmology of Kabbalah: ‘Nothing is absolutely bad; nothing is accursed forever--not even the archangel of evil or the venomous beast, as he is sometimes called. There will come a time when he will recover his name and his angelic nature.’ .... when Gnostics speak about ‘The Creator’ they are not talking about God. ... the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low-level deity. He’s responsible for creating the ‘unspiritual’ world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the ‘only God’ and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him ‘Yahweh.’ ... This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden. In other words, in case you’re losing the plot here: The serpent was right all along. This ‘god,’ ‘The Creator,’ whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself. ... Let’s go back to the movie. The action opens when Lamech is about to bless his son, Noah. Lamech, rather strangely for a patriarch of a family that follows God, takes out a sacred relic, the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden. He wraps it around his arm, stretches out his hand to touch his son--except, just then, a band of marauders interrupts them and the ceremony isn’t completed. Lamech gets killed, and the ‘villain’ of the film, Tubal-Cain, steals the snakeskin. Noah, in other words, doesn’t get whatever benefit the serpent’s skin was to bestow. ... The rainbows don’t come at the end because God makes a covenant with Noah. The rainbows appear when Noah sobers up andembraces the serpent. He wraps the skin around his arm, and blesses his family. It is not God that commissions them to now multiply and fill the earth, but Noah, in the first person, ‘I,’ wearing the serpent talisman. ... The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: ‘it’s a conversation starter,’ ‘at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,’ etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for ‘not following the Bible.’ ... Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces. I believe Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us ... He’s having quite the laugh. And shame on everyone who bought it.”

WORLD VISION~BOARD MEMBERS WITH LIBERAL GAY AFFIRMING PCUSA~STEARNS' "GOSPEL HOLE"~PROMOTER OF CONTEMPLATIVE BRIAN MCLAREN

Republished from Lighthouse Trails Research at:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=5214; below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Book Review: "The Hole in Our Gospel" 

(by World Vision’s Richard Stearns)

 November 5th, 2010 |  Author: A Ministry in His Service

LTRP Note: World Vision has done much work in aiding the poor and needy throughout the world. Unfortunately, they have shown a progression of going toward the “new” emerging spirituality, a spirituality that negates the true Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Because World Vision has professed to represent Christianity, and because they have drawn countless Christian supporters based on that, it is important that their Christian supporters understand the non-biblical direction in which they are heading. Please also read LT articles: Film Warning: “With God on Our Side” – Championed by Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren & Steve Haas (World Vision) and World Vision Promotes Emerging Leader, Brian McLaren

The Hole in our Gospel By Richard Stearns
A book critique by Pastor Paul D. Van Noy 
Candlelight Fellowship, Idaho
Used with Permission

“The Hole in our Gospel,” by Richard Stearns, the recent Christian Book of the Year and apparently headed to be a New York Times best seller, is the newest danger to come against true Believers in the Church Age. It promotes a false gospel within a socialistic philosophy. It fails miserably in its hermeneutic, is ecumenical in focus, promotes human performance as a method of pleasing God, and believes people on earth can do good to “usher in the Kingdom.”

Richard Stearns writes from a “Kingdom Dominion” perspective and embraces anAmillennial or Postmillennial eschatology. He has embraced a social gospel and mingles “grace through faith” with “grace plus work,” which dangerously dilutes the power of God’s redeeming Grace. In his words, “This gospel – the whole gospel – means much more than the personal salvation of individuals. It means a social revolution.” (Pg 20, Emphasis original) 

Continuing, Stearns says:

 “The gospel that we have been given – the whole gospel – is God’s vision for a new way of living.” (Pg. 276) “Christ’s vision was of a redeemed world order populated by redeemed people – now. To accomplish this, we are to be salt and light in a dark and fallen world, the “yeast” that leavens the whole loaf of bread (the whole of society). Weare the ones God has called to be His Church. It’s up to us. We are to be the change. But a changed world requires change agents, and change agents are people who have first been changed themselves.” (Pgs 243-244, Italics emphasis original)

As stated above, Stearns says we are the “yeast” that leavens “the whole loaf of bread.” The definition of leaven/yeast in the Scriptures is debated by scholars.* All definitions associated with “yeast” in the Gospels indicate a reference to bad doctrine, evil, impurity, and hypocrisy. It is most often used in association with the Pharisees and sin. The two passages referred to by Stearns, Matt. 13:33, Luke 13:21, are interpreted in a variety of ways by a variety of scholars. Mat 13:33 reads

“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.”

However Stearns intends to use this verse, we understand the Scriptures to say that the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. He makes it clear that he thinks we are the gospel. He says,

“The words of the Lord’s prayer…are a clarion call to Jesus’ followers not just to proclaim the good news but to be the good news, here and now.” (Pg 20, Italics emphasis original)

Either way, he fails to communicate the true Gospel when making this statement. If he is saying we are the gospel then we are all in a lot of trouble. We are not the Gospel. The Gospel comes to us. We can’t save anyone!

I do appreciate the passion and desired focus the author has for the poor and needy. Poverty throughout the world has motivated a desire to care for the poor throughout the majority of our lives. At the church I pastor, we engage in missions work to spread the Gospel. In addition to many missions programs on which we focus, individuals in our church sponsor over 1,000 children through Compassion International – an organization similar to the one represented by the author.

I also understand that the author may not be a Biblical scholar. This fact can be seen throughout the book in what appears to be a flip-flop from theological position to theological position. Below is one such example. In his effort to articulate this struggle he brings light to the conflict between salvation by faith alone and the faith plus error. Stearns writes,

“One of the things drummed into my head as a young Christian was the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone and not by works.

Understanding and applying this simple truth has been at the root of fierce and contentious debates throughout the long history of the Christian faith. Indeed, the notion that one could be saved by doing enough good work – and could even purchase one’s justification through the buying of ‘indulgences’ – was ultimately the root cause of Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Roman Catholic system in the sixteenth century, leading to the protestant Reformation.

This same basic debate has seesawed back and forth within the Church since Luther’s day, with the pendulum swinging more toward faith in some groups and more toward works in others. But faith and works were never meant to be in dichotomy. We need only to look at the primary proof text for salvation by faith alone to see the unity of faith and works intended in scripture:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, though faith – and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

For the ‘faith-only’ crowd, this one verse seems to win the argument. But if we look at the very next verse, we will understand the harmony between faith and works: ‘For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do’ (v 10). Taken together, this powerful passage tells us that we are indeed saved through faith alone, the amazing gift of a loving God, but that we are saved for a purpose: to do good works God actually prepare beforehand for us to carry out. Simply put, we are: saved BY faith… saved FOR works.” (Pgs 198-199)

There is truth in the comments above. However, as we will see, the message is muddied by poor application and weak hermeneutics throughout his book. The resulting message is blurry at best, and egregious in its conclusions. 

Here is a very brief example of just a few places that communicate this error. Please note the socialistic tone. When commenting on Isaiah 58, Stern says,

“These words describe a people and a society characterized by justice, fairness, and a concern for the poor. They portray not just a personal ethic but also a community ethic. The reference to ‘break[ing] every yoke’ suggests that any system, law, or practice that is unjust must be broken – whether personal, social, political, or economic. This sounds a lot like what I described earlier as the ‘whole gospel,’ the good news…” (Pg 56)

Richard goes on to say:

“God will delight in His people when they obey Him. When the hungry are fed, the poor are cared for, and justice is established, He will hear and answer His servant’s prayers; He will guide them and protect them, and they will be a light to the world. This is a vision of God’s people transforming God’s world in God’s way. There is no hole in this gospel.” (Pg 57)

I am forced to ask: Can God delight in His people when the hungry are not fed, the poor are not cared for, and when there is yet injustice in the world? Will He refuse to hear and answer our prayers or refuse to guide and protect us when we fail to transform the world? After all, Jesus said “The poor you have with you always.” (John 12:8)

This being said, we know we will fail to solve the problem. (I am not suggesting we abandon our desire to help those in poverty.) Secondly, Paul told Timothy, “…evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13) So, until Christ comes and rules with a rod of iron, (in the Kingdom age) there will be injustice. Have we no hope of protection or hope of answered prayers until then? Does this message comfort the poor in spirit who are weak and need encouragement – now? Is this the message of the whole Gospel?

Stearns continues:

“If we are to be a part of this coming kingdom, God expects our lives – our churches and faith communities too – to be characterized by these authentic signs of our own transformation: compassion, mercy, justice, and love – demonstrated tangibly. Only then will our light break forth like the dawn, our healing quickly appear, and our cries for help be answered with a divine Here am I.” (Pg. 57, Italics emphasis in original)

Isaiah 58 was written to the Jews under the Old Covenant and does not provide a picture of the way God deals with individuals today in the Church Age. To suggest it does would be to say, “God expects us” to provide “authentic signs of our own transformation: compassion, mercy, justice, and love – demonstrated tangibly” if we are to expect God to answer “our cries for help with a divine Here am I.” This is a hermeneutical failure and it communicates a false gospel – of works.

Continuing in the same theme, Stearns uses Matthew 25, (the parable of the sheep and goats) to describe the “final judgment” (pg 58) He incorrectly applies this passage to the Church and says that:

“Those who had failed to respond, whose faith found no expression in compassion to the needy, were banished into eternal fire.” (Pg 59)

Stearns misapplies the sheep and goat judgment to include the Church, calls it the final judgment, which is untrue, (the Great White Throne judgment is the final judgment) and suggests that our works will ultimately be the determining factor for salvation, and makes the least of these the poor. The literal context concerns the judgment of Gentile nations at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. The resulting life or death decision made by the Lord concerns their treatment of Israel – Jesus’ brethren – during the preceding Tribulation. Those found worthy are granted entrance into the Millennial Kingdom – the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth. Entrance to the Kingdom provides “eternal life” to those who, as believing residents of His Kingdom, willingly submit to Christ’s rule. To suggest that one’s eternal salvation is guaranteed, or otherwise offered, as a result of behavior toward the poor, is not the true Gospel. 

Following Stearns pattern he then makes apology for the interpretive echo saying:

“But I want to be clear that this does not mean we are saved by piling up enough good works to satisfy God. It means that any authentic and genuine commitment to Christ will be accompanied by demonstrable evidence of a transformed life.” He then provides 1 John 2:3-4 as his proof text, “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (Pg 59)

When giving this application as part of the context the reader is forced to ask a few questions. For example: Does this mean that any believer who does not or has not given to the poor is unsaved? Does this mean that the believer who has not or does not give to the poor is in danger of losing their salvation? You can see the danger this loosely communicated message provides. Stearns even follows up his thoughts by driving this pain deeper into the soul of his reader when he says,

“…many who profess to follow Christ, will be found, in the end, to be false, deceiving even themselves.” (Pg 60)

Stearns also says:

“We would much rather believe that the only things needed for our salvation are saying the right words and believing the right things – not living the lives that are characterized by Christ’s concern for the poor.” (Pg 59)

I am forced to ask, how much “concern for the poor” is enough? How much do Christians have to “express in their compassion to the needy” to be assured they will not be “banished into eternal fire”? This kind of message leads only to fear and bondage. Not freedom in Christ!  

Reinforcing the works based message he encourages the reader to actively pursue expressions of giving and serving as a “pattern of their lives and faith.” He says:

“That expression might involve small but regular gifts to compassion ministries, advocating on behalf of the poor, to government representatives, or regular volunteering at a soup kitchen, the local nursing home, or the Ronald McDonald House…” (Pg 60)

Once again I ask, is giving to a government agency (of all places), the Ronald McDonald house, serving at a nursing home, or volunteering at a soup kitchen the method of being assured that our salvation is secure in Christ? Is this the Gospel without a hole in it?

Stearns message is the muddy water of a false gospel that clearly mingles faith and works as the formula for salvation. This message is not good news!

If a person has no “demonstrable evidence of a transformed life” is he or she to be considered unsaved by those who do? (1 Cor 3:15) Can the poor themselves be saved if they have nothing to give? Can an incarcerated man or woman be saved if they cannot give “small but regular gifts to compassion ministries, advocating on behalf of the poor to government representatives”? Can a child be saved and assured of salvation if they fail to volunteer “at a soup kitchen, the local nursing home, or the Ronald McDonald House…”? Stearns says:

“There is no ‘whole gospel’ without compassion and justice shown to the poor. It’s that simple.” (Pg 60)

It may seem like I am splitting hairs, but can you see the bondage to works this “whole gospel” develops?   

If Stearns had said, “those who are born again should be reminded to care for the poor,” he would have been scriptural in his presentation. However, by suggesting that the message of the Gospel is incomplete, and has a hole in it, because it doesn’t declare, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” ‘and care for the poor’ and you shall be saved,” we are preaching a gospel with a hole in it. This brings “The Hole in Our Gospel” my criticism. By communicating this very thing Stearns has set himself up as one who is proclaiming a false gospel – not the “whole” gospel he intends us to embrace. (Gal. 1)

While there are many other examples of his bad theology in his book, it is not my intention to condemn Richard Stearns with this critique. I trust his motivation is sincere and driven by a passion for the poor. It likewise appears that he desires to please the Lord. I pray that as he matures in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, these things will become clearer to him. My reason for putting this in writing is to make my voice known in defense of the faith and as an alarm for the Church—not to fall for another non-scriptural fad—regardless how well-meaning it is.

I have seen the fruit of this message and its agonizing effect on the Church. Believers who embrace this kind of teaching are hard pressed to answer (for themselves and for others) just how much work, service, giving, et al, is enough to meet God’s standard to keep them from being a disappointment to Him.

Mistakenly trying to do enough good in their own flesh to be more pleasing to God, believers eventually become miserable and live under the guilt of doing too little to measure up. They are ultimately afraid of being “banished into eternal fire” (Pg 59) by the God who will not say “Here am I” (Pg 57) to them. I have found this most often in hospital rooms and around the beds of the dying. It is truly agonizing to watch believers enter into eternity in fear – fear of being cast away.

This kind of bondage, no matter how packaged, should be enthusiastically avoided.

                                                            END

Notes:

*Under the Mosaic law, yeast was forbidden in bread used in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover (Ex 12:8,15 – 20; Lev 23:6 – 8), and similar exclusion of yeast applied to offerings placed on the altar (Exo 23:18; 34:25; Lev 2:11; 6:17). The only exceptions were the use of yeast in the two wave loaves offered as firstfruits (Lev 23:17) and some of the cakes of bread offered with the fellowship offerings (Lev 7:13).

Yeast, which brings about fermentation, is uniformly regarded in Scripture as typifying the presence of impurity or evil (Exo 12:15,19; 13:7; Lev 2:11; Deu 16:4; Mat 16:6,12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6 – 9; Gal 5:9). The two wave loaves, representing Israel and the Gentiles as forming the Church, contained yeast in recognition of imperfections in the believers (see Lev 23:17, note). The use of yeast in the flour seems intended likewise to represent evil within the kingdom of heaven. The teaching that yeast in this parable represents the beneficent influence of the Gospel pervading the world has no Scriptural justification. Nowhere in Scripture does yeast represent good; the idea of a converted world at the end of the age is contradicted by the presence of weeds among the wheat and bad fish among the good in the kingdom itself. Although Biblical truth has a beneficial moral influence on the world, the mingling of yeast is not the method of divine salvation or enlargement of the kingdom. Weeds never become wheat. The parable is, therefore, a warning that true doctrine, represented by the flour, would be corrupted by false doctrine (1 Tim 4:1 – 3; 2 Tim 2:17 – 18; 4:3 – 4; 2 Pet 2:1 – 3).

___________

I sent an e-mail asking for audience with Richard Stearns. This was his response:

“The reason I wrote this book was because I believe that the Christian community in the United States for the most part has been missing something in our understanding of the gospel. We tend to think of the gospel as a private transaction between us and God. It’s about being forgiven for our sins and being saved, which is good news, it’s the good news of the gospel that we have been forgiven and we’ve been saved, but often we leave it there, we leave it as a private transaction between us and God. I don’t think the gospel was ever meant to be private. I think it was meant to be public as well, and just like we have a private relationship with the Lord, we have to have a public and transforming relationship with the world, and that as followers of Jesus Christ we’re meant to take this good news across the globe, but not just the good news of salvation, but [also] the good news of God’s love for the poor, his concern for the sick and the downtrodden and the broken-hearted. We’re to minister in his name. We’re to stand up for justice in our world and fight for the underdog. That’s why the gospel was good news for the poor, and I think we in America have missed that. Yes, our churches do a lot of good things in our country and our communities and around the world, but we’re not doing nearly enough. We’re the wealthiest community of Christians in the history of  Christendom in 2,000 years. We have tremendous resources, we have tremendous opportunities, and we need to rise to this challenge to truly be the gospel, to be the Good news to the world.”

The bold emphasis above was added to show Richard Stearns continues to miss the point. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins. We are not saved to transform the world. The good news to the poor is that Jesus paid the price for their sins, just as he did for every man, woman and child. (source of this article: http://www.candlelightfellowship.org/TheHoleInOurGospel.htm; used with permission.)

_______________________________________________________________

From: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/worldvision.htm:

WORLD VISION PROMOTES 

EMERGING LEADER, BRIAN MCLAREN

Recent issue of their magazine, Child View, carries article by emerging leader Brian McLaren - WV editor tells us they have no problem with his viewpoints.  World Vision has long been considered an organization that helps the needy and the hungry. They also represent themselves as a Christian organization. Their mission statement says: "World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ..." No doubt, there are thousands of sincere believers giving financially to World Vision, who assume that not only are their dollars going to help towards the physical needs of poor children but also the spiritual needs of the children through the gospel message of Jesus Christ. However, there is reason for great concern. In the Summer 2006 issue of World Vision's magazine Child View, there is a full-page article by emerging church leader, Brian McLaren. McLaren, who was named by Time magazine as one of the most influential evangelicals today, has promoted a New Age spirituality for some time now. He has endorsed interspiritualists such as the Rev. Alan Jones (author ofReimagining Christianity) who says things such as: "I don't believe that what we can know of Jesus is confined by the New Testament.... There is no such thing as 'what really happened.1 Brian McLaren also has stated that the doctrine of hell and the Cross are "false advertising for God," and he writes of a "radically, scandalously inclusive" Christianity that includes those from "[all] religions" to "participate in this network of dynamic, interactive relationships with God and all God's creation."2 This language is the very essence of New Age spirituality, which is built on the premise that God is in all things and all things are united as one, including all the world's religions at the mystical level. In other words, Creator and creation are co-equal and share the same identity. McLaren's books, A Generous Orthodoxy, The Secret Message of Jesus, andA New Kind of Christian permeate with this belief system. OnMcLaren's own website, he recommends books by Buddhist sympathizer, Peter Senge, pantheist and mystic, Ken Wilber, and others who fall in the category of New Age and/or mystic. Is this really the direction that World Vision wants to go? And is Brian McLaren really someone they wish to promote? We contacted Jocelyn Bell (of World Vision Canada) who is an editor for Child View and was involved with the McLaren article. We shared our concerns with her about McLaren being in the World Vision magazine, relating to her specific information about McLaren's theology. Ms. Bell responded with, "We don't have a problem with Brian McLaren's viewpoints." This is the very same Brian McLaren who is scheduled to be speaking this summer at the interfaith Center for Spiritual Development with Marcus Borg. The underlying theme of the conference is re-shaping Christianity. Borg openly rejects the view that we are justified by the blood of Christ. In his book,The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith, he says: I learned from my professors and the readings they assigned that Jesus almost certainly was not born of a virgin, did not think of himself as the Son of God, and did not see his purpose as dying for the sins of the world."3 This statement by Borg is an accurate representation of his view of Christian theology. And yet, McLaren is not at this conference to refute Borg but is there as a co-sympathizer and even more significant, a co-mystic. Furthermore, in a recent interview, as well as on McLaren's website, he revealed his glowing admiration for Marcus Borg, saying he has "high regard" for him. Jocelyn Bell also told us that a weekly devotions group, which includes World Vision leaders and workers, was currently studying McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy. Ms. Bell told us that World Vision represents both Evangelicals and Protestants as well as Catholics. We asked her if it also included New Age Christians, of which McLaren is in that group. Of course it is impossible to really be a New Age Christian—this is an oxymoron, for you can be one or the other, but you cannot be both. Unfortunately, World Vision's connections to contemplative/emerging do not stop with their promotion of McLaren. They also have a seat on the Board of Directors of the very contemplative Spiritual Formation Forum (Richard Foster and Dallas Willard) and are a Ministry Partner of the contemplative/emerging promoting Church Communication Network (originators of the Be Still project). We hope and pray that World Vision will not continue to head in the direction of the Spiritual Formation (i.e., contemplative spirituality) movement, as this movement leads to a dangerous spirituality that negates the message of the Cross. While World Vision's efforts to feed the hungry are very needed, unless the hungry can be offered the true gospel message of salvation that comes through Jesus Christ then they will be deprived of the spiritual food that nourishes the soul and offers a living relationship with the Lord. "And Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.'" John 6:35 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, And hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water." Jeremiah 2:13 It seems incredible that while so many Christian leaders and apologists are spending enormous amounts of time and money in efforts to refute the Da Vinci Code, contemplative spirituality and its proponents are being virtually ignored even though the damage will most likely be broader and more enduring than a fictitious novel and a Hollywood movie. 1. Running Against the Wind, 2nd ed. p. 203. 2. "Who Defines the Kingdom of God," Berit Kjos. 3. The God We Never Knew, Marcus Borg, p. 25. For Related Information: Brian McLaren - On Christianity and New Age Thinking More on Church Communication Network More on Be Still DVD _____________________________________________________ World Vision Needs Leadership Changes: http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/world-vision-needs-leadership-changes/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes: Written By Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute  |   04.01.14 PRINT Although the tempest surrounding World Vision’s policy change and abrupt reversal of policy change on hiring men and women in homosexual unions recognized legally as “marriages” has died down, the trickier issue of trust restoration remains. For many theologically orthodox Catholics and Protestants, trust cannot be restored unless there are leadership changes at World Vision U.S. Those board members who voted to allow the U.S. branch of World Vision to hire men and women in legal homosexual “marriages,” need to resign in order for many Christians to believe that the policy reversal reflects biblical orthodoxy rather than financial considerations. In addition to the many troubling comments from World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns in the Christianity Today article that revealed the policy change, subsequent information suggests the need for clearer evidence of path-straightening that will likely come only from board changes. The Washington Post reports that in 2013 World Vision received $145 million from the federal government, which many fear contributed to the decision to hire ”married” homosexuals. Many Christians justifiably fear the corrupting influence of government money on World Vision’s decisions. (Don’t be surprised if homosexual activists now set their sights on World Vision’s government funding, because for them, everything—including the welfare of impoverished children—takes a backseat to normalizing sexual perversion.) We should be concerned with the effect of de facto government subsidies on not just World Vision but on all churches and parachurch organizations, which in the future will likely be compelled either to lose their tax-exempt status or lose the freedom to teach the whole counsel of God on matters related to homosexuality and gender confusion. Supporters (and former supporters) of World Vision are also concerned about the theological commitments of board members. Following the reversal of policy, board president Richard Stearns was asked in an interview what “kind of church” he attends and whether his church has shaped his views on same-sex “marriage.” Stearns provided the kind of evasive response one would expect from a politician and the kind of dismissive response one would expect from a theological liberal: “It’s a Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Seattle area, but I don’t want to drag them into this. I’m not telling people where I stand on same-sex marriage because I don’t think it’s relevant.” The issue of whether same-sex “marriage” can in reality exist is, indeed, relevant to any purportedly Christian organization and it’s at least as relevant to the Christian life as premarital abstinence, which the board saw fit to retain in employment policy even while they jettisoned the requirement regarding homoerotic activity. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a member of the notoriously liberal PCUSA church would find the biblical understanding of marriage irrelevant to a Christian organization or Christian mission. Stearns is not the only PCUSA member on the World Vision board. Dr. Stephen Hayner president of Columbia Theological Seminary, which is a PCUSA seminary, also serves on the board. In August 2012, the liberal Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgiaannounced that it would “allow same-sex student couples to live in campus housing designated for married students following a year-long effort by gay-rights advocates.” The new policy states that “’Students, their qualified domestic partners (e.g., those in civil marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships as established by the laws of any state, the United States or a foreign jurisdiction), and their children are eligible to live in campus housing.’” Hayner said this about the housing policy change: “[O]ur community is committed to being a place of open theological and Biblical inquiry and hospitality for all who attend.” I wonder if Hayner believes that “being a place of open theological and biblical inquiry and hospitality” requires the school to allow polyamorists to live in campus housing. Wouldn’t intellectual consistency demand that they be shown the same kind of “hospitality” that homosexuals in legal but ontologically non-existent “marriages” are shown?   Yet another World Vision board member, Reverend John Crosby, is also member of the liberal PCUSA denomination. His vote in favor of the disastrous and now defunct policy change is curious in that he strongly opposed his denomination’s decision to ordain openly affirming homosexuals three years ago, arguing  that “’We [the Presbyterians] have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center.’” Although Crosby opposed his denomination’s decision to ordain homosexual clergy, he voted for World Vision’s anti-biblical policy change, arguing implausibly in Christianity Today that “the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church.” Is he actually arguing that theology and how to interpret Scripture on all issues should be left to the local church? If that were the case, then why did World Vision maintain policy regarding abstinence outside of marriage? Shouldn’t theological issues regarding fornication be left to local churches as well? We can hope and pray for a return to theological orthodoxy and subsequent restoration of public trust in World Vision, but we should also prepare ourselves to witness more apostasy within not only our parachurch organizations but within our churches too. And as individuals we should prepare for the persecution that we are promised will come to those who claim to be cross-bearers. Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done (Matt. 16: 24-27).