Truth About Black Liberal Theology
All racist theologies have the same basic core ideas and methodology. Thus it does not really matter if we are talking about the KKK, the Nation of Islam or Black liberal theology, their focus is always on skin and not sin; race and not grace; gossip and not gospel. Racism is always focused on the outward instead of the inward because it cannot deal with the root problem of sin. Hatred and violence feed on bitterness and racist rage. Class envy does not help anyone in this life or in the next. Blaming others for one’s own sin and guilt will not solve the problem. We must take responsibility for what we do in life instead of blaming “the man” for our failures and woe. This is why we need to break the shackle of black liberal theology which enslave the black man and keeps him poor and angry. May God use this study to liberate black men and women from the lie of Black Liberal Theology.
I am aware that while the vast majority of Black Liberal Theologians are clearly guilty of believing in white liberalism and Neo-Marxist liberation theology, there are a few “conservative” writers who have fallen for some of their lies. Thus they will complain that not everything stated in this article applies to them. But as with any other movement, we must deal with the majority view and not with those few who are out of step with that majority.
I. The “Roots” of Black Liberal Theology.
“Black liberal theology” (from now on shortened to the initials “BLT”) is another name for Western Liberation Theology which was created by white, middle-class, European, Marxist, liberal theologians to foster social change by manipulating the lower classes to violent revolution against democratic governments in order to establish a communist state. Thus BLT did not originate in Africa but in Europe.
The fundamental ideas of BLT did not come from black thinkers but from such white European thinkers as Hegel, Darwin, Marx, etc. It is Euro-centric in its ideology although it is Euro-phobic in its rhetoric. Black liberal theologians are in reality “Uncle Toms” still licking the boots of their white, Marxist masters at such bastions of white liberalism as Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc.. They are the slaves of Karl Marx.
II. The Goals Of Black Liberal Theology
The goals of BLT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.
III. The Methodology of Black Liberal Theology
The main method employed by BLT is to manipulate embittered young blacks by turning their feelings of inferiority, alienation, jealousy, hopelessness and self-hate, into racist rage against whites, Orientals and affluent blacks who are conveniently blamed for their lack of personal initiative to better their lot in life.
IV. The Main Philosophic Error of Black Liberal Theology
BLT is based upon the philosophic error of relativism in which “Jesus” is viewed as only a religious symbol which can be interpreted anyway they want. Thus it does not matter who and what the historical Jesus really was. BLT invented a black Marxist Jesus to lead the way to violent revolution because such a “Jesus” will serve their purpose. BLT is condemned in II Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 1:8-9.
V. The Racism Of Black Liberal Theology
While BLT is filled with racist statements against whites and Orientals, it is primarily a form of “black on black” racism. The following evidence demonstrates this to be true.
A. While BLT claims to give blacks a better self-image, they unwittingly encourage a poor self-image among blacks by defining “blackness” in such negative terms as “the poor,” “the oppressed,” and “niggers.” Why do they always define the “black experience” in such negative terms? Why do they assume that all blacks live in the ghetto subsisting on welfare in the midst of crime and filth?
B. With its constant emphasis on God loves the poor, the oppressed, etc. BLT actually paralyzes and demoralizes blacks to accept a parasitic life- style dependent on the government dole instead of fostering self-reliance and entrepreneurship.
C. It seems to me that BLT feeds off of class envy and racist rage. Instead of spending their time blaming the white man for the black man’s problems, BLT ought to be encouraging black men or women to become financially successful through hard work and self-reliance.
D. BLT often describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. But this negative stereotype often leads people to accept poverty, drugs, crime and filth as their unalterable fate.
E. BLT makes a great mistake when it assumes that poverty automatically means crime and filth. Just because you are poor does not mean you have a license to rob, rape, or murder others. The poor are for the most part good and honest people. Crime is crime regardless of who commits it. Poverty is no excuse for criminality.
F. BLT judges people on the basis of the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.
G. BLT gives the impression that the black man’s problem is his skin instead of his sin.
H. Most BLT books glorify rage, hatred and violence instead of faith, hope and love.
I. BLT preaches race instead of grace as the solution to problems.
J. BLT cries out for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.
K. BLT thinks more of Marx than it does of Jesus.
L. BLT is more interested in black culture than in Jesus Christ.
VI. The Liberalism Of Black Liberal Theology
BLT is not a fundamental, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring theology. BLT was created by white liberation theologians at white liberal seminaries and universities that are radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.
A. Most of those involved in BLT do not believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal ascension or return to this world. They claim that all such doctrines are “Western.”
B. Many of those who teach BLT openly deny the immortality of the soul, a conscious after-life in heaven or hell, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and the eternal conscious torment of the damned in hell. They usually say that hell is “being black on welfare in the ghetto.” They attack those blacks who talk about heaven as a “pie in the sky by and by slave mentality.”
C. BLT often denounces Christianity as racist and the “white man’s religion.” But then it turns around and claims that Jesus was black. If Jesus was a black man, then how can Christianity be the “white man’s religion?”
D. Most BLT writers deny the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible while at the same time using it to foster their racist agenda.
E. Many BLT leaders teach the theory of evolution in which man evolved from an ape in Africa as if that theory can give dignity to blacks or to anyone else. The theory of evolution actually destroys all dignity and morals by reducing man to an animal.
VII. The Absurdity of Black Liberal Theology
BLT is so filled with self-contradiction and erroneous ideas that it is has no intellectual merit. For example, BLT defines “blackness” and “whiteness” in the Marxist sense of class struggle. Thus BLT is not really talking about blackness as a race but as a class. WAKE UP! Read that last sentence again. Did you get it? Black liberal theology is really concerned with class struggle and not about black people per se. What is “black” and “white” according to the BLT books?
Black = anyone regardless of race or color who is economically and politically oppressed by the upper classes.
White = anyone regardless of race or color who is guilty of oppressing the lower classes.
Walter McCray in his book, The Black Presence In The Bible, quotes with approval the definition of blackness given by his liberal mentor, Charles Copher.
Additionally, one may be defined as black regardless of color or race; all who suffer oppression…are classified as black.(p. 161, n.72.)
This irrational definition ends up with some white people being “black” and some black people being “white.” According to BLT’s definition, a blond, blue- eyed, white Swede on drugs and welfare is “black” while the successful black man who owns his own company is “white.” Other absurdities abound in their writings.
A. BLT claims that Adam and Eve were black. If this is true, then all men are “black” because they came from the first black parents. On what grounds then does BLT divide up mankind into black vs white and black vs yellow? Aren’t we all “black” having come from the same original black DNA?
B. BLT claims that Noah, his wife and their three sons and wives were all blacks. Yet, they also claim that the blacks descended from Ham. And they run through the Bible looking for Hamite references to track the history of the black race. How can this obvious contradiction be resolved ?
C. As part of its Marxist ideology, BLT believes that history is as relative as morals. Thus BLT rewrites history to foster its own socio-political goals. This is why BLT does not hesitate to teach lies and to practice academic chicanery. The “truth” is not their concern. To manipulate young blacks into racist rage is always their real goal.
D. BLT claims that nearly every individual and nation mentioned in the Bible was black. They do not prove that this true. They simply asset that this is so. Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled a racist.
E. BLT claims that the ancient Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians were all black. Yet, they were the cruelest oppressors known in history. For example, the Assyrians enslaved and deported entire populations. Mass murder was their favorite means of oppression. How can they be “black” when they were worse oppressors than Hitler or Stalin?
F. BLT claims that the ancient Egyptians were black and that the Jews were black as well. But since the Egyptians were a very oppressive society which enslaved the Jews and other minorities and conquered many surrounding nations, how can the Egyptians be “black” and oppress people at the same time?
G. BLT just like the KKK and other racist groups claims that its race is the sole source of all that is good in all cultures. But this is a two edged sword. If the blacks are responsible for all the good in the world, then they are equally responsible for all the evil. To claim that the black man can do no wrong and that the white man and yellow man can do no good, is absurd as well as racist.
H. BLT claims that the ancient Greeks were black and thus Greek philosophy was created by blacks. But then BLT also says that the white Greeks stole their philosophy from African blacks. How can the Greeks be black and white at the same time? But if they were all blacks, then what is wrong with blacks sharing ideas?
I. BLT claims that the Greeks stole their ideas from black Africans and thus all the good in Western culture comes from blacks. But if this is true, how can BLT condemn Western culture on one hand and then claim that it came from blacks on the other hand?
J. BLT also claims that all the good in Oriental culture came from African blacks. The Orientals thus stole their culture from the blacks. But if this is true, why are African motifs missing in Oriental philosophies and art?
K. BLT authors claim that the Egyptian word Kemet means “the land of the Blacks.” In reality, the word actually means “the black land” referring to the dark soil along the flood plain of the Nile. It is used in Egyptian literature in opposition to the word Deshret which literally means “the red land,” a reference to the color of the dirt or sand in the desert.
VIII. Black Liberal Theology Contradicts The Bible
In order to make everyone in the Bible black, BLT takes passages out of context, ignores the grammar of Hebrew and Greek, and then attacks anyone who disagrees with them as “racist” or “white.” But BLT violates several clear Scriptures.
1. Acts 17:26 “He made from one all the nations of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.”
The Bible teaches that there is only one race –the human race– regardless of size, shape or color. Thus there is no “black” or “white” blood. There is only human blood which can be transfused from one man to the next regardless of color or race. BLT con-tradicts this by talking about “black blood.”
2. Rom. 2:11 “There is no partiality with God.”
God does not treat people any differently because they are red, yellow, black or white. They are all precious in His sight. But BLT claims that God is partial to blacks! This is just as wrong as the Nazis who claimed the same thing for the Ayrian race or the KKK who claims the same for the white race.
3. Gal. 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
BLT divides the Church into different economic classes and pits them against each other. Thus they try to put asunder what God has joined together. The Body of Christ is one.
4. Eph. 4:4-5:2 “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.”
BLT preaches bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander and that blacks should seek revenge instead of taking the path of forgiveness.
5. 1 Sam 16:7 “But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
BLT looks only at the outward appearance. This is wrong. We must judge people not by their color but by their moral character or lack of it.
Conclusion
Black liberal theology is not of God but of the devil. It is nothing more than “white liberal religion” and is used by white theologians and politicians to keep blacks down in order to use them as cannon fodder for a Marxist revolution. Black liberal theologians slave for their white Marxist masters to bring about a violent revolution that would guarantee that all men, blacks included, would always be poor and oppressed. The only answer to liberal theology, regardless of the color of those who teach it, is personal salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you have experienced the love of God in Christ, you do not have any room in you heart for the self-hate and racist rage upon which BLT feeds. The black community needs a revival– not a revolution; Jesus–not Marx; Christianity –not liberalism. Jesus is the only One who can change the hearts of all men and set them free from their bondage to sin.
Copyright © 1994 Research & Education Foundation (REF)
77 Comments, Comment or Ping
Ashley
Wow! Its good to know such heracy as this. I knew people believed in stuff like this but I didn’t realize how severe it really is. Its so sad when people start looking at the color of their skin intead of the color of their heart. Why don’t they talk about how black their heart is because its so sinful and needs Christ as a Savior.
Mar 20th, 2008
Travis
Dr. Bob
I think the Lord puts people in our life that have the same mind, it seems as though You, Stephen and the rest of the guys and gals here know, by the spirit, what issues I am dealing with.
I am personally tired of hearing about Black, Women, Mexican history month, not that they are bad for what they are, but if we are going to recognize one set of people you have to regonize all, and that just cant happen.
Then you have all this crap with Obama and his “pastor” and the ACLU, they all say lets stop racism, but refer to people as the “black community” and the “homosexual community.” last time I checked God made no distinction between Greek or Jew, but did make a distinction in the circumcision of the heart, and where they stand, either in the darkness or in the light.
Mar 20th, 2008
Ashley
Travis,
you make a very good point. I was just saying the other day how I’m discriminated against because I’m white. You have people who get furious at racism when its again a race thats considers “minority” in the U.S. but they hate on white people. Living where I do I’ve been looked down on sooo much because I’m white and I don’t speak spanish. A lot of people see whites as prejudice ignorant people but they don’t realize that they are acting out the very thing they accuse white people of being. They are no better than the people they are against. Now I’m very aware that other races in America such as African, Mexican, Asian, etc. experience more racism than white but people don’t seem to realize that the white do experience it. If a white person says something against a black person its like the ultimate sin but when you reverse it, its okay and people are quick to look pass it. If you hate racism, don’t hate the race that you think is racist towards you.
Mar 20th, 2008
Mike Morrow
Your right Ashley in what you say. One thing is whether black,Asian, or what ever race you are, their theory is if we are the minority it’s okay to say whatever to the majority and it’s not racist, but if the majority says something racist to the minority it’s bad and wrong. Blacks do feel this way, not all but their out there.
Mar 20th, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
Thanks Dr.Bob,
I was just talking about this subject with a brother just the other day. This will help me to educate him in regards to this topic. He seems to be naive about this and thinks that just because someone says that they “love Jesus” that they are with us.
Mar 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I loved reading A-K under “other absurdities.” OUCH!
Mar 21st, 2008
Denise
Robert Morey said: “The goals of BLT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.”
I thought of something related, although its the same notion of the social justice zealots, but in regard to feminism. I hope you can see the relation here.
Scot McKnight, (see http://www.ttpstudents.com/content/scholar/smcknight) an advocate of the Emergent Church Movement, places Mary, the mother of Jesus, into this same catagory of rebel, seeker of social justice/ liberation.
In a recent Christianity Today article, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/8.26.html McKnight turns the Mary of Scripture into an activist for political and social justice. This is troublesome because this simply is not what Scripture declares of Mary or Jesus for that matter (Scripture commands believers to submit to their governments—Romans 13, Titus 3:1; 1Peter 2:11-18, except when they tell us to disobey God’s command).
Some quotes McKnight makes regarding Mary in the Christianity Today article:
“This Mary followed Jesus all the way to the Cross—not just as a mother, but as a disciple, even after his closest followers deserted him. She leads us to a Christmas marked by a yearning for justice and the courage to fight for it.”
“To turn this song into simple spirituality strips it of its meaning and leaves injustices—personified by Caesar Augustus and Herod the Great—on the throne.”
“Mary’s Magnificat, like those songs of change, can be seen as a rally cry, a revival song. It subverted the unjust reign of Herod the Great.”
“If you were Herod or one of his ten wives or one of his many sons or daughters with (unexpressed, of course) hopes for the throne, you would conclude that Mary was a rebel, a revolutionary, a social protester. And you would be right: The real Mary was a subversive.”
“You can paint the Blessed Virgin Mary as tender and a splendid example of spirituality, or you can celebrate the Blessed Valorous Mary, who heralded a socio-religious protest against injustice in the person of her own Messiah-son.”
However, in John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
So, this rebellious anti-governmental notion is wide spread, to the point of people twisting Scripture, to their own destruction. Whether its for a racist agenda or a feminist one, its condemned by God and He will not allow His Word nor His name to be dishonored.
P.S. If you have ever been to Barrack Obama’s church’s website, Trinity Church of Christ, you will see its blatant racism and liberation theology.
P.P.S. For a further treatment of Black Liberation, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford has a book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” and articles on this issue (his book is excellent): http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006608 . He goes into the history of all this junk, but from a sociological/historical view, not spiritual. His website is here: http://www.tsowell.com/
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Denise,
Scot McKnight makes me feel like barfing. I’m crawling through his latest heresy-on-paper (hop) book, “A Community Called Atonement.” Hold on, (long pause) sorry, just typing the name gives me the gags - OK, I’m back now. He’s an ardent liberation theology proponent, an extrememly active one, too! His whole “evangelicals and Mary” trash was all just a set-up to get credibility and an evangelical stage to push his rank liberalism onto unsuspecting biblical-illiterates. What do you expect from an idolatry-junkie that sits under Bill Hybels?
All the more true, rings Dr. Morey’s quote from the article above:
“BLT was created by white liberation theologians at white liberal seminaries and universities that are radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible.”
McKnight is the epitome of a middle-aged, white, liberation theologian that is radically anti-Christian and anti-Bible. Everything to him, is reduced to the “Jesus Creed,” just love God and your neighbor and everything will be OK.
Mar 21st, 2008
Denise
Stephen
Please! “Don’t give me doctrine. Jest gimme Jesus!”
*cough*
Mar 21st, 2008
Fusion!
Having gone to Wrights website, I”m amazed at the books they recommend. He actually has written a book. I find it interesting that it is found in the Africentric Theology section of their bookstore. Now, not to nit pick, but does this mean that we all have to have our own ethnic centered theologies? Then Stephen can start the Filipino centric theology and Mario can start a Hispanic centric theology sections respectively. I can start the white washed hispanic centric theology page on my blog.
http://www.tucc.org/store/index.cfm?action=catbrowse&catid=69
Mar 21st, 2008
Anonymous
This is completely bogus. So many Christians have such a small understanding of the gospel and it’s pathetic. You’re only concerned about your personal piety and could care less about the injustices of the world, poverty, impoverished, oppression, etc. Jesus cared about all of these things and the Gospel gives light to each of these circumstances, so don’t dare preach otherwise. What blasphemy!
Mar 21st, 2008
Denise
You know I had to go here……What about all those racial bibles?
You know, the Hispanic Bible, and even a Bible for Women of Color (what’s a woman of no color??).
Take a look here for “Hispanic/Latino Theology”: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=0629213&netp_id=112060&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details
NIV Aspire: The New Women of Color Study Bible: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=934788&netp_id=451405&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details
Losing Face & Finding Grace: Twelve Bible Studies for Asian-American
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=0816844&netp_id=103038&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details
Oh, there’s more!
How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=828753&netp_id=506840&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details
Africa Bible Commentary http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=264731&event=CF
No, we’re not done yet….
Rap Bible: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Rap-Stephen-Amato/dp/1591605172
Wow they even have “Breath Prayers for African Americans” http://www.parable.com/parable/item.Breath-Prayers-for-African-Americans.9781562922559.htm Wow, specialized pagan “Christian” rituals just for Black people?
Off the Menu: Asian and Asian North American Women’s Religion and Theology: http://www.parable.com/parable/item.Off-the-Menu-Asian-and-Asian-North-American-Womens-Religion-.9780664231408.htm
Ways of Being, Ways of Reading: Asian American Biblical Interpretation: http://www.parable.com/parable/item.Ways-of-Being-Ways-of-Reading-Asian-American-Biblical-Interp.9780827242548.htm
But hey, we’re color blind, right???? And uh, there’s no Jew, nor Greek in Christ, right???? Yet they can interpret Scripture racially and culturally? Oy!
Mar 21st, 2008
Mark Caro
One more reason I thank God for sending a teacher like Dr. Bob our way.
Hey Stephen, when is the next lumpia and adobo party?
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Anonymous,
What, specifically, do you disagree with?
The author judged all racist theologies as unbiblical. He said, “…their focus is always on skin and not sin; race and not grace; gossip and not gospel. Racism is always focused on the outward instead of the inward because it cannot deal with the root problem of sin.”
The Gospel certainly gives light to the things you’ve mentioned, but the author isn’t denying that. His refutation makes it clear that he believes in preaching the gospel. He said, “The goals of BLT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.”
Follow the contradistinctions:
religion/sociology
Christianity/political agenda
Jesus/black marxist rebel
Gospel/violent revolution
preaching the Gospel/interested in politics
From the above, there is a “left” column and a “right” column. If your understanding of Christianity is the “right” column rather than the “left,” then I’m sure the author would agree that it is you that has the small and pathetic understanding of the Gospel, and a false gospel indeed.
But it is clear that you haven’t read the article. Read it *and then* comment. We’d love to discuss Christ with you!
Mar 21st, 2008
Ashley
Mike, I know that not all blacks are like that just like not all whites are racist. I was just speaking of the people who are actually like that, black, hispanic, asian, etc. If I claimed all of them were like that then it goes back to me and I’m being predjudice. I love all kinds of people and I love to learn their cultures.
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Mark, I’m only half, but since my wife is full, it’s every night almost. Lumpia, adobo, rice, rice, rice, and a host of other dishes that require rice, is a culteral norm at the Macasil residence! And we love guests! So for FF (Filipino Food) in Orange County - come on down!
Mar 21st, 2008
E. Speedy Camez
Anomymous,
Can you enlighten me about your “large” understanding of the Gospel, using scripture to support your claims, that the Gospel is something other than what the bible says.
You see, I thought the Gospel was:
Rom 1:16 The POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION, TO THE JEW FIRST THAN THE GREEK.
As far as I can tell, the individuals I listen to that preach the ideas mentioned in the article above are not concerned with sin, salvation, self denial, lovving your enemy, blessing those who persecute you………. should I go on. I think you get where I am coming from.
Servants of the most high God go about doing God’s work, and part of that is exposing false dotrines Gal 1:8, Jude 3, 1 Pet 3:15
That is what this site is dedicated to. Now if we ( I can only speak for myself and the brothers who participate on this site, because I know the content of their character ) see an injustice in our sphere of influence, we would address it by the biblical standards that I have been taught and that doesnt include:
1) Blaming the “white man” in general for all the injustices.
2) Speaking hate against this great nation. Thats right I believe this is a great nation. If you dont like it, visit some of the other choices you got. You WILL probably be back here pretty fast.
I speak this with all due respect and humbly submit to you that if you really are called to serve the Master, HE, according to scripture, is more concerned about your soul Mark 8:36, your character Gal 5:22-26, and you being conformed to the image of HIS SON Rom 8:29, not your skin color or economic status. I look forward with anticipation to your response.
By HIS Grace,
E. Speedy Camez
Mar 21st, 2008
Ashley
Stephen, all that food sounds delicious. I half filippino myself and I grew up eating all those foods. My favorite is Kare kare. YUMMMY!
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ashley,
What’s the “other half?”
P.S. Wash it down with some good halo halo or ube/taro boba?
Mar 21st, 2008
Denise
Stephen,
Reclaiming the Mind, a ministry out of Dallas The. Sem. and Swindoll’s church originally, is offering McKnight in an online chat discussion on April 3. They had Dan Kimball last night.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/cws/futureguests
Joy. =(
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Cool. I will try to make it. I can talk to Dan whenever I want, but Scot isn’t so easy to talk with at any extended length. His stupid book on the atonement[s] is so small, yet I’ve been creeping through it page by page, sometimes 2-3 days for one page! I’ll have that Thursday evening available, Lord willing. You gonna be there?
Mar 21st, 2008
Ashley
Stephen, I love halo halo! Man that will make me really fat if I eat it after the Kare Kare haha. My other half is white mostly German but some Irish and maybe swiss. I don’t know if you know my brother and dad? They go to your church (asuming you go to Dr. Bob’s church). Do you know Christian and Dave W.? Christian is my brother and my dad is Dave.
Mar 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
YES! I know exactly who you are! I’ve never met you but Iove your fiancee (I see him at the apologetics class), such a cool dude! And your brother, I’ve talked with him a few times at church, way too smart for me - genius musician I hear… I heard your dad was in the hospital, is he doing better by God’s grace?
Mar 21st, 2008
Ashley
ya my dad is doing much better praise God. LOL ya my brother has that gift of music but he’s not as smart as you think (jk). I try to go to the apologetics class with my fiance but its hard because of school but i’ve been there a few times. I love going, its such a blessing thats why I love going on this blog. I learn so much.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Mark Caro
Stephen, in fact today my mom will be cooking up some punsit or( ponsit)
you know, that noodle stuff, and some lumpias and of course RICE and soy sauce beef. No halo halo though.(personally halo halo never did tickle my fancy, a drink with beans…… I don’t get it.)
Keep on defending the faith, great job! Iron sharpening Iron.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Frank
I just want to thank Dr. Bob for re-publishing this article on Black Liberal Theology. When the flak over Obama and Wright recently hit the fan, I recalled seeing this article in a friend’s 1994 Researcher, and I prayed that Dr. Bob would bring it back.
I appreciated the adenda on the Nation of Islam which he put in the back of his book on Islam. Today might be a good time for an expose on BLT, the Nation of Islam, and other hate-thought movements that have been getting a free ride from the mainstream media.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Mike Morrow
Hi Dr. Bob and everyone in this site check out http:www.worldnetdaily.com Frank Schaeffer son of Francis Schaeffer said that his dad was worse than Obama’s pastor
Mar 22nd, 2008
brian funches
I,m a black man and agree with dr. robert morey , I’ve heard him lecture before on Islam and I’ve heard that he is a reputable theolgian. but pertaining to the subject of black liberal theology, I ,m in agreement that this theology is not christcentric , it’s more Afrocentric and it’s not the proper perspective that stems from the teachings of christ now I live in the hood so I know how my people think, A lot of the harsh ideologies and absurd theology comes from the mistreatment of blacks , the slavement of blacks the segregations of the 50s and 60s , the police brutality ( a black guy in harlem got shot fifty times and they found out what they thought was a Gun was actually a cell phone) So you can see in a way were all this angry and resentment is coming from . The problem is that these black liberal thelogians dress up racial and social issues in biblical and theological language to reinforce their proclaimation aganist the act of injustce toward black people for centuries, now I,m aware that blacks are not the only race that has suffered the jews have endure oppression for 5,000 yrs , the 400 yrs black people were oppressed is nothing compared to 5,000 , now there is nothing wrong with feeling angry about that type of mistreatment but as the bible say ” be angry and si not” see what has happen with BLT is that “blackness” is being promoted in the framework of the gospel the injustice toward the black man is being proselytized instead of the work of the cross. and another thing is that we have misplace the blame, we as blacks have set on the shoulders of whites living today the vices and dehumanizing acts of their forefathers. here’s the case and point black liberal theology has to be divorce from biblical theology .we can no longer use God’s pulpit to make white people feel bad about something their ancestors did. does racism still exist among whites “Yes” and among blacks as while , blacks have tried to reverse racism and use it agaisnt whites , all we have succeeded in is becoming more bitter .
Mar 22nd, 2008
Agilius
Fantastic topic, guys!
Racism is being perpetuated by those who define their community by the color of their skin; Unless terms like “black community” or “white community” or “asian community” are seen as no more than a term of convenience to describe the *culture* of those who *happen* to be from a particular lineage, then people will continue to believe that the color of one’s skin automatically makes them part of a community.
You’re not my brother because you’re my color.
Mar 22nd, 2008
TARA
It’s easy to dismiss if you really have no idea what you’re talking about. The author has obviously never step foot in a black church and has opinions based on what is in texts. A person can never understand the power of words contained in one of those sermons.
Mainstream complains about the ugliness contained in communities then judges the way THEY CHOOSE to approach whatever they may face. I would invite the author and all who commented to listen to this placed in practice rather than reading it on a screen. If you believe a person needs the fellowship of church then the same person cannot form an opinion about ‘doctrine’ without first experiencing it.
Listen to the ENTIRE message:
http://odeo.com/audio/17890793/view
Mar 24th, 2008
Agilius
>> The author has obviously never step foot in a black church and has opinions based on what is in texts.
What’s a ‘black church’? I thought that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek?
Granted, segregation inevitably resulted in a unique Church bonding experience for slaves; but why, these days, when such an experience is non-existent, anyone would choose to define themselves by the color of their skin, is beyond me.
>> A person can never understand the power of words contained in one of those sermons.
A person can barely understand the words, themselves, what with all the contrived emotional outbursts, and the showy metered inflections; It’s rather distracting when you’re just looking for the pastor to explain the bible to you.
Mar 25th, 2008
Denise
Mike,
I read the article at worldnetdaily. Here’s what’s interesting:
Francis Schaffer’s (who was a Presbyterian pastor) son Frank is rejecting a lot of what his father taught..ironically going down the path his father warned Christians of. He’s now EOC (since 1990): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59599
In this article Os Guinness, who knew the family well and was Frank’s best man at his wedding says:
“Guinness says the “real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of ‘fundamentalist missionaries.’”
“Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied,” he writes. “As a result, he grew up a ‘little Napoleon,’ as some of the L’Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it.”
It seems Frank Schaffer never changed and is acting just as those in the Emergent Church Movement do–hate the “Right Wing” folks.
I don’t see what Francis Schaffer said as racist, whereas Wright’s comments and teaching is consistantly racist (I’ve been to his “church’s” website). To say America is under God’s wrath, etc. isn’t being anti-American…its telling the truth and declaring that Americans better repent of their sin. Sadly, Francis didn’t manage his own household well and now his son is undermining his father’s work.
Mar 25th, 2008
Travis
Denise said
Emergent Church Movement do–hate the “Right Wing” folks
i would have to disagree wth labeling every emergent as hating the right wing, I dont like all the right wing, so i would have to say that is a bad statement. Maybe they all hate the Christ revealed in Scripture, which could be a good argument, but not the people. Harold and I are debating over at this blog site
http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/atonement-and-eternity/#comment-28
Which I would have to say Chad and Jeff have been very kind, there just wrong in how they interpret scripture.
Denise said
Francis didn’t manage his own household well and now his son is undermining his father’s work Wing” folks
Im glad this was posted it shows his frailty as a man, praise the Lord for that. But it sadens me to see Frank go down this path.
Mar 25th, 2008
Denise
Why is sin considered a virtue? This is one of the major problems with Post Modern “Christianity”.
Why is disobedience (to Prov. 13:24—if we’re to believe Guinness and why not?) equated with frailty, or at least depicted as such? Why not just call it for what it is: sin?
This “frailty” actually showed Schaffer’s unqualifications for being an elder according to 1Tim 3:
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
God has the standard so high, that it sifts out most men to leaders in churches, as part of His design.
Why is it a good thing to see one’s disobedience and praise God for that display? Should it not cause us to mourn? If Guiness is correct, Schaffer should’ve been ashamed too–and now his son is reaping the consequences of that training (and yes Frank is responsible before God for his own sin, obviously). My point here is the being “glad” that one’s sin “proves” a man is….well a man. That seems like nonsense to me. But then that’s typical of the ECM. Their standard is far lower than Scripture’s.
Mar 26th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
I spent time in the National Baptist Convention for 7 years, and the Church of God in Christ http://www.cogic.org for 5 years. These denominations are “black” denominations. These are orthodox, Bible-believing denominations who have sound theology (except the COGIC’s are Armenian).
Yet many ministers in these denominations have taken on aspects of Liberation Theology as well. So it is not just in liberal sects. This thing is spilling out and getting into the minds and pulpits of preachers who believe and love the truth.
It is negatively affecting their message preached and in some cases the goals of their church itself. Rather than hitting the streets and evangelizing a neighborhood that needs to hear the Gospel, these preachers are now organizing protests against people who want to reform welfare, or against the police department. They have been distracted from their primary job.
I have seen first hand the devastating results Liberation Theology has. It produces ministers who are not focused on the Gospel, equipping saints, or reaching the lost. It produces saints who are not fed the truth and the content that they desperately need. The emptiness and starvation produced causes them to flirt with the Nation of Islam, or to turn on cable television and listen to the Prosperity Theology message. The militant attitude of self-entltlement produces a hostile and angry person who hates authority and ends up in trouble with the law or in trouble on their job.
Doc has written a good article here, and a badly needed one. I am forwarding it on to all I can. I appreciate his courage to tackle this issue, and the loving yet firm manner in which he has done so. It has the research behind its claims that many people are looking for.
God bless.
Mar 26th, 2008
Chad
I have to say it is said when Christians resort to what amounts to little more than hate speech to get their points accross.
This here is all I needed to read to know there is no reason to go further:
“The goals of BLT are to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.”
Being interested in politics and preaching the gospel are not mutually exclusive. The gospel is very political, and very social. To deny that and set the two against each other is a great excercise in missing the point.
peace,
Chad
Mar 26th, 2008
agogley
“Being interested in politics and preaching the gospel are not mutually exclusive.”
Did anybody say they were? Dr. Morey said they were MORE interested in politics than the gospel. The emphasis of the Church shouldn’t be to make a political statement but to make disciples and spread the gospel. By doing this, it may be that the Church must make a political statement, but this is not the emphasis.
Mar 26th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear Tara,
You wrote: “The author has obviously never step foot in a black church.”
I feel sorry for you as you assumed something that is not true. I began preaching in “black” churches in 1962! I was the first white speaker to preach at the South Carolina National Baptist Convention. I have spoken at hundreds of “black” churches and colleges all over the world. I even preached at West Angeles Church of God in Christ, with Steve Wonder and other Hollywood people in attendance. I have debated Afro-centricism.
When Norman Geisler was on the “Bible Answer Man,” a caller asked him what he thought of Dr. Robert Morey. I and thousands of listeners heard him say, “He is too black for me.”
Tara, you owe me an apology.
Dr. Morey
Mar 27th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Doc has preached in “black” churches tons of times. I have the old classic tapes. The crowd responses were remarkable. He got standing ovations for ripping the Nation of Islam, the Moorish Science Temple, and other “black” separatist cults to shreds!
Most of my ministry is done in the “black” neighborhoods. I have handed out hundreds of Doc’s publications, tapes, CD’s, and such. No one has ever said, “Dang, this guy is out of touch with what is going on in our church and our community”. Usually the response is quite the opposite.
You do owe him an apology.
Mar 27th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
CHAD: This here is all I needed to read to know there is no reason to go further:
BRIAN: Thanks for revealing that you are willing to disagree with an article that you admit to not having read. I wonder if this is the same “Chad” that defended a book he had not read over on the Greg Boyd book review thread. What an anti-scholastic pattern.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
And this is the same “Brian” who tells lies to get one over on others, as the other thread reveals.
Brian, I suppose tearing others down is a lot more fun and a lot more easier than actually addressing the issues involved, huh? Seems to be a trend I see here…if you disagree with someone, just pummel them with character attacks so they go away and we’ll never talk about the things we have no answers for.
Mar 27th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
CHAD: Brian, I suppose tearing others down is a lot more fun and a lot more easier than actually addressing the issues involved, huh? Seems to be a trend I see here…if you disagree with someone, just pummel them with character attacks so they go away and we’ll never talk about the things we have no answers for.
BRIAN: Well, it is difficult to discuss an article with someone when they have not bothered to read it.
Mar 27th, 2008
Chad
Brian,
If nothing else, you are consistent with your M.O.
If that one line by me is all you are able to fixate on I’ll let you in on something: I did read the article…perhaps when I wrote what I wrote I should have said, “the rest of the article confirms that after reading that one line, there is no reason to read further.”
Since you haven’t once actually engaged me in any respectful or productive dialogue about the issues in play either in this thread or the other, I assume you really don’t care if I read it or not, because you’re not willing to talk about it.
But if you are, why not start with the definition of “black” and “white” that BLT uses which Bob finds so confounding (or maybe he’s just confused?) Do you agree or disagree that there are classes of people which oppress others and there are classes of people that are oppressed? Yes or no?
peace,
Chad
Mar 27th, 2008
Travis
I agree, Yes,
Do you agree or disagree that there are classes of people which oppress others and there are classes of people that are oppressed? Yes or no?
but you cant limit it to classes of people either, but for this Blog sake we are talking about Black Liberals, and the theology that is being tought, in Black liberal churches.
For the definition of Black I would not say “african american” this is just a prefrence, because a lot of people are not African but are American. So Black has to do with the color of the skin, the way alot of Black Liberals label themselves.
Liberal= a position, can fluctuate in extremidies, on theology.
Theology= study and understanding of the nature of God and doctrines of the Christian faith based on the God’s revelation of Himself, chiefly found in the Bible.
Mar 27th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
CHAD: But if you are, why not start with the definition of “black” and “white” that BLT uses which Bob finds so confounding (or maybe he’s just confused?)
BRIAN: Doc has thought through and researched these issues on the doctoral level, for many decades. If you are going to charge him with being confused, then please demonstrate your charge to be true by introducing facts which invalidate the claims in his article. Put up, or shut up. As far as my definition of Black Theology (Liberation Theology), I would define it as Neo-Orthodoxy sprinkled with Marxism, packaged specifically to be marketed in the “black” community. All people descend from Adam. So causing people to fight each other on the basis of “race:, and doing so under the guise of Christianity, is insane.
CHAD: Do you agree or disagree that there are classes of people which oppress others and there are classes of people that are oppressed? Yes or no?
BRIAN: Class oppression is not in view in this article. Racial oppression is. People who peddle Black Liberation Theology cannot make the distinction between these two kinds of oppression, because doing so would injure their ability to take the struggles between classes in the writings of Marx and change them to struggles between races, to keep people angry and in a state of perpetual victimhood, to whip up people to fight against America. In the mathematics of these people, race = class, and class = race. Are you willing to admit that you hold to these equations as being true? Racial oppression exists, but it does not give one the right to invent false theology and mislead the people they are pretending to help. True freedom from oppression will only be found through applying the True Gospel to the situation, not through heresy and hatred. I will give the Black Liberation Theologian credit, though. They do have a noble vision of trying to make the world a nicer place from which to go to Hell. Someone may be burning for eternity, but atleast they had Health Insurance while they were alive! Great mission.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Brian,
Your beloved “doc” has proven in the other thread that he is incapable of having an honest, fruitful discussion with people who disagree with him. So frankly, I don’t care how much “study” he has suppossedly done in this or any other area. His conclusions will be invalid as long as he continues to insist that he is the final arbiter of truth.
With that said, I refuse to waste time refuting his or your misguided opinions only to be unheard, unread and in the end, labeled a heretic because I dare to disagree with “Bob.” (see the Greg Boyd thread for proof of Bob’s harassment).
Take care,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Hello, Chad:
Boyd is up here in the Twin Cities, MN. But so is John Piper. Piper fought Boyd strongly up here. Boyd was teaching at a Bible College. Piper drew him out, and confronted Boyd publicly. Boyd was first removed from all teaching duties. Later, he was allowed to teach but he is closely watched and it not to teach his Open Theism to Bible students.
Boyd is dishonest, and sometimes does not come out and admit his positions. I am living proof, because I questioned him on live radio and he lied to the audience rather than admit his Open Theology position. If it is the truth, then why cower and run from it? What does he have to hide?
Doc stands alongside the majority of the evangelical church world in his condemnation of Open Theism. If you want to defend that position, you are not just figthing Dr. Morey. He is not the only one that thinks Boyd is a heretic. You are fighting John Piper. You are fighting R.C. Sproul. You are fighting John MacArthur. And, most importantly, you are fighting Scripture. Are you willing to stand against all of this in defense of an obvious lie?
Read his “God At War” or his “God of the Possible”. I own them both. If you can stand in line next to that and call it Christianity, then the Doc has correctly identified you as a heretic and an anti-Christ.
Mar 28th, 2008
Brian James Shanley, Minneapolis, MN
Oops. Previous post was meant for Boyd thread. Sorry.
Mar 28th, 2008
Chad
Brian,
I am very familiar with Piper and MacArthur as well as the two books you mention of Boyd’s. There are many things in which I agree with Piper and Mac, and many I do not. That does NOT mean that I think they are heretics or antiChrists. To think so would be childish.
Here’s a newsflash: Evangelical conservative thelogy is not the only kid on the block, nor does it have the corner market on truth. To think so is intellectual arrogance.
Where we disagree are concerning fine matters, complex matters of Scripture that have been debated and wrestled with for centuries, and will continue until we “know fully as we are known.” Because I disagree with Piper on say, election, does not mean that we can not extend the hand of fellowship to one another (which I will, as he has extended an invitation for me and others to do hold one of our regional Adoption Ministry seminars at his church).
Your “doc” is intellectually arrogant. You cannot go around calling someone an antichrist just because you have a doctrinal disagreement on complex issues, and you most certainly can’t do it when you won’t even engage the issue at stake with serious dialogue. I invite you to go reread everything said on that post. It’s all there.
take care,
Chad
Mar 28th, 2008
glen
New to the site.Just thought I might comment I agree with the piece,but in reading some of the comments i see that many of the writers have a shallow historical perspective.Take a step back and try to understand why African Americans,have latched on to the erroneous doctrine of BLT.The segregation of the churches started with the masters,not with the slaves.Go back and look at the making of the African Methodist Episcopalian(AME).There is only one church but it is devide on the issue of ethnicity which manifest itself in the form of racism it is like any other sin that needs to be repented of.An open invitation to all Caucasian brothers ,try visiting a gathering where you are not in the majority and fellowship with your brothers,and live out the creed.On the church site ,the bonner report it stated that most churches with a mixed gathering is usually headed by a Caucasian pastor,there is still a resistance for caucasian brothers and sisters to be under an African American pastor.
Apr 1st, 2008
Tom Q
Glen
Pointing to one bad behavior doesn’t justify another. Racism is a problem of sin and depravity. It is a problem exclusive to man. Look again at the above article–1 Samuel 16:7, specifically. God sees a much larger picture of the way things are than we do. He sees beyond what we see. I’m certainly not dismissing the caucasian sins of the past. If we’re all brothers in Christ, why are we still meeting in churches particular to our own color or ethnicity?
I think in fairness, the flip side of what you say is true as well–about brothers being under a pastor of a different ethnicity. I’m trying to walk on eggshells here because this is such a charged issue–and it shouldn’t be an issue in the church of the Living God. There are bigger battles to fight. People are people. All sinners, all depraved–all in the same condition. By grace we are saved through faith and not of ourselves. Praise be to God.
Apr 1st, 2008
glen
TomQ: I do thank you for your understanding of the problem,but all is not lost,because God has commanded us to love all the brethren.We as the church aught to live true to the gospel,and be salt and light.When we do that we can speak to the world because we have set the proper example.
Apr 1st, 2008
Reformed Mama
Here goes more eggshells…
Dr. Bob has a very dear friend…personal and to the ministry…Bishop Acreage…a beloved man…a follower of Messiah…and yes, a black man…and me a white mama…I would follow him anytime…AS he follows Christ…for he is precious and a godly example.
Apr 1st, 2008
Dr. Morey
Good news! A ministry in NJ wants to print up by blog on BT as a tract. What do you guys think?
Apr 14th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Which one? I mean, any of them would make great tracts, but which one?
Apr 14th, 2008
Tim
This (BLT) should even be a small booklet. I think it would shine a light on all “Liberal” theology regardless of the culture. Surely, Marxism is one of Satan’s largest triumphs in the last 175 years!
Romans 8:31
Apr 15th, 2008
Travis
NJ huh, does that place still exisist, kinda quiet over there in the realm of “christiandom” (just kidding) I think its GREAT. I cant think of better place to start these tracts but in the middle of Old America. May the Lords will be done and may peoples lives change because of it.
Apr 15th, 2008
Teuwanda
I have read through as much of this blog as I could bare. It saddens me to see such upset via the gift of sight that was given us by God, to enjoy, appreciate, and bask in the memories of the images stored in our brains should we live to see old age, or even now upon happy reflection.
Yet we, depict images of the bible, both Old and New Testament showing Jesus as a blue or brown eyed, fine hair, fair-skinned male of apparent Caucasian decent, when in truth as I share with my sons, Jesus’ mother a Jew by nationality was to sole human DNA provider of Jesus’ physical characteristics; however, the bible clearly shows us that Jesus took on his earth father (Joseph’s) bloodline in creating the hierarchy of his earthly existence.
What does that mean? If a person is born upon a certain soil then they are in fact a child of that country taking on its name and loyalties. There is no distinction of skin-tone. If you are light-toned and born in Australia, then you are a native of Australia, you are not American. Consequently if you’re born with a dark skin-tone on Australian soil; you are still Australian.
Of course the so-called black-race raised arms, saying well where are we…are their no blacks in the bible, so did the Asians and so forth.
Black today (Black-America) had nothing to do with how Jesus looked when he walked the face of this earth, and neither did (White-America), Asian America or etc. What is America anyway – it didn’t even exist; it is a baby country. We all came from one father (God), who said to his son…Let US make man. We are talking about a star-breathing God. Is it so unimaginable to us as man kind that God made us multi-colored…even from the onset of creation? More than that, different shapes, sizes, everything down to our DNA is different. Yes we share a commonality…we are human. I tell my sons of course there are people in the bible ranging in tone from the darkest colors of dirt to the palest of color of the same with undertones of yellows, reds, and blues which make our primary color-system. Those combinations and intensities can produce almost any color recognized by the human eye. Beyond that is geography; its division of nations is by land, culture, climate and etc. So sure, there are (Black-Americans) in the bible just like there are (White-Americans, Asian-Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, Austrians and etc.) You are in the bible because you are a continuation of the prophecies foretold. You believe God, yet you have not seen him. What is the color of your skin? On what soil do you walk? This is what I say to my sons.
We are so foolish; we are all in God’s Word (the Bible), which will never pass away.
I am almost resentful that God gave us sight, because we are using it to make war.
We as Christian even in this blog are saying again and again, that it doesn’t matter or shouldn’t matter, yet unless we are blind living in America or another nation separated by skin-color and social-class; it clearly matters.
Why don’t we all stop the hypocrisy and simply see through God’s eyes, which only sees the spirit of his son Jesus in us.
Apr 19th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Teuwanda
Jesus was “man of very man,” and not a white, red, black or brown man per se. Man qua man in terms of a generic humanity. Thus I have always opposed any images of Jesus, white, black, red or brown. The man Jesus did not save us. It was the God/man Messiah who died for our sins on the cross. This is why I condemn the Blond Blue-eyed Sufer Jesus as well as the Negro Jesus or Chinese Jesus, etc.
Apr 20th, 2008
Teuwanda
Sidebar – I did not say in my opening, being distracted by the replies to Dr. Morey’s open what I felt about the message of the author. I will therefore begin like this.
I have no idea who this man is; rather I did not before reading his accolades posted here within this website. I first heard of Dr. Morey via a CD loaned to me by a friend, which on the cover was hand written, “Roman Catholicism: A True Church?” When first I begin listening to the CD, I thought it a bit dry, but muddled through to about the third track or so, which caught my attention, so I listened further. At the end of the CD I found myself enlightened and intrigued, so intrigued in fact that I sought out Dr. Morey’s web-site to find out more about the man, and the message. I stumbled upon the blog site and began reading…thus prompted my reply, which again, although a bit hasty in that I did not fully develop my thoughts about the subject matter, as I hope to do here, I responded to the replies, more than to the message.
I will tell you first and outright, I know nothing of “BLT” other than my readings on Dr. Morey’s findings and rebuttals of the Doctrine; so I can only say this in all sincerity, if what Dr. Morey, says is the truth about that Doctrine…then it is 100% in line with my faith, as was his message on Roman Catholicism.
As I have mentioned, I am a seeker of knowledge; but am grounded in my faith…every Word that proceeded from the mouth of God. My faith, not religion is rooted in the New Testament Teachings, with reflection upon the Old for history and perspective. Not that the old Testament is false…when Jesus was asked the question, He replied that He came to fulfill the law not to destroy it, if memory serves me.
As you may notice by my messages, I do not quote scripture, although I believe it has a place, I believe also that we place too much emphasis on the sayings and not understanding; I therefore by choice, try not to commit a passage to memory, which in translations have been numerically identified by man. For my own studies I find it a helpful identifying tool to locate a particular passage to engage in the study thereof, consequently I appreciate that they are in fact identifiable.
I do hope that I have made my position clear on what my initial perception of Dr. Morey and his teachings including this “BLT” blog conveys to me as a Christian, which simply means to me a follower of Christ’s teachings. In my search for like believers, my quest to sit with them and gain knowledge, I will say the Dr. Morey has exceeded any university, school of divinity or other Christian leader for whom I would love to be a student under. His presentations of the teachings of various Doctrines are substantiated with facts that anyone can verify because he gives you directions to the source, even the Word of God, Dr. Morey, gives you chapter and verse to read for yourselves. I like this presentation; it is clear, direct, thoughtful and solidified.
You the individual have a banquet laid before you; it is up to you what you chose to partake in qualitative and/or quantitative consumption.
Apr 20th, 2008
Teuwanda
Dr. Morey,
I agree…and it is what I hoped to convey to my children in saying that the tone of a man’s skin that once walked this earth is of no consequence to mankind. It is the spiritual realm of the birth, life, death and resurrection that we as Christians and those to become Christian can be. (It is a different realm of existence.)
Also, I am glad to know that you oppose any such images, so do I, and it is the primary reason that I have not joined any local churches in my area. It takes away the focus of what God Is, and who Jesus Was (not that He has ended – only that He is the beginning and the end of all things), when He walked this earth. And, yes I know that even to separate them in this matter for clarity, they are one…all three.
In my lifetime and travels, I have not seen one church that does not display or relate to a physical image, I am glad to have been directed to yours, even via this website and through a loaner CD.
Apr 20th, 2008
Travis
Teuwanda
I am encouraged by your words, but not always is having a picture or image of Jesus a reason not to attend a church. I say not always because in certain instances, ie Catholic Church and Im sure others, it becomes an Idol, though churches have pictures of Jesus, it doesnt make the Pastor a bad pastor, or make it a bad church. And though I also disagee with having pictures or images of Christ I wont disasociate myself from believers that do.
Apr 20th, 2008
Teuwanda
Travis, Good morning
Thank you for your reply; however, I said that it is the primary reason that I have not joined any local churches in my area…joined being the operative word. I attend churches periodically; however, bouncing my family around from one church to another in search of likeness in spirit is not my ideal venture. (smile) I think it extremely important to worship together; teaching in my opinion should be on individual and collective levels addressing specific needs. If I am attending a place where there is no spiritual growth, rather influence of things that would distract and in fact cause division/confusion in my family, then of course, I will not attend that place.
I am a divorced mom of three sons, two still home, raising them independently, it is difficult enough to deal with the circumstances and negative influences of this world without adding the turmoil of church issues for “church sake”…appearance, and etc. If we as a family are not benefiting from the teachings, or they are in contradiction to our faith, then we do not attend.
I would rather my children hear the truth, or nothing at all…if this is my belief, and it is, how could I possibly consider joining with a faith that is not totally in-line with mine? I cannot. I will not. I have a bible, I can read, so can my children. God has given me wisdom and understanding, I have a direct link with Him…what I need I seek, if not in a traditional church setting. Where is it written that I must? As for fellowship; I select to spend edifying time with those of like faith…again, not always in a “church.” After all, aren’t we that…the church, I mean, the body of Christ, so I ask again, what does a building where people gather and name site this or that church matter? To me it does not.
This is what I mean to express when I say that I have also, “opposed any images of Jesus, white, black, red or brown.” And it is the primary reason that I have not joined any local churches in my area.
Travis, excuse me if I am a bit wordy (smile) but I hope that I have cleared my meaning.
Apr 21st, 2008
Travis
I totally understand the church hopipng issue, I have been stationed in areas(with two kids and my Wife) where there wasnt a Reformed (i use this as a doctrinal statement) Church, that was not just in line with what I believe but with scripture, so I attended a SBC, it was hard, but I had to find fellowship, even if it was with someone I didnt fully agree with, by the grace of God the pastor didnt hold to all Reformed, but we could find many simularities, and found many friends.
What is the Church? The Church is the people under Christ, his Children, as far as Ekklacia goes. But we are also to meet together (not where two or more are gathered) but as an ekklasia where a teacher, pastor and the gifts can bee used to glorify God and encourage oneanohter. We should not just attend a specific church for the sake of attending church, but the church must fall in line with scripture.
I will be praying for you, if you dont mind what state are you from? Press on may you Kids come to know the one true God.
Apr 21st, 2008
Teuwanda
Ha, ha, ha…that is interesting, but my questions are rhetorical in nature. I although seeking higher knowledge, am firm in my position of not joining a faith (church) unless it lines up with my faith. Also, my children know God for themselves; they have that personal relationship, yet I am still a caretaker over their lives even in their spiritual walk due to the fact that they are minors, and I am no baby Christian so I can offer them enlightenment, however, as with anyone’s teachings despite the authoritative pedigrees given by man…the individual (every man) must study and know the Word of truth for themselves.
To your question regarding my area…I don’t mind at all. I live in Fresno, CA. for the moment. I have a pretty unique name, so I am not shy about my identity, and while not photogenic, would post a photo if it was allowed in this forum); however, I am, as I should be, protective over my home, and for that reason, will disclose no more. However, Fresno is pretty small, and we are fairly sociable, consequently anyone reading these postings, living in this area or others in which we have resided will recognize me straight-away. I am fine with that. As I said earlier, I am grounded in my faith.
Blessings to you and yours Travis. (smile)
Apr 21st, 2008
Teuwanda
Dr. Morey,
I have a visual impairment; therefore it is difficult and often painful for me to navigate through your site, as any other, but I would like to know your teachings on certain things such as tongues, anointing, divine healing, and more, however I don’t know where to go within your website to see your messages on these things. Will you please direct me?
Many thanks,
Teuwanda
Apr 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Ethnics,
Walter Martin was confident with the anthropological categories of:
1) Mongoloid
2) Caucasoid
3) Negroid
Ken Ham is in intense disagreement. In his book “One Blood,” he does not adhere to the anthropological categories. Morey seems to agree with Ham.
Recently, I think I saw a post where Dr. Morey talks about the death of anthropology.
A Few Questions
1) Where does Dr. Morey stand on the three ethnic anthropological categories as stated above?
2) How does he explain Walter Martin’s passionate means of defense for these categories?
3) Is it not possible to hold unto the 3 anthropological categories and the one blood thesis at the same time?
4) Wouldn’t the Full Council of God demand a Christian anthropology, thus it should not be death to anthropology, but death to secular anthropology?
These questions have been weighing on my mind for years.
Thanks.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 26th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
This is related to Black Liberal Theology in the since of Racism. It seems that the anthropological categories are somewhat racist and set up via the Darwinian model. I have not thought this through though.
Racism is thrown around and never defined. Nobody knows what anybody is talking about.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 26th, 2008
Travis
Since this topic seems to head into the political realm, I am wondering if we can discuss this ideology, and how it affects politics and how we as Christians should respond to liberal views.
or maybe in a seperate thread we can do a scriptural understanding of the political issues, Immagration, trade, women in office, war in relation to Islam, and national health care, does scripture touch these issues? Or is there another blog or book that explains these things.
Is the liberal Ideology of politics compatable with christianity?
May 4th, 2008
Johnny B
Travis, there is no Mexican history month, it’s Hispanic history month. Which is a fallacy, the people they are calling Hispanic, are not from Spain. They are indigenous people that where already here, before the Hispanic influence came to the Americas. They are not Latin or Latino either, they’re Meso-Americans. But you are right there are Mexicans and others central and south American peoples.
Here’s my experience with black theology. A guy that I meet, we talked a lot, because we both read a lot. So we would discuss different doctrines, we had some good discussions. Then he started inviting me to meeting at his church, on how to deliver a message, by if I remember right one of the Peps or someone like that. then he invited me to hear a motivational sparker that helps T. D. Jakes, with his books and how to deliver a message. My reaction was “T. D. Jakes!!!!!”. He said no a guy that works with him. I said that good because T.D. is a heretic. Not that it was good about the speaker, because if the Holy Spirit isn’t enough to deliver the message, then you’re in trouble. as you can guess, that was the last call I got. Just because a person is black and has a mega-Church, doesn’t mean his teachings are Orthodox.
I do remember, him telling me how his father-in-law, preached a message on the Trinity, that made it so clear to him. How the Father, Son, and Spirit are modes of God and that it’s semantics that confuse people. There were others around when he said this, I was asked what I thought. My reply, there not modes of God, that would be modalism. God co-exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three persons (for lack of a better word), eternally, never changing, never separating.
Because of his pastors understanding or none understanding, of the Trinity and T. D. Jakes being black and having a big church. They freely except him as an Orthodox teacher. Maybe their teaching are out there as well, I never went to his church so I can say. The guy had a good understanding of the Orthodox faith or at least what we talked about. He was doing correspondence courses from Calvin college, which doesn’t mean anything in and of itself. But even the book he read, were a good doctrinally sound writers.
Whatever happened to the Body of Christ, the unity of believers.
May 5th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I believe the Bible supports the notion that not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are superior to other cultures while some cultures are inferior to other cultures.
The country of Mexico is inferior to the America Culture (tremendously inferior) in terms of culture. So is Spain and France and all of the African continent.
This has nothing to do with race, but rather culture. I’ve heard very few people assert this claim.
Thus this Mexican holiday is disgusting and extremely filthy as far as holidays go. Our culture should flush it down from back where it came from.
Jean Cauvin
May 5th, 2008
Johnny B
How do you define American culture? Since we are a mixture of other cultures and/or races. There is no, American race, but there are indigenous people that were here before, the founding of America.
May 12th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Johnny,
The various cultures that people bring to America do not represent the American culture. This is the logical fallacy of Composition (the parts don’t make up the whole).
When we speak of the American culture we are talking about the Christian influences that the American Framers had in developing our country. Though many were not Christians, most were influenced via Christian values thanks to the Reformation.
These elements are still functional in our government system structure. Though the liberal socialists/communists (e.g .Obama, Clinton, McCain) are trying to destroy this cultural influence and are winning various battles.
So these new cultures that are comming into America are not changing the American governmental structure. The countries where they are most likely from have an inferior government structure then American (especially Mexico).
But of course, that’s why all these various people from various cultures are coming to America to begin with. To escape their inferior wasteland (i.e. Mexico).
Hope that helps.
Jean Cauvin
May 17th, 2008
the BOC
John Cauvin wrote:
“The country of Mexico is inferior to the America Culture (tremendously inferior) in terms of culture. So is Spain and France and all of the African continent.”
Tell that to someone who lives in those countries. Have you ever lived in any of those countries? Not visited, but lived? Doubt it–so keep your biased opinions to yourself! People aren’t coming here because of culture, John. They come here for a better way of life.
May 17th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
The BOC,
Ha-ha, why would they come to America for a “BETTER” way of life if the culture/country they’re from is equal in culture/life?
I don’t have to visit a country to judge a country. I take this a-priori. Remember BoC,
“You don’t have to drink the ocean to realize the water is salty.”
Jean Cauvin
May 18th, 2008
the BOC
Jean Cauvin-
culture–5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic
There are many more staying in their countries than flocking here. Why do they come–a better opportunity to succeed. Culture has nothing to do with it. Where does American culture come from? The very countries you listed that lack culture! You have issues, my friend!! Deep rooted issues that may need fasting to achieve deliverance. I’ll be glad to help!
May 18th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi BOC,