Letters are a lively and rewarding aspect of our work.
We are thankful for all expressions of support -- there have been many -- and for the donations.
To conserve space we have refrained from publishing all of the appreciative remarks. This in NO way diminishs our gratitude. Please keep those LETTERS coming...
Correspondence:
Bill Randles’ tour of New Zealand
Hi there, I went to Bill Randle’s message at Palmerston North. WOW! Why can’t we have more preachers like him in this country. Well done, well done, and more, well done. He was excellent with his message. Please, can you advise where there is a fellowship in the Christian Witness Ministries here in Palmerston North. Kind regards
BM, NZ
Editorial Comment: Watch our CWM-Fellowship website for the increasing list of Fellowships and Churches – world-wide — that we recommend.
Homepage
http://www.cwmfellowship.org Recommended Fellowships
http://www. cwmfellowship.org/network.html
Assemblies of God – USA: Under Fire
Some prominent Purpose Driven AG pastors in USA falsely accused CWM of libel and scandal.
Read the RESEARCH links for yourself and check them ALL against our
CETF 36 (June 2006) exposé.
Here are the various research links:
• Pastor Bob DeWaay, a former AG Central Bible College graduate, publishes a critical issues Commentary Column and operates a regular Radio Programme http://oneplace.com/ministries/ Critical_Issues_Commentary
• READ his Azusa Street Hall of Shame in CETF 36 at:
/archives/ cetf2006/azusa36.html
• Ray Barnett is a former AG pastor. His article The Transformation of Assemblies of God — from Christian Brother to BIG Brother in less than 100 years is at:
/archives/cetf2006/transaog36.html
• Correspondence which passed between Lee McFarland (LM) and Philip Powell is available and will be posted for the public to read if there is suffi cient expression of interest (McFarland is a leading AG supporter of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven heresies. LM dishonestly implied that James Sundquist, author of Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church failed to answer his personal correspondence. Sundquist has written a 30-page response to McFarland, which can be read at:
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/James/Respons e%20to%20assemblies%20of%20God.html
At the time of going to print LM has not answered Philip Powell or James Sundquist.
• More on James Sundquist at: http://www. swrc.com/offers/internet_0205.htm#h616)
• Dr Opal Reddin's deathbed letter expressing her concern about AG links with Rick Warren and her commissioning of James Sundquist to mount a campaign is at:
/past_mailers/opal.html
CWM plans to keep you informed of developments.
Peter Jensen and the Authority of Scripture
Dear brothers at CETF,
Thank you for your continued efforts to “contend earnestly for the faith”.
There are too few in these days who deem such a job worth doing, let alone who do it with such diligence and courage.
I fear, however, that your recent volley at Peter Jensen over his stance on creation/evolution is an example of friendly fi re.
Archbishop Jensen’s fervently-held and amply-demonstrated commitment to the authority of Scripture in the face of liberal opposition has been a beacon of encouragement to many around the world.
I am not entirely sure of Archbishop Jensen’s exact views on creation and evolution — I certainly wouldn’t assume that he has been quoted accurately in the material you cite.
However, if he believes that the opening chapters of Genesis do not REQUIRE us to affi rm a 144-hour creation some 6000 years ago, then I and many other conservative, classic evangelicals (both now and in church history) would agree with him.
It’s not as if God couldn’t have done such a thing, nor even that he didn’t. It’s just that a literal reading of Genesis does not provide us with the basis to assert such a proposition unequivocally as an article of faith. (By ‘literal’, I mean reading the Bible as the kind of literature that it is — in the case of Genesis 1-2,as a piece of non-scientifi c, highly-stylised literature.)
Differences between evangelicals over the exact mode and chronology of creation belong in the same basket of ‘legitimate difference between brothers’ as issues like mode of baptism and church polity.
These are issues we may disagree about, and even debate vigorously, but we do so as brothers with Bibles open together, not as opponents with fundamentally different beliefs about the nature and authority of Scripture.
Indeed, to turn such issues into litmus tests of biblical orthodoxy is a dangerous game. It runs the risk of not so much ‘contending for the faith’ as stirring up ‘foolish controversies and dissensions’ (Titus 3:9).
I trust you will think and pray very carefully before doing so again. With warm regards in Christ
Tony Payne
Matthias Media, Sydney
Editorial Comment: May be we should take some notice of Mark Twain’s alleged quip: “If you don’t read the newspapers you will be uninformed. If you read them you will be misinformed.” I wonder if someone could obtain a direct statement from Archbishop Jensen on this issue that we can publish. If we have misunderstood or in any way misrepresented his position we will of course apologise.
No Fib – Adam’s Rib!
Editorial Comment: The Berean Call published the following in their e-news letter of Wednesday 19 July 2006. It brings into focus the problem that one faces if one claims to accept the authority of Scripture and yet deny the literalness of the Genesis record about Creation and the Creator.
[TBC: Probably no book of the Bible has been attacked as consistently throughout history as Genesis. Consequently, those who would elevate Jesus on one hand, face a dilemma as they consider Genesis on the other. This essay (originally written in 1893) brings their dilemma into focus.]
The account of the formation of the fi rst woman is one of these incredible narratives, and under the name of the “rib story” it has been the butt of ridicule to the irreverent critics, as it has been a stumbling block to those who are styled reverent. But Jesus indirectly endorses the whole story in his discussion with the Pharisees about divorce. He says:
Have you not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4,5).
Here He appeals to what the Pharisees had read; and they had read it where we read it, in the second chapter of Genesis, the paragraph that describes the formation, of the woman.
His appeal to the passage to settle a question as to the will of God shows that He regarded it not as containing a myth, but as a faithful record of an actual event.
Furthermore, He quotes, as presenting the main point of His argument, the last sentence of that record, which makes it doubly certain that He endorsed the record itself.
But He goes even beyond the mere endorsement of the record--He affi rms, by a necessary implication, the divine inspiration of the man who wrote it.
The verse, which he quotes, was written by the author of the book, and not spoken by Adam, as appears from the consideration that Adam as yet knew nothing about father and mother, and forsaking them to be joined to one’s wife; but Jesus quotes it as the language of God, saying: He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this cause …. etc”.
Now, the only ground on which it could be affi rmed that God said this is, that the author was inspired of God to write it.
Here, then, is not only an endorsement of the fact related, but also an indirect affi rmation of the divine inspiration of the writer.
God said what this writer wrote (J. W. McGarvey,
Short Essays in Biblical Criticism - 1910).
ACL and the Homosexual Issue:
While the Australian Christian Lobby and its managing director, Brigadier Jim Wallace are deserving of our commendation for rightly opposing the Civil Union push at Canberra earlier this year, it is with considerable concern that we note that both ACL and its MD have publicly stated that they will support the measure known as the Registration of Relationships Bill in ACT of couples living in a caring relationship if their support is necessary to defeat the legalising of homosexual marriages and/or the measures associated with Civil Union.
However supporting this Bill involves supporting both “caring” and “signifi cant” relationships which are known collectively as “domestic partnerships”.
Signifi cant relationships apply to two people, who are not married or related and are living together as a couple.
They are aimed at gay and lesbian couples.
We note with pleasure that both Festival of Light and Salt Shakers disagree with ACL on their support for this Bill. It is never right from a Christian perspective to support the lesser of two evils or the least of three, if the end result is the practice of immorality that is forbidden by God.
In this connection we strongly recommend the position stated by barrister Mark Mullins in his article If The Foundations are Destroyed ... —
see pages 4 to 6 of CETF # 37.
National Secular Newsline, 26 May 2006
THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF THE PAGAN AND THE MULTICULTURAL PRAYER ROOM
An extraordinary industrial tribunal case in Manchester in March gave rare insight into how attempts to accommodate “multicultural” religious needs at the workplace actually appear to apply only to Muslims.
It developed around a spat between Muslim employees at the Royal Mail and a member of the Odinist Fellowship (a group that apparently worships the old Nordic gods).
The case “Royal Mail group PLC vs Donald Holden” was described on the TUC website by Robin Jackson, the information offi cer of the Odinist Fellowship, who attended both days of the hearing:
“Many of you will be surprised, as I was, to learn that, increasingly, employers with a large proportion of Muslim staff are being obliged to set aside rooms in the workplace for Muslim prayers, and to allow their employees to take time away from their duties to engage in these prayers.
At the mail centre where Donald worked, there was just such a room, which was designated as a ‘multicultural room’.
That is important, because never, at any time, did Royal Mail claim that the room was solely for Muslim use, or that non-Muslims might not use it for their own purposes.”
Mr Holden tried to use the room for his own religious purposes (which is ostensibly what it was for), but it became apparent that it was in reality, a Muslim club room, full of Korans and prayer calendars. Mr Holden left literature about Odinism in the room.
An item of evidence at the tribunal was a book which required users of the room to sign upon entering and leaving. Mr Holden’s visits were always of short duration and mainly on a Saturday when the place was mostly empty.
Mr Jackson takes up the story:
“I was able to see for myself, that certain names and signatures, evidently belonging to Muslim employees, recurred time and time again in the signing-in book, sometimes three or four times in a single shift, and that the duration of their stays was half an hour or more.
Some would call this ‘skiving’.” Obviously Mr Holden’s use of the room was not welcomed by Muslim employees and an anonymous complaint was made to management that a “muddy footprint had been left on the carpet”. Incredibly, Royal Mail set up hidden cameras to trap the culprit who was causing the ‘damage’.
After fi ve months of surveillance, management admitted they had nothing on Mr Holden.
In fact, during the tribunal, no-one could be found who had actually seen the muddy footprint.
But Royal Mail did see Mr Holden in the room, leaving his literature on a chair and briefl y appearing to pray.
On 23 February 2005, Mr Holden was hauled before management to explain his actions. He was unsure what he had done that needed explanation.
The managers could not agree what exactly his offence had been.
Despite the vagueness of it all, he was suspended from work, accused of “religiously aggravated harassment directed against the Muslim faith”.
His religious literature was confi scated and destroyed. Imagine the consequences if that had been done to Islamic literature!
Mr Holden’s suspension from Royal Mail continued and after a failed appeal he took action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Royal Mail then dismissed him.
He had worked for them for 33 years with an unblemished record. He lost his pension rights and his livelihood.
All because Royal Mail said he walked on carpet in the “multicultural room” with his shoes on.
The Tribunal heard this tale with incredulity and deciding that Mr Holden had been unfairly dismissed, ordered Royal Mail to pay a compensation package likely to run into six fi gures.
Another outcome of this extraordinary case is that Odinism is now a legally recognised religion — and, by extension, so are all pagan religions.
http://www.wcer.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=101
POLICY: We value and encourage your communications on any matter and especially on subjects raised in our publications. However due to the large amount of correspondence that we receive Philip Powell can not undertake to answer personal correspondence.
WE are receiving so many letters and emails that it is impractical to publish them all.
CWM issues a regular electronic Mailer, which among other things seeks to warn Christians about false doctrine and abusive practices within the Christian community.
Good advice resulted from our publishing the story.
You can join the CWM Mailer at http://www. christian-witness.org/join.html for future despatches.
Found this information useful?
Web Site by
S & R Cope in association with
May not have appeared in any CWM Publication
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3
© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
|
|
|
|
|
-Last revised-
Monday, October 09, 2006
