The potency of the article “THE” in “thePLAN”; Part 1

Words have an uncanny potency. Even the three letter word “the” can sway your heart and mind from one paradigm to another in a matter of seconds. No wonder the Bible warns us to weigh our words carefully because in the day of judgment we are going to give an account of every single word we speak for it is by our words that we shall be justified or condemned (Matthew 12:36 and 37). The little word or article “the,” when it stands alone, doesn’t mean a thing. But you know that, don’t you? So why am I telling you something you already know? You know perfectly well that when you prefix a word like for instance “PLAN” with the article “the” it becomes “THE PLAN” which immediately imprints on it a sense of authority, finality, conclusiveness, irrevocability and indefeasibility. “A PLAN” is just another plan amongst many others and will not necessarily captivate your mind, but when it is “THE PLAN” you inadvertently begin to realize that you cannot argue against it. For all practical reasons “THE PLAN” is the ultimate plan, the plan of all plans and must therefore be endorsed and accepted at all cost. It suggests that all the other plans which are merely “A PLAN” have failed and that this plan, “THE PLAN,” is the answer to all the failures that have gone before: this, my friend, is “THEEEEE PLAN.” Please bear my latter statement in mind because in due course I will show you how “THE PLAN” has superseded even God’s plan despite the fact that it is called God’s plan.

Be that as it may, let’s make it a bit more interesting by removing the space between the article “the” and the word “plan.” It then becomes “thePLAN” which brings us a little closer to the real reason for the title of my comment “The potency of the article “THE.” You may  already have come across “thePLAN” (Afrikaans: “diePlan”) on the internet. For those of you who understand Afrikaans I have embedded the following video so that you may become better acquainted with “thePLAN.”

“thePLAN” Promotional Video by Frans Hancke

In his promotional video “thePlan, the SECRET of a church (congregation) that makes a DIFFERENCE in the world” Dr. Frans Hancke reveals the secret of a missional or sent-out church. He has been involved in several South African and overseas church congregations for more than twenty years and in all of those years the question “What is the secret of a church that makes a difference in the world” has been bugging him. He began to wonder why some parishes have managed to make a distinct difference in the world out there while others have been struggling to make any significant difference at all. He began to wonder what God’s purpose is for his church; how would God want the difference to look like which his people, the church, are supposed to make in the world out there? His quest for an answer led him to the University of the Free State where he started his research. Of course, the obvious thing to do was to first study the Bible to learn what it has to say about a transformational or transformative church. The second thing he ventured to do was to visit several congregations and to determine what it was they were doing that enabled them to make a difference in the world out there. And thirdly, he began to study the available literature on transformational churches to see what some of the other theologians and researches have written on the subject. The most unsettling thing that emerged in their research was that only 10% of the churches in the world, of God’s people in the world, were missionally involved in God’s plan. In other words, only 10% of the churches in the world were actively making a difference in the world out there. The research he has been doing ever since has not only gained credence in South Africa but also abroad and eventually it gave birth to “thePLAN,” an organization that assists congregations to become more missional in their approach to evangelism and to make a greater difference in the world out there. Those of you who would like to know more about Dr. Fans Hancke and his unique “thePlan” will find the following information interesting.

Let’s do a quick MissioMatrix check on some of the things Dr. Frans Hancke says in his promotional video.

1. The pad from which he launched his “thePLAN” was the Bible in order to see what it has to say about transformational churches. THAT’S JUST GREAT! The infallible, inerrant and eternally immutable Word of God should always be a light unto our feet and to our path (Psalm 119: 105).
2. His endeavors to encourage churches to reach out to the world out there is JUST GREAT. Jesus Christ Himself commanded his disciples to go into all the world and to make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe everything He taught us (Matthew 28: 19 and 20). THAT’S JUST GREAT!
3. His endeavors to encourage churches to go out there where the tyre meets the road and to make a difference in the world out there, is JUST GREAT. Christians everywhere should hanker for peace, justice and righteousness. They should lend a helping hand to alleviate the suffering of the poor, the downtrodden and the outcasts. THAST’S JUST GREAT. James, the brother of Jesus, said: “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (James 2:15-16).
4. His endeavors to provide the churches he visits with material such as DVD’s brochures, books, publications, Bible studies etc. to assist hem in their missional outreach is JUST GREAT.

BUT and this is a huge BUT:

As soon as you compromise the Word of God to accommodate your particular “thePLAN” your missional strategies and methodologies breed arrogance and even animosity against God and his Word. But in what way is Frans Hancke compromising the Word of God whilst he boldly asserts that “thePLAN” is God’s plan for the church and its people and that he derived his “thePLAN” directly from the Word of God? To find out we must allow him to speak for himself. He said the following in a paper he presented at an international conference hosted by the Department of Theology of the University of the Free State. entitled “The Impact of Emerging Global Missional Paradigms  on the Perspective of the Relationship between Mission and Conversion.”

How clear is the Bible on the concepts of Mission and Conversion? I ask that because if the Biblical perspective is evident, unambiguous, unmistakable – if it is apparent, if it is rigid – there is no need for us to discuss our perspectives on this matter. Because in such a case our perspective becomes, in a sense, irrelevant. Then we should concur with this apparent Biblical perspective of mission and conversion and it would be needless and invalid to allow for a changing point of view or even to allow for the influence of changing paradigms.

But I believe that most Bible scholars will agree that defining these concepts is much more complex than that. There are far too many diverse perspectives in the global church on the subject of mission and conversion to support a clear mono-Biblical point of departure. There are so many interpretations of Scripture. There are so many variables we face. The fact that we have conferences on this subject, accentuates the fact that there are different perspectives and orientations in church and theological circles. The fact is – the Bible is not so clear on these concepts and therefore does not allow for a universal understanding and acceptance of mission and conversion. We do not have a narrow, clear, simple Biblical definition of mission and conversion – and even if there were such undebatable descriptions, we probably would have find reasons to differ about it. But that is not the only reason why perspectives of mission and conversion differ. Our perspectives vary because of differences in:

• context;
• Theological traditions and backgrounds;
• interpretation of current Theological paradigms; and
• because of personal experience,

Why do I stress the difference in perspective? Because we will never be completely in accordance when we think and speak and write about mission and conversion. We must accept variances in our perspectives and recognize that this will ultimately determine our view on the content of, and the relationship between mission and conversion. (Emphasis added).

In effect our esteemed Dr. Frans Hancke from the equally esteemed University of the Free State says the following:

“thePlan” would never have been a crucial necessity for the church if the Bible had been absolutely clear on the subject of Mission and Conversion. The realities, however, are that the Bible is NOT so evident, unambiguous, unmistakable and rigid in its treatment of this matter. In fact, we must allow our perspectives with regard to Mission and Conversion to be formed and molded by the many diverse perspectives in the global church (including the perspectives of the Roman Catholic Church) which do NOT support a clear mono-Biblical point of departure. We must realize that the post modernistic and humanistic approach to biblical truths are flooded with paradoxes and we dare not compromise any of these paradoxes. There are no longer such a thing as untruths or lies and no longer an “either/or” paradigm in the global church. Both, EITHER the traditionally accepted truth AND the apparent contradiction of that truth, are true. These paradoxes should guide our perspectives on Mission and Conversion and NOT the ambiguities, uncertainties, vagueness and opacity of the Bible.

Why do I stress the difference in perspective? Because we will never be completely in accordance when we think and speak and write about mission and conversion (from a biblical perspective of the meaning of Mission and Conversion). We must discard a mono-biblical point of departure and accept variances in our perspectives and recognize that this will ultimately determine our view on the content of, and the relationship between mission and conversion, even if we have to alter, change, refurbish, re-interpret, or renounce Jesus Christ’s own take on Mission and Conversion.

From this we can easily draw a table of distinction between “thePLAN” and the “theBIBLE.” Guess which one of the two is going to come up tops?

“thePLAN”	“theBIBLE”
Lucid, clear, clear-cut, unambiguous, straightforward,  articulate, coherent, plain, unmistakable, transparent, entirely intelligible, precise, unequivocal, explicit, decided, JUST GREAT. etc. etc. etc.	Confused, irrational, ambiguous, unclear, not so straightforward, complicated, devious, incoherent, mistakable, inarticulate, unintelligible, equivocal, undecided, NOT SO GREAT etc. etc. etc.

Now, just fancy that! Here is a man with a doctorate in theology who has the audacity to claim that he has found the key to unlock the secret of how to nurture a successful missional church because the centuries old biblical missionary paradigm is unclear. He has simply taken the many interpretations of Scripture and the many diverse perspectives of Mission and Conversion in the global church, cast it into one big pot, stirred it with his magical wand and voila – out came the new wonderful plan, called “thePLAN” (not “aPLAN” but “theeeeePLAN”) that surpasses all the other plans. Isn’t that just perfectly kosher? He condenses all the many perspectives in the global church into ONE UNIFIED and globally ACCEPTED PLAN, seals it with a new and singularly authoritative perspective of Mission and Conversion and claims that this IS the ultimate unambiguous and unmistakably and internationally clear-cut Magna Carte of missional churches which strive to make a difference in the world out there.

If Mission and Conversion are the two most important doctrines in the Bible, it becomes extremely difficult to understand why anyone would want to ascribe ambiguity and indistinctness or unclearness to what the Bible has to say about it. Surely, if Mission and Conversion are the two most important doctrines in the Bible, the God of the Bible would never have allowed the Holy Spirit (the Author of God’s Word according to 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17) to inspire men of God into being unclear, ambiguous, fickle, inconsistent and capricious. Indeed, it is so breathtakingly important that He would have his Spirit make it so abundantly clear, so genuinely unambiguous and so rigidly comprehensible that even a child may understand it (Psalm 119: 9).

IS THE MISSIONAL EFFORT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD OR TO MAKE A BETTER PLACE OF THE WORLD A BIBLICAL CONCEPT?

The post modernists are working overtime to reinterpret the major doctrines in the Bible. Here are a few examples of their undying efforts to refurbish the entire Bible.

CONVERSION/REPENTANCE

One of todays most esteemed transformational architects, Dr. Ron Martoia. has the following to say about repentance (Metanoia). I dare to call it Martoia’s Metanoia or is it “Martenoia?”. You can find it here.

Jesus said I have come to give you full life, abundant (perissos) life, over the top life.

I want to suggest that Jesus came for the express purpose of helping us shift our perspective so we can experience this transformative life.

Think about Jesus’ opening sermon picked up from John the Baptist…

Reorient your lives (repent, some have suggested “move beyond your mind”) the Kingdom of God is the framework you need to see right now!

(Metanoia in the context of theological discussion, where it is often used, is usually interpreted to mean repentance. However, some people argue that the word should be interpreted more literally to denote changing one’s mind, in the sense of embracing thoughts beyond its present limitations or thought patterns (an interpretation which is compatible with the denotative meaning of repentance but replaces its negative connotation with a positive one, focusing on the superior state being approached rather than the inferior prior state being departed from).

The word “metanoia” does indeed mean “to change your mind for the better” but Martoia, like so many other emergent scholars and preachers, deliberately dissect it from the biblical reasoning that man needs to escape his lost and sinful status (and the righteous judgments of God) by a voluntary and intentional adjustment of his mind with regard to his understanding of who God is and who he (mankind) is in the light of God’s Word. A biblical knowledge of God (i.e. God’s own revelation of his character, i.e. his holiness, divine love, goodness, mercy, and his righteous judgments and man’s fallen nature) form the basis for true repentance and salvation. Hence Jesus’ words in John 17:3:

John 17:3 And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent. (Emphasis added).

Nonetheless, how can you know and understand the true meaning of repentance and conversion when you pin a tag of ambiguity and indistinctness on the Bible? It is impossible! The inevitable result is that you will want to invent a new plan of Mission and Conversion and that’s exactly what Dr. Frans Hancke together with the Department of Theology at the University of the Free State have done. They have replaced the Bible’s perspective on Mission and Conversion with a hodgepodge of various divergent perspectives on Mission and Conversion now prevalent in the global church (which, God have mercy, includes the Roman Catholic Church and its particular doctrines on Mission and Conversion). Conversion in the post modernist’s mind is not an escape from God’s righteous judgments through his Son Jesus Christ but involves a paradigm shift whereby your mind is brought into tune with the bigger picture, embedded in the vast diversity of the global church whose missional journey it is to make a difference in the world and to make it a better place to live in. In essence, their transformational agenda is nothing more and nothing less than an offshoot of the dominionist faith paradigm – the notion that the global church must usher in the Kingdom of God on earth here and now. Dr Frans Hancke and professor Pieter Verster, co-writers of an article, entitled “THE COMMON CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS DETERMINING THE MISSION IMPACT OF THE LOCAL CHURCH, Results from an analytical study” quote Edward R & David A Fraser who said the following:

The Church is a participant in, and a result of the mission of God. It is both a result of and a co-partner with God in the process of effecting the Kingdom of God here on earth (Dayton, Edward R & Fraser, David A. “Mission and the Church” in Winter & Hawthorne, D17-D25). [As quoted

MISSION / MISSIONAL

Jesus Christ never commanded his followers to make the world a better place or to make a difference in the world. He commanded them to go into all the regions of the world (countries, islands and lands) and to make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe everything He has commanded his followers (Matthew 28:19 and 20). Imagine for one moment a follower of Jesus being sent to a particular nation and trying to teach them to observe everything Jesus taught whilst the follower defines the Bible as being ambiguous, indistinct, unclear and inarticulate on lifesaving matters such as mission and conversion. Is he going to make disciples who learn to observe and obey everything Jesus taught? You must be joking! But rest assured, Frans Hancke and the Department of Theology at the University of the Free State will immediately come to the rescue with their brilliant plan “thePLAN” that is definitely NOT ambiguous, indiscreet, indistinct, unclear and inarticulate in their perspectives on Mission and Conversion.

How can you make a better place of the world or make a difference in the world when it lies in the control of the evil one? (1 John 5:19). In fact, this is precisely the reason why the world hated Jesus first and continues to hate his true followers. The true followers of Jesus who proclaim the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ and refuse to soften up or water down the stumbling properties of his cross will be hated, persecuted and even put to death. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:13 that the true followers of Christ are defamed because they are the filth of the world and the off-scouring of all things unto this day. Do the post modern change agents really think the world will allow it to be changed into something supposedly better when it regards God’s true followers as the filth of the world and the off-scouring of all things? In fact, the Psalmist declared many centuries ago that the world is bent on casting off God’s and his Son’s authority and the restraints imposed on them by their authority (Psalm 2). It is the will of God that mankind as a whole willingly and obediently subject itself to His authority by being yoked to his beloved Son (Matthew 11:29), but in stead of doing just that it vomits out hatred and animosity against God and his Son by shouting: “Let us break Their bands [of restraint] asunder and cast Their cords [of control] from us.”

Any person, no matter what his/her rank and position is in this world (King, Queen, Doctor, Professor, General, Mr. Mrs. Miss or Me.), is deceived when he/she thinks they can make a difference in the world or make a better place of the world by compromising the Word of God. As a matter of fact they are not making a difference in the world but are aiding and abetting it in its maddening hatred of God and his restraining authority. They are actually siding with the world against God and his Son, Jesus Christ. They are NOT influencing the world for the better in any way; the world is influencing the church.

I am not suggesting that the followers of Jesus Christ should refrain from doing good to others by trying to alleviate their poverty and ill-begotten circumstances. What I do say is that we cannot transform the world by doing wonderful things. Genuine transformation can only come about when individuals are touched by the wonderful, unambiguous and supremely articulate Gospel of Jesus Christ, when they believe this Gospel and repent of their evil ways by being born anew from above. Without this you will only end-up with a Mother-Teresian kind of Gospel that tends to the needs of the poor, the sick and the destitute but are careless about their final destiny after death because they have never been taught to repent and believe the Gospel for their redemption. Making a better place of the world or making a difference in the world is in fact a Christless Gospel that cannot save. It is merely a do-goody-goody social Gospel that supposedly wants to usher in the Kingdom of God here and now without having to teach the nations to observe everything Jesus teaches us in his Word. In a recent article which you can read here, Richard Nathan MA defines the Social Gospel as follows:

What I call the First Great Evangelical Meltdown occurred in the early 1900s in contrast to the First Great Awakening in the 1700s. It was widely accepted in the early 1900s that Evangelical and Reformed thinkers and preachers were promoting the true Gospel. They also had strong intellectual backing through schools like Princeton Theological Seminary, which was considered a bastion of Evangelical orthodoxy. However, heretical and unbiblical views of Christianity began entering the Church around that time, especially through the seminaries and universities. These assaults focused particularly on the authority of the Bible.

The two main assaults were,

• first, a philosophy of naturalistic science that claimed the biblical picture of the origin of the universe was an archaic myth and that science trumped the Bible; and,
• second, an attack on the Bible itself that came mainly from German theological schools steeped in Enlightenment Rationalism and German Romanticism . . . .

These schools claimed that they could tell what was “really true” in the Bible and what was “myth.” One of the “myths” that they claimed was just superstitious thinking was the Resurrection of Christ. They also taught that Moses didn’t write the first five books of the Old Testament. These heresies took the American seminaries and universities by storm, and later the denominations. Unfortunately, the churches were vulnerable partly because they wanted to be academically “relevant” to “modern people.”

Another factor that contributed to the First Great Meltdown was the rise of the social gospel around the beginning of the 20th century.

Promoters of the social gospel assumed that the biblical Gospel wasn’t really true because “of course Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead.” Therefore, the only thing left for people who wanted to affect society was to do good, because of course Christ talked about being helpful to the poor and the sick, the alienated, and so forth. And since there was no longer a Gospel of grace and salvation to believe in, they said that what we have left is the social gospel: “Go into all the world and do social good works.” In other words, “deeds not creeds.”

Many came to see this as the mission of the Church. The world missionary movement that had flourished just before this controversy arose changed its basic focus from bringing the Gospel to the nations to going to the nations “recognizing” that the “hidden Christ in all nations” was already there. This became the theology of the World Council of Churches.

This truth gap in the mission of the Church left a big hole, and into that hole poured Marxist thinking, which agreed with liberal theology that all that mattered was to “do good to people.” The Marxists believed that capitalism was the great cause of suffering, war, and poverty, and as the liberal theologians gradually embraced Marxism, the Marxists were happy to use the churches for their own purposes.

During this process, almost every mainline church either capitulated or split due to the terrible conflict. The groups called Fundamentalist united on the fundamental truths of Scripture that the liberal churches denied (more about that below). The liberal churches focused on the social gospel and gradually turned away more and more from biblical preaching, teaching, and eventually even from biblical morality. In many circles psychological methods replaced biblical sanctification in the search for the transformation of the inner man.

This situation has continued up through today and, if anything, is snowballing. The mainline churches are continuing in their liberalism and are moving more and more towards Marxism. The Fundamentalist churches are now moving more and more into the syncretism that they abhorred during the first Great Meltdown. In addition, the following influences in Evangelicalism are very strong:

• The marriage of psychology and mysticism;
• Compromises with Roman Catholicism in the political arena;
• The popularity and spread of the spiritual formation / contemplative prayer movement and Romanticism; and
• Literary apologetics and an undiscerning embrace of culture, especially through the popularity and influence of such writers as C. S. Lewis and the Inklings and the compromising Anglican style.

In part 2 of my comment on “thePLAN” I will be focusing on a phenomenon called “INCARNATIONAL SPIRITUALITY” that is taking the church by storm.

For those of you who want to study the ascending GLOBAL CHURCH or EMERGENT CHURCH in more detail the following reading matter may interest you.

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/globalchurch.htm

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/peace-un.htm

http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/10/09/the-role-of-middle-east-christians-in-the-global-church/

Back to Rome (or is it Babylon?)

Cover of The Two Babylons

In Revelation chapter 17 the apostle John was given an amazing vision of a church that will dominate the entire human race in the end time and is going to force the entire world population to worship the beast from the earth, also known as Antichrist. Could it be that the Emerging or Emergent Church which is making so much headway in the world today, especially amongst the intellectual younger generation, is being groomed for this particular task? Are you amazed and perhaps even a wee bit angered at such a blanket statement? You shouldn’t get too upset because the apostle John was also just as or even more amazed at what he saw. In verse 6 we are told that when he saw a woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, he marveled greatly with wonderment and admiration. At first it may seem a bit odd that John was overcome by wonderment and admiration by such a scene of bloodshed and persecution. Indeed, John was utterly amazed when he saw a woman sitting on a scarlet coloured beast full of names of blasphemy and a name written on her forehead “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BABYLONIAN CONNECTION

In his celebrated book “THE TWO BABYLONS” Reverend Alexander Hislop wrote the following insightful introduction:

There never has been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman “sitting on seven mountains,” and having on her forehead the name written, “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” with the Roman apostasy. “No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has, for its situation on seven hills. Pagan poets and orators, who had not thought of elucidating prophecy, have alike characterized it as ‘the seven hilled city.’” Thus Virgil refers to it: “Rome has both become the most beautiful (city) in the world, and alone has surrounded for herself seven heights with a wall.” Propertius, in the same strain, speaks of it (only adding another trait, which completes the Apocalyptic picture) as “The lofty city on seven hills, which governs the whole world.” Its “governing the whole world” is just the counterpart of the Divine statement – “which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Rev 17:18). To call Rome the city “of the seven hills” was by its citizens held to be as descriptive as to call it by its own proper name. Hence Horace speaks of it by reference to its seven hills alone, when he addresses, “The gods who have set their affections on the seven hills.” Martial, in like manner, speaks of “The seven dominating mountains.” In times long subsequent, the same kind of language was in current use; for when Symmachus, the prefect of the city, and the last acting Pagan Pontifex Maximus, as the Imperial substitute, introduces by letter one friend of his to another, he calls him “De septem montibus virum” – “a man from the seven mountains,” meaning thereby, as the commentators interpret it, “Civem Romanum, “A Roman Citizen.” Now, while this characteristic of Rome has ever been well marked and defined, it has always been easy to show, that the Church which has its seat and headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called “Babylon,” inasmuch as it is the chief seat of idolatry under the New Testament, as the ancient Babylon was the chief seat of idolatry under the Old. But recent discoveries in Assyria, taken in connection with the previously well-known but ill-understood history and mythology of the ancient world, demonstrate that there is a vast deal more significance in the name Babylon the Great than this. It has been known all along that Popery was baptized Paganism; but God is now making it manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptized is, in all its essential elements, the very Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron. . . . . Rome is in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar. In the warfare that has been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all churches – the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation. If ever there was excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer. If the position I have laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff-king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, “praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone” (Dan 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian Church; but not otherwise. This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position. (Emphasis added)

Indeed, Hislop’s observations have appeared a very startling position for many of today’s most esteemed evangelical leaders. Dave Hunt writes as follows in his book “A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, pages 5, 6.

The most significant event in nearly 500 years of church history was revealed as a fait accompli on March 29, 1994. On that day leading American evangelicals and Catholics signed a joint declaration titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the 3rd Millennium.” The document, in effect, overturned the Reformation and will unquestionably have far-reaching repercussions throughout the Christian world for years to come. They toiled together in the movements against abortion and pornography, and now leading Catholics and evangelicals are asking their flocks for a remarkable leap of faith: to finally accept each other as Christians. In what’s being called a historic declaration, evangelicals including Pat Robertson and Charles Colson [one of the chief originators] joined with conservative Roman Catholic leaders today in upholding the ties of faith that bind the nation’s largest and most politically active religious groups. They urged Catholics and evangelicals… to stop aggressive proselytization of each other’s flocks. John White, president of Geneva College and former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said the statement represents a “triumphalistic moment” in American religious life after centuries of distrust…. Other evangelical endorsers include the heads of the Home Mission Board and Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention [who acted in an independent capacity], the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, and Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ…. Mark Noll of Wheaton University… [Os Guinness, Jesse Miranda (Assemblies of God), Richard Mouw (President, Fuller Theological Seminary), J.I. Packer and Herbert Schlossberg]. . . . The leaders of the Reformation were certain that she represented the Roman Catholic Church in general and the pope in particular. That belief, however, has been rejected lately by most Protestants as provocative and demeaning to a body of fellow Christians with whom evangelicals desire to work together in the task of winning most of the world for Christ before the year 2000. In fact, the subject of the woman is generally avoided today as too divisive to discuss. . . .

Could it be that the apostle John was greatly disturbed (marveled with admiration) at the sight of the drunken woman because his expectations of seeing a pure, holy and untarnished Bride of Christ was shattered by this abominable vision of a harlot riding a beast? It reminds one of Paul’s heartrending lament in some of his epistles.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7)

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.  (2 Corinthians 11:2).

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:29)

Apostasy was no small matter for Paul and neither should it be for us. The next question we should ask ourselves is: How is the Protestant – Roman Catholic – Babylonian connection being implemented? What are the change agents doing to facilitate the journey back to Rome and Babylon? The short answer is MYSTICISM and all of its tentacles, amongst others contemplative prayer, lectio divina, labyrinths, stillness, and meditation which brings us to -

THE EMERGENT CHURCH AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CONNECTION

A quick glance at some of the more eloquent websites and blogs engineered by some of South Africa’s most esteemed Emergent Church leaders does not only show how they aggressively promote the books written by mystics such as Thomas Keating, Anthony de Mello, Thomas Merton, Morton Kelsey, Trevor Hudson and others but also randomly quote many Roman Catholic clergy. In fact, their sayings are often given greater preference over Scripture on websites such as www.echurch.co.za. I could not help noticing this when I read one of Stephan Joubert’s most recent comments (The cost of discipleship) in which he appreciatively writes about the Franciscan priest, Maximilian Kolbe. To counteract any would-be charges of me being judgmental, let me immediately say this: Kolbe’s substitutionary and voluntary death to save the life of a fellow prisoner in Auschwitz is truly commendable. But, ironically, Kolbe’s beliefs were directly responsible for the persecution, martyrdom and death of millions of true followers of Christ. Maximilian Kolbe’s sacrifice may have saved one person’s life but his beliefs were the cause of many saints’ untimely death. A leading Catholic Professor in the nineteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, wrote the following indictment in his Summa Theologica, 1857, vol. 4, p. 90.

Through the influence of Gratian . . . and unwearied activity of the Popes and their legates since 1183, the view of the Church had been  . . . [that] every departure from the teaching of the Church, and every important opposition to any ecclesiastical ordinances, must be punished with death, and the most cruel of deaths, by fire . . . (Emphasis added).

And so, by order of the Popes, many saints were mutilated, martyred, butchered and burned at the stake because they renounced the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass as blasphemous and extremely dishonoring to God and his Son. The sacrifice of the Mass is the very heart of Roman Catholicism. Let us now look at some of the things Maximilian Kolbe said about the sacrifice of the Mass and martyrdom.

“God dwells in our midst, in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.”

“You come to me and unite Yourself intimately to me under the form of nourishment. Your Blood now runs in mine, Your Soul, Incarnate God, compenetrates mine, giving courage and support. What miracles! Who would have ever imagined such!”

“If angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion.” (Read here)

“I prayed very hard to Our Lady to tell me what would happen to me. She appeared, holding in her hands two crowns, one white, one red. She asked if I would like to have them—one was for purity, the other for martyrdom. I said, ‘I choose both.’ She smiled and disappeared.” (Read here).

Was it the Mary of the Bible who appeared to Maximilian Kolbe or could it have been a demon masquerading as Mary? Since when is it necessary for Mary to allegedly appear to someone to inform them of imminent martyrdom when Jesus repeatedly tells us in his Word that persecution and even martyrdom is unavoidable when Christians remain faithful to Him and his Gospel?  Can we contribute Maximilian Kolbe’s death to his faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? John saw a woman with a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. Is this not the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass which led to the death of millions of martyred and persecuted saints? In Fox’s Book of Martyrs on page 240 some of Rome’s executions at the stake are described.

These five martyrs suffered together, January 31, 1556. John Lomas was a young man of Tenterden. He was cited to appear at Canterbury, and was examined January 17. His answers being adverse to the idolatrous doctrine of the papacy, he was condemned on the following day, and suffered January 31. Agnes Snoth, widow, of Smarden Parish, was several times summoned before the Catholic Pharisees, and rejecting absolution, indulgences, transubstantiation, and auricular confession, she was adjudged  worthy to suffer death, and endured martyrdom, January 31, with  Anne Wright and Joan Sole, who were placed in similar circumstances,  and perished at the same time, with equal resignation. Joan Catmer, the last of this heavenly company, of the parish Hithe, was the wife of the martyr George Catmer. Seldom in any country, for political controversy, have four women been led to execution, whose lives were irreproachable, and whom the pity of savages would have spared. We cannot but remark here that, when the Protestant power first gained the ascendency over the Catholic superstition, and some degree of force in the laws was necessary to enforce uniformity, whence some bigoted people suffered privation in their person or goods, we read of few burnings, savage cruelties, or poor women brought to the stake, but it is the nature of error to resort to force instead of argument, and to silence truth by taking away existence, of which the Redeemer  himself is an instance. The above five persons were burnt at two stakes in one fire, singing hosannahs to the glorified Savior, until the breath of life was extinct. Sir John Norton, who was present, wept bitterly at their unmerited sufferings (Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Zondervan, 1967 pp. 240) (Emphasis added).

Undoubtedly, the Emerging or Emergent Church is playing a major part in the journey leading back to Rome and Babylon. One of their fortes is to bridge the gap between the Christian religion and Eastern spirituality, particularly Buddhism to which Maximilian Kolbe looked with much respect and admiration and proved it by entering into dialogue with Buddhist and Shinto priests. Nonetheless, this was not his main concern in life. In his book “Saint Maximilian Kolbe – Knight of the Immaculata” Father Jeremiah J Smith” describes Kolbe’s prime mission as follows:

Saint Maximilian Kolbe is famous as the saint of Auschwitz who volunteered to die of starvation and thirst in place of another prisoner. But his heroic death in 1941 in the worst of the Nazi concentration camps was only the culmination of an amazing life – for Saint Maximilian was fired by the supernatural ideal of conquering for Christ through Mary all souls in the entire world–to the end of time! Full of interesting stories, this little book describes his mischievous boyhood, his youthful prophetic vision of two crowns, his dream of martyrdom, his use of modern printing technology to further Our Lady’s work, his agreement with Saint Therese the Little Flower, his “Cities of the Immaculata” (the one in Poland grew from 19 members to 762 and was the largest religious community in the world), his knowledge that he was fighting Satan, and his prison abuse for being a Catholic priest. Saint Maximilian Kolbe–Knight of the Immaculata shows the amazing deeds which Our Lady will accomplish through a person who consecrates himself to her. It is a book to inspire many more Catholics to consecrate themselves to Mary Immaculate–confident that through them too she will do great things!

Have you noticed his choice of words – “”conquering for Christ through Mary”? Who is this Mary in whose name many saints have been persecuted, martyred and burnt at the stake? Dave Hunt states the following about this Mary in his Book “A Woman rides the Beast” on page 435:

We have identified the woman astride the beast as Vatican City and the false World Church which will eventually be headquartered there. But why a woman on the beast and not a man? Why is this false World Church seen as a woman? Again this criterion, like all of the others in Revelation 17, fits the Vatican perfectly. The most prominent figure by far in Roman Catholicism is a woman. She overshadows all else, including even God Himself. More prayers are offered to the catholic Mary and more attention and honor is given to her than to Christ and God combined. There are thousands of shrines to Mary around the world (and hundreds of shrines to other “saints”), but scarcely more than a handful of minor shrines to Christ Himself. Some Catholic leaders even boast that in this day of burgeoning “goddess consciousness” and “women’s liberation” the Catholic Church is right in tune with the times: A woman holds the position of highest honor and power. In Catholicism it is a woman through whom all graces, gifts, blessings, and power flow – a woman, who,  . . . has the amazing potential to unite the entire world, including even the Muslims, in one religion.

Having dedicated himself to the immaculate heart of the Roman Catholic Mary, one can safely assume that Maximilian Kolbe sacrificed his life in her honor rather than Jesus Christ, something which the martyrs who were murdered because they rejected and renounced the RC’s doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass would never have dreamt of doing because it demeans and dishonors the Name of Jesus Christ.