I simply pass this on without comment . . . well, except for one at the end (h.t. h.b.).

This is from a press release from the Trinity Foundation (which now publishes the Wittenberg Door: Click here: Wittenburg Door) sent to subscribers of their newsletter.

_________________________________

Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee reached out to a questionable funding source this week—Texas televangelist Kenneth Copeland, one of the targets of a Senate Finance Committee investigation into the funding and governance of "prosperity gospel" ministries.

At Copeland’s annual by-invitation-only Minister's Conference at his Newark, Texas, headquarters Jan. 23, Copeland received a call during the meeting from Huckabee requesting emergency financing. According Doug Wead, former Bush family evangelical adviser, Copeland and his supporters at the conference raised $111,000 in cash for Huckabee, with about a million dollars in pledged donations, after he temporarily adjourned the conference and then reconvened the group as a "private meeting."

Wead relayed a report in his blog from a source at the meeting that "Last night [Jan. 23] the Governor called his friend in the middle of a conference and Copeland, carefully observing all the laws governing non profits, as a private citizen, re-convened a private meeting, turned to his friends and raised a few million dollars for Huckabee." (See "Mike Huckabee’s Big Mistake")

According to video clips of the conference obtained by Trinity Foundation, an investigative watchdog group in Dallas, Copeland revealed that Huckabee had pledged his total support to Copeland's ministry while dismissing the Senate investigation.

Video clips of Copeland's comments are posted on The Wittenburg Door Magazine website.

One video clip shows Copeland describing a phone call from Huckabee regarding the Senate investigation:

"[Huckabee told me] Why should I stand with them and not stand with you? They've only got 11 per cent approval rating.' And then he said, 'Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you.' He said, 'You're trying to get prosperity to the people and they're trying to take it away from 'em.' He said, 'I will stand with you any time, anywhere, on any issue.' That settled that right there. I said, 'Yeah, that's my man! That's my man, right there.'"

________________________________

There's only one case in life I can think of where a Southern Baptist minister would come to Kenneth Copeland, hat-in-hand, to ask for an "emergency donation" -- A failing presidential campaign.  One more weird consequence when the two kingdoms are blurred. 

Now that Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls--quite a surprise to me--his candidacy raises very important issues regarding the two kingdoms (the "kingdom of God" and the "city of man").  Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for more than ten years, so one might assume that Huckabee no longer sees himself as called to the gospel ministry.  Not so.  Click here: Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.

Here's why Huckabee and so many on the Christian Right make me nervous--they often confuse the two kingdoms.  Here's an example of what I mean.  On January 6, while campaigning in New Hampshire for president of the United States, Mike Huckabee preached a sermon at a church called the Crossing.  In his sermon, Huckabee stated "When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ."  This raises a number of red-flags.

First, if Huckabee is called to public service (a legitimate and noble calling), then he should resign his office as minister.  That would clarify things greatly.  In effect, Huckabee should do what the minister in the movie the Patriot did when he took up arms against the Tories--he took off his clerical collar before going to war.  This made things very clear.  Ministers don't wage war.  Citizens can if the cause is just.

Second, it makes me very, very, nervous when a presidential candidate gets in a pulpit and preaches a sermon during the midst of an election in which he is running for office, especially when the church service seems much like an election rally.  It makes me even more nervous when candidate Huckabee speaks of God's army and being a soldier for Christ in that same sermon.

In all fairness, Huckabee made an effort to preach a sermon and not give a political speech.  But why does a candidate who feels he is called to be president of the United States, also feel called to preach a sermon using militaristic metaphors, if not to whip up potential voters?  If not confusing the kingdoms (which I think Huckabee did), it certainly muddies the waters.  Not good.

Third, since evangelicals often don't evaluate things theologically, they tend not to see a man confused about what God has called him to do (either be a public servant or a minister), and instead see value in having a "man of God" as president.  This, many think, will ensure that the traditional values agenda is duly addressed from the right perspective.  After all, it is argued, America is a "Christian nation" and must maintain these values.  Huckabee, it is believed, will do this.

When viewed from the perspective of the two kingdoms, every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms and our theological beliefs should inform how we behave as citizens.  But there's no distinction of kingdoms with Huckabee in a pulpit, and Huckabee's "soldiers in God's army" are people who will serve his political cause.  In other words, they'll vote for him and encourage others to do the same.  Fine for a political rally.  Not fine for a church service.

Let say that as for me and my house, we'll have nothing to do with Mike Huckabee.  I don't like his populist rhetoric.  I want to hear talk about budget cuts, tax cuts, size of government cuts, etc.  I want to hear a candidate tell me how he will protect my civil liberties and not mortgage the future of my children by taxing and spending.  Furthermore, I will not support a candidate for president who wants the nanny state to protect me by keeping me from smoking--Huckabee supported a national "no smoking" initiative.  By the way, other than a very occasional cigar, I don't smoke.  I happen to think the nanny state can be as dangerous to my health as a two-pack a day habit. 

Pat the "prophet" Robertson is at it again.  For 2008, he's predicting a recession and major upheaval in the financial markets.  He's also predicting increasing violence and chaos around the world.  He even claims God told who who the next president will be.  Click here: Pat Robertson predicts violence, recession for 2008 | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

But before you go all sell of your stocks, don't forget that in 2006 God supposedly told Pat that a Tsunami would hit the Pacific Northwest, and that in 2007, God "told" Pat that millions of Americans would die in a terrorist attack.

I have two simple questions.  How can Robertson spew these falsehoods with a straight face?  God told Pat Robertson no such thing!  And why on earth does anybody pay any attention to this guy?

Well, I know the answer to the last question--the media thinks the guy is a total doof.  And yes, I am paying attention to him (I'll admit it) because his continuing false prophecies make the point about the importance of the sufficiency of Scripture.  If God has revealed himself in Christ, why do we need Pat Robertson?

I just wish the guy would shut up!  Retire already! 

It is hardly breaking news that Hagee's got some weird hyper-dispensational ideas about Israel and that he's become very active in certain political circles.  But what about these comments?

"Jesus did not come to be the Messiah"

Jesus was killed as part of a "Calvary Conspiracy"

Jesus "did not claim to be the Messiah"

Check it out for yourself, Click here: John Hagee Jesus NOT Messiah(audio|video perfect)

All of this nonsense so as to sell his book, "In Defense of Israel."  

Our old friend Brian Ring is at it again, this time with a slight modification to the cover of Joel Osteen's latest.

Brian's done some great work -- including a few White Horse Inn posters which have appeared here before.  You can check it out here:  Click here: My Fake Posters.

You can see Joel's earlier book, "Your Best Hair Now," along with "Three Dispys" and my personal favorite (for obvious reasons) "Born to Ride." 

How much would you pay to see Joel Osteen speak in MSG (Madison Square Garden)?

Someone dropped $134.89 for 2 floor seats (near the front) on E-Bay to see Joel speak in the Big Apple.  Joel doesn't ask for money on his broadcasts, but he must be raking it in when he takes the show on the road.  One thing about Joel . . . when MSG sells out and tickets to see him are selling for that much on E-Bay, he's sure having his "best life now." 

I wonder if his MSG appearance will include bench-pressing?  He might even shoot a few hoops on the Knicks' home floor.  But he sure won't waste the audience's time talking about sin and a suffering Savior.

According to a recent article @ Time.com, Christianity has a serious image problem (Click here: Christianity's Image Problem - TIME).  Based on Barna research, Christians are often perceived as too political, too hypocritical and far too judgmental towards homosexuals.

___________________________________ 

"Barna polls conducted between 2004 and this year, sampling 440 non-Christians (and a similar number of Christians) aged 16 to 29, found that 38% had a `bad impression' of present-day Christianity. `It's not a pretty picture' the authors write. Barna's clientele is made up primarily of evangelical groups.

Kinnaman says non-Christians' biggest complaints about the faith are not immediately theological: Jesus and the Bible get relatively good marks. Rather, he sees resentment as focused on perceived Christian attitudes. Nine out of ten outsiders found Christians too `anti-homosexual,' and nearly as many perceived it as `hypocritical' and `judgmental.' Seventy-five percent found it `too involved in politics.'

Not only has the decline in non-Christians' regard for Christianity been severe, but Barna results also show a rapid increase in the number of people describing themselves as non-Christian. One reason may be that the study used a stricter definition of `Christian' that applied to only 73% of Americans. Still, Kinnaman claims that however defined, the number of non-Christians is growing with each succeeding generation: His study found that 23% of Americans over 61 were non-Christians; 27% among people ages 42-60; and 40% among 16-29 year olds. Younger Christians, he concludes, are therefore likely to live in an environment where two out of every five of their peers is not a Christian.

Churchgoers of the same age share several of the non-Christians' complaints about Christianity. For instance, 80% of the Christians polled picked `anti-homosexual' as a negative adjective describing Christianity today. And the view of 85% of non-Christians aged 16-29 that present day Christianity is `hypocritical—saying one thing doing another,' was, in fact, shared by 52% of Christians of the same age. Fifty percent found their own faith `too involved in politics.' Forty-four percent found it `confusing.'"

_________________________________ 

 
I wonder if this would still be the case if Christian preachers emphasized what Francis Schaeffer once called "true truth," i.e., that it is far more important that Christianity is true than it is that Christianity is useful.  How many of those who thought Christians were too judgmental have ever heard a sermon in which law and gospel were properly distinguished?  How many have ever heard that Christ's death is absolutely sufficient to save even the worst of sinners and that his blessed righteousess will cover them on the day of judgment?  My guess is that not one of those who thought Christianity was too political has ever heard someone explain the two kingdoms from a Reformed perspective.

Seems to me that what the church is missing is the kind of stuff we've been emphasizing on the White Horse Inn for years (Click here: The White Horse Inn: Know What You Believe & Why You Believe It).

1).  An emphasis upon Christianity's unique truth claim

2).  A proper distinction between law and gospel (as set forth in classical covenantal/Reformed theology)

3).  Justification by an imputed righteousness received through faith alone 

4).  A proper distinction between the two kingdoms

Recovering these emphases would go a long way toward fixing our image problem! 

Far more important, this will help recover the prophetic quality of true evangelical preaching and which is so often absent from the pulpit.  We reap what we sow.