The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a voice for the Communist/Marxist/Globalist/Socialist LGBTIQ agenda. The WEF is anti-God, anti-Christian and anti-common sense just as the UN is. The following link will take you to a WEF video seeking to promote how the CCP Virus has opened the door for the LGBTQI crowd for better work opportunities. What a farce. The video is just another promotion for the CCP and the lie that the CCP’s virus purposefully sent out into the rest of the world is a GOOD thing and to be praised! As the UN, the WEF and their communist/Marxist friends push these various agendas be sure more of your freedoms will certainly be taken away.
I heard Jack Hyles once speak on leadership at a pastor’s conference in a Des Moines, Iowa church and he said something like, “If I told my deacons we were going to become an Episcopal Church, they would agree”. That may not bother some but as an independent Baptist that’s all I needed and I never went to hear Jack Hyles again. Therefore, when I began to hear rumors not only of Jack Hyles but then of his son, David, I wasn’t totally surprised. Now, ‘A former parishioner has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court alleging she was repeatedly raped as a child by the former youth director of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, and that officials at First Baptist and the affiliated Hyles-Anderson College covered up the abuse.
Nanette Miles alleges she was sexually assaulted over a period of several years by David Hyles, the son of Hyles-Anderson College founder and longtime First Baptist pastor Jack Hyles, starting when she was 13 years old in 1976.
The civil complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeks undisclosed damages on behalf of Miles and other individuals who allegedly were harmed by Hyles, other First Baptist leaders and officials of the college.
“Nanette is seeking justice against David Hyles for his reprehensible behavior for herself and many others,” said attorney Ashley Pileika in a statement. “She is friends with at least two other women who were raped by David Hyles and struggle with severe health complications today. Nanette is courageously stepping forward to be their voices as well.”
The lawsuit says that in addition to Miles, at least 10 others “have credibly accused D. Hyles of using his position of power to sexually prey on them” when they were minors, and that “First Baptist and the College staff members were aware of his reprehensible conduct for years and remained silent.”
The suit also said there are “likely hundreds of other survivors that were sexually abused at First Baptist and/or Hyles-Anderson College.”https://julieroys.com/class-action-lawsuit-filed-youth-director-first-baptist-hammond/?mc_cid=1fbb829451&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
Are all those institutions that call themselves a ‘church’ really a church? Are some ‘church’ leaders Biblically qualified to lead? It’s interesting that ‘In a leaked audio call obtained by The Daily Mail, the founder and senior pastor of Hillsong Global, Brian Houston, described the events that led up to the firing of the lead pastor of the church’s New York City congregation, Carl Lentz.
Houston said difficulties with Lentz’s leadership emerged long before the recent revelations about the Hillsong East Coast pastor’s affair with Ranin Karim, a 34-year-old designer he met in Brooklyn, New York.
“I was already at the point, at the end of the summer, that I felt like Carl and Laura’s time in New York was coming to an end,” Houston said of Lentz and his wife, who also worked for the church.
Brian and Bobbie Houston founded the original Hillsong Church in 1983 in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It now has locations in 28 countries and, pre-pandemic, saw an average 150,000 attenders each week, according to its website.
Houston accused Lentz in the Daily Mail recording of “general narcissistic behavior. Manipulating, mistreating people. Breaches of trust. Constantly lying.” Houston went on to describe the global megachurch network as “one house with many rooms,” but he said Lentz always seemed to be doing his own thing with Hillsong East Coast.
“If it was just about a moral failure, perhaps it would have been possible to work with Carl and Laura and work their way through it and have a period of restoration,” Houston said on the call that took place the week before Thanksgiving with global church leadership and top donors.
“But the nature of where my relationship with Carl already was, then add the significant nature and the serious nature of the moral issues, just meant that I believed, and the board believed, the only way to go was to terminate Carl and to start with a fresh start in New York,” Houston said.
The Daily Mail’s report quoted anonymous sources alleging that Lentz had multiple affairs during his tenure at Hillsong, and that Houston implied the same in the recording the newspaper obtained. But while Houston talks about “affairs” in the plural, the recording is not entirely clear.’https://julieroys.com/leaked-call-houston-details-narcissistic-lentzs-firing/?mc_cid=fdfa821960&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
Paul plainly wrote in Romans 1:26,27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
In spite of this clear teaching in God’s Word ‘A group of progressive United Methodists announced….they are forming a new Methodist denomination, the Liberation Methodist Connexion, or LMX.
For half a century, the United Methodist Church has debated the full inclusion of its LGBTQ members. It pushed any discussion of sexuality from its quadrennial General Conference meeting in 2016 to a special session in 2019, where delegates voted against allowing the church to ordain LGBTQ clergy or perform same-sex marriages.’
One of the BIGGEST MISTAKES a group of churches can do is to DEBATE the Word of God! Debating the Word of God is a clear indication that these Methodists do not see the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice! Anyway, ‘A new plan has been proposed since then to split the denomination according to beliefs on LGBTQ ordination and same-sex marriage. The split was to be decided upon at the 2020 General Conference, but due to COVID-19 shutdowns, the conference was cancelled and the decision postponed until next fall at the earliest. United Methodists would’ve met this week to consider a split. What are they doing instead?
Some United Methodists eager for change have simply grown tired of waiting.
“The timeline of the Holy Spirit is driving our decision to launch LMX at this moment, and we are responding to that call,” the Rev. Althea Spencer-Miller said during a presentation Sunday evening following the denomination’s first online worship service.
The LMX seeks to embrace the “full participation of all who are living out their God-given identities and expressions,” according to the site. That includes people of all gender expressions and sexual identities, races and ethnicities, mental and physical abilities, sizes and ages.
Its theology “is not written in stone,” the website said, but it builds on Methodist theology with various expressions of Liberation theologies, which were first developed by Latin American Roman Catholics in the 1950s and 1960s.
Correct doctrine is less important to the new denomination than correct action, collaborators said during Sunday’s presentation. That action includes reparations, caring for the earth, and finding new ways to live together outside of systems like colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, clericalism and heteronormativity, they said.
“We seek not answers that lead us to correct doctrines as to why we suffer. We seek correct actions, correct praxis, where God sustains us during the unanswerable questions,” Spencer-Miller said.
More conservative Methodists, however, believe the new denomination veers from both orthodoxy (correct doctrine) and orthopraxy (correct actions).
Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy—a conservative Christian thinktank, which promotes its views among mainline Protestant churches—predicts the United Methodist Church will divide over these issues.
“As the United Methodist Church effectively dissolves, there are likely to be various shatterings,” Tooley told The Roys Report in a statement Wednesday. “At the very least, there will be a traditional global church, a liberal USA church, and a radical USA church, with perhaps several others. This Liberation Methodist Connexion will be the radical branch, or perhaps one of several radical branches. It will be hard long to cohere a denomination around Identity Politics and without core theology. . . . The United Methodist Church was created in 1968 mostly based on theological pluralism, which was an experiment that failed.”
However, leaders of the new denomination said those who join them aren’t expected to leave their denominations. In fact, collaborators said Sunday that United Methodist members are encouraged to continue to partner with the United Methodist Church’s ethnic caucuses.
“There are no doctrinal litmus tests in the movement. We are moving beyond the supremacy of a single belief system,” said the Rev. Janet G. McKeithen, a member of the Connexion working group.
It’s about following Jesus to the margins, added the Rev. Alex da Silva Souto, one of the leaders of UM-Forward and a General Conference delegate from the New York Conference.
Da Silva Souto said in May that a coalition of groups already describing themselves as Liberationists had been discussing the possibility of forming a new denomination. That discussion grew out of events — the UM-Forward summit in May 2019 in Minneapolis, an Advent gathering outside of Denver, a Lenten gathering this spring in Dallas — following a special session of the United Methodist General Conference in 2019.
The Traditional Plan favored by theologically conservative United Methodists, approved at that special session, was set to take effect earlier this year, strengthening language in the denomination’s Book of Discipline barring LGBTQ clergy from being ordained and same-sex couples from marrying in the United Methodist Church.
But United Methodist bishops and advocacy group leaders from across theological divides agreed to a moratorium on its enforcement in January after negotiating a proposal to split the denomination, called, “A Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation.” The proposal, negotiated by 16 United Methodists, would commit $25 million to create a new conservative “traditionalist” Methodist denomination. The “post-separation United Methodist Church” would then have the opportunity to rescind the Traditional Plan and pass affirming language.
Delegates would have voted on that proposal at the United Methodist General Conference scheduled in May. At the time, Da Silva Souto called its postponement, due to the pandemic, a “curveball.”
But, said Da Silva Souto, “we’re not waiting for the protocol to answer the call that we feel, which is love and liberation right now.”
The LMX is planning to host its next worship service on New Year’s Eve and encouraged those interested in joining to sign up for its email newsletter on its website.’https://julieroys.com/progressive-methodists-new-denomination/?mc_cid=e8a2ae265a&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
The LMX is a pawn in Satan’s family of apostate churches.
‘What tumultuous times they are in which we live? Not so long ago In Australia it was a criminal offence to engage in homosexual sex. But if a proposed bill in Victoria regarding ‘conversion therapy’ is passed it will be a crime just to offer prayer for someone who practices it.
The once well-regarded Amnesty International has presented the following infographic. Look at the last frame:
Make no mistake, as is evidenced from the cartoon strip above, this campaign is especially targeting Christian churches. Martyn Iles, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, wrote the following on social media:
Note the theme — Christianity is harmful. Christian teaching, Christian communities, and Christian expression must be criminal.
Premier Daniel Andrews’ statement …was clear that the “ideology behind” “conversion practices” must be targeted.
Given that “conversion practices” apparently include prayer, scripture reading, teaching abstinence, and the idea of “change” among other things… I guess that means Christianity…
Amnesty International has effectively declared war on all people of faith. Remember the vote against the same-sex marriage plebiscite in some heavily Muslim electorates? This isn’t about love—let alone ‘tolerance’—but a complete capitulation to their own ideology.
I heard a preacher say in the mid-’90s that Christians in this country would be sent to goal in his lifetime, and it would be over the issue of homosexuality and perceived discrimination.
He was right. And it looks like that time could have finally arrived.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/11/prayer-illegal-in-australia/
There is a form of Christianity today that loves everybody and seeks not to offend anyone! Nevertheless, ‘Prominent secular conservative voices repudiated British singer-songwriter Harry Styles for appearing on the cover in Vogue magazine in a dress. Both Candace Owens (also here and here) and Ben Shapiro confronted his masculinity. MSNBC defended Styles with the exact or identical argument used by evangelicals and fundamentalists for unisex apparel: “Jesus wore dresses.” That I have seen, only secularists have renounced this fashion. Zero of what we call the Christian public intellectuals say anything about it. I don’t hear any public Christian voices. A very low percentage of professing Christians mount any defense of designed gender distinction. Very little makes evangelicals and even most fundamentalists more angry than a Christian who stands for unique female and unique male items of clothing.
On the other hand, the world is very serious about what Harry Styles did. That I know of, only Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro have said or written anything, and that you can tell by what’s being written from the left. The world has come to Styles’s defense with great ferocity (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). This is big to the world. It means a lot to the world system. It means almost nothing to Christians. Why? Christians stopped teaching and standing on biblical teaching on this matter a long time ago. This is in a major way because professing Christians themselves will attack fellow Christians for talking about what the Bible says on this subject. They will not defend the Christian who says what the Bible teaches. They attack. And then many, many just stay silent. They might be thinking what I’m writing, but they will not stand with me for what I’m writing.
Among the leftist values bromides, denouncing Styles is breaking the law, “kindness is everything.” Only positive affirmation must be given. If not positive affirmation, then smiling silence at least should be offered to be kind, according to the platitude. Meanwhile, God Almighty seethes in heaven at this abomination. He designed men and women. He requires support of His design. This is an attack on God as Creator, violating both written and natural law of God. God is not happy.
Harry Styles is not the first contemporary male to wear a dress. We’ve seen a rise in this trend. However, women long ago started wearing pants, the distinguishing male item. A majority of Christianity long ago capitulated on the biblical teaching of gender designed distinctions in dress. Very few Christians will tell you with certainty what is male and female. I contend that women wearing pants is as serious as men wearing dresses. If someone is judging these matters based upon biblical or divine authority, it must be.
On various occasions and for various reasons, including preaching there, I traveled through the vicinity of the San Francisco gay pride parade as I pastored a church in the Bay Area. They had several booths or tents for the purchase of the male skirt or dress. I think that you all know that when a “transgender” makes his statement about being a woman, he wears a dress or a skirt. He’s not wearing pants. Why do you think that is? Hmmmm. Jaden Smith, son of actor and rapper Will Smith, drew attention by wearing dresses in public a few years ago. I’ve thought that it was only a matter of time that men will start wearing dresses on a regular basis.
Most Christian men will still say that it’s wrong for a man to wear a dress, but they don’t mount a biblical explanation. It’s just a preference. They’ve actually been defending men in dresses for awhile. They say something like, everyone wore robes in Bible times, to justify their wives and daughters wearing pants. That’s their argument. It’s not one that you can draw from scripture, but it has the purpose of defending a woman wearing a male item. So now when a man wears the woman’s item, it’s that goose and the gander thing. What can they say? They’ve taken away their own biblical argument against male dresses or skirts.
Where have true believers argued against pants on women and skirts and dresses on men throughout history? They go to Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, and Job 38:3 and 40:7. I call pants the male item because of the language of Deuteronomy 22:5. A good understanding of the Hebrew of the King James Version English, “that which pertaineth unto a man,” is “male item.” It is more than just clothing. Women should not wear what is a distinctly male item. Men should not put on a woman’s garment. All who do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. When I write on this, it isn’t unusual that I get mocked by professing Christian men for writing on it. They want to make sure that they stand up and take a strong stand for “women’s pants.” This is very important to them.
I think that a dress or a skirt on men is still a bridge too far for most men, let alone Christian men, but the defense of that position comes from the Bible. We need men to repent of their capitulation on this issue and to join churches outside the camp to stand upon the Word of God. This is not just a matter of a gag reflex or a personal turn-off. This is about creation order. This is about the preservation of divinely originated roles. This is to preserve the family, which is to guard the truth.
Before men starting wearing dresses, women began wearing pants. Why do you think this is? It isn’t rocket science. You know that. You even know why? Pants are a male item, so they symbolize authority. I think this might be an insult to your intelligence, but when women started wearing pants, society as a whole opposed it, women too. Pants were masculine. Most people saw pants as rebellious for women. They were bucking male authority. This assumed there was male authority, represented by the terminology, men wear the pants in the family. There is less repulsion and rejection of a dress on a man right now in our culture than there was at one historical juncture with pants on women. Most of you reading this know that.
The dress that Harry Styles is wearing for the Vogue article is also frilly. It is not just a dress, but a very feminine dress. It is attempting to make an even greater statement of “gender fluidity.” If the statement was put into words, it might be, “There is no gender distinction.” A corollary to that is, “God didn’t make me; I got here through natural causation.” The postmodernist or critical theorist adds, “It’s a social construct.” Constructed by whom? The Male Patriarchy.
Shapiro argues Jordan Peterson style, assuming that the Bible can’t be used in the public square. He tries to go all science, like a classic liberal. He looks at animal life and genetics. You can tell that he doesn’t feel good about his argument, so he uses “moron” and “idiot” to add. We Christians need to come in and just say it. God wants male and female items. We need to stand on them. We shouldn’t mock them. God wants the distinctions, clear ones. God created masculinity. God Himself says, Gird up your loins as a man. Go with what God says. Honor Him.
There is, as you know, now such a thing as a dress that is more feminine than other types of dresses. For instance, some women wear “business dresses” that project a kind of authority. It’s still a dress, but it’s also indicating a work that also was once only masculine. Women jumped from the feminine dress to the business dress to the pant suit. Each of these steps were moving away from a God-ordained appearance and role.
Secular conservatives should not be the ones, or at least the only ones, saying something about the perversion divine designed distinctions between gender. Ben Shapiro makes an argument, “It’s just stupid!” He’s saying something. It’s stupid. That isn’t a good argument, but he’s saying something. This is an intelligent man. We need to bring the biblical argument to the public square. It is true. It is science. It is necessary. Join in this.’https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/
If you do not agree with the above article fight it out with God and His Word! Thanks for reading.
J. C. Ryle lived from 1816-1900 and was one of the old Anglicans that believed the Bible to be the very Words of the living God. The following is the first part of his message on the subject of Sickness. May the Lord bless as you read this thought provoking message.
“He whom thou lovest is sick.” — John 11:3
I. THE UNIVERSAL PREVALENCE OF SICKNESS
I need not dwell long on this point. To elaborate the proof of it would only be multiplying truisms, and heaping up common-places which all allow.
Sickness is everywhere. In Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in America; in hot countries and in cold, in civilized nations and in savage tribes, men, women, and children sicken and die.
Sickness is among all classes. Grace does not lift a believer above the reach of it. Riches will not buy exemption from it. Rank cannot prevent its assaults. Kings and their subjects, masters and servants, rich men and poor, learned and unlearned, teachers and scholars, doctors and patients, ministers and hearers, all alike go down before this great foe. “The rich
man’s wealth is his strong city” (Pro 18:11). The Englishman’s house is called his castle; but there are no doors and bars which can keep out disease and death.
Sickness is of every sort and description. From the crown of our head to the sole of our foot we are liable to disease. Our capacity of suffering is something fearful to contemplate. Who can count up the ailments by which our bodily frame may be assailed? Who ever visited a museum of morbid anatomy without a shudder? “Strange that a harp of thousand strings
should keep in tune so long.” It is not, to my mind, so wonderful that men should die so soon, as it is that they should live so long.
Sickness is often one of the most humbling and distressing trials that can come upon man. It can turn the strongest into a little child, and make him feel “the grasshopper a burden” (Ecc 12:5). It can unnerve the boldest, and make him tremble at the fall of a pin. We are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa 139:14). The connection between body and mind is curiously close. The influence that some diseases can exercise upon the temper and spirits is immensely great. There are ailments of brain, and liver, and nerves, which can bring down a Solomon in mind to a state little better than that of a babe. He that would know to what depths of humiliation poor man can fall, has only to attend for a short time on sick-beds.
Sickness is not preventible by anything that man can do. The average duration of life may doubtless be somewhat lengthened. The skill of doctors may continually discover new remedies, and effect surprising cures. The enforcement of wise sanitary regulations may greatly lower the deathrate in a land. But, after all, whether in healthy or unhealthy localities,
whether in mild climates or in cold, whether treated by homeopathy or allopathy,1 men will sicken and die. “The days of our years are three-score years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four-score years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psa 90:10). That witness is indeed true. It was true 3300 years ago. It is true
Now what can we make of this great fact, the universal prevalence of sickness? How shall we account for it? What explanation can we give of it? What answer shall we give to our inquiring children when they ask us, “Father, why do people get ill and die?” These are grave questions. A few words upon them will not be out of place.
Can we suppose for a moment that God created sickness and disease at the beginning? Can we imagine that He who formed our world in such perfect order was the Former of needless suffering and pain? Can we think that He who made all things “very good,” made Adam’s race to sicken and to die?
The idea is, to my mind, revolting. It introduces a grand imperfection into the midst of God’s perfect works. I must find another solution to satisfy my mind. The only explanation that satisfies me is that which the Bible gives. Something has come into the world which has dethroned man from his original position, and stripped him of his original privileges. Something
has come in, which, like a handful of gravel thrown into the midst of machinery, has marred the perfect order of God’s creation. And what is that something? I answer, in one word, It is sin. “Sin [has] entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom 5:12). Sin is the cause of all the sickness, and disease, and pain, and suffering, which prevail on the earth. They
are all a part of that curse which came into the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and fell. There would have been no sickness, if there had been no Fall. There would have been no disease, if there had been no sin.
I pause for a moment at this point, and yet in pausing I do not depart from my subject. I pause to remind my readers that there is no ground so untenable as that which is occupied by the Atheist, the Deist, or the unbeliever in the Bible. I advise every young reader of this paper, who is puzzled by the bold and specious arguments of the infidel, to study well that
most important subject, the Difficulties of Infidelity. I say boldly that it requires far more credulity to be a infidel than to be a Christian. I say boldly that there are great broad patent facts in the condition of mankind, which nothing but the Bible can explain, and that one of the most striking of these facts is the universal prevalence of pain, sickness, and disease. In short, one of the mightiest difficulties in the way of Atheists and Deists, is the body of man.
You have doubtless heard of Atheists. An Atheist is one who professes to believe that there is no God, no Creator, no First Cause, and that all things came together in this world by mere chance. Now shall we listen to such a doctrine as this?
Go, take an Atheist to one of the excellent surgical schools of our land, and ask him to study the wonderful structure of the human body. Show him the matchless skill with which every joint, and vein, and valve, and muscle, and sinew, and nerve, and bone, and limb, has been formed. Show him the perfect adaptation of every part of the human frame to the purpose
which it serves. Show him the thousand delicate contrivances for meeting wear and tear, and supplying daily waste of vigour.
And then ask this man who denies the being of a God, and a great First Cause, if all this wonderful mechanism is the result of chance? Ask him if it came together at first by luck and accident? Ask him if he so thinks about the watch he looks at, the bread he eats, or the coat he wears? Oh, no! Design is an insuperable difficulty in the Atheist’s way. There is a God.
You have doubtless heard of Deists. A Deist is one who professes to believe that there is a God, who made the world and all things therein. But he does not believe the Bible. “A God, but no Bible! a Creator, but no Christianity!” This is the Deist’s creed. Now, shall we listen to this doctrine? Go again, I say, and take a Deist to an hospital, and show him some of the awful
handiwork of disease. Take him to the bed where lies some tender child, scarce knowing good from evil, with an incurable cancer. Send him to the ward where there is a loving mother of a large family in the last stage of some excruciating disease.
Show him some of the racking pains and agonies to which flesh is heir, and ask him to account for them. Ask this man, who believes there is a great and wise God who made the world, but cannot believe the Bible, ask him how he accounts for these traces of disorder and imperfection in his God’s creation. Ask this man, who sneers at Christian theology and is too wise to
believe the fall of Adam, ask him upon his theory to explain the universal prevalence of pain and disease in the world. You may ask in vain! You will get no satisfactory answer. Sickness and suffering are insuperable difficulties in the Deist’s way.
Man has sinned, and therefore man suffers. Adam fell from his first estate, and therefore Adam’s children sicken and die. The universal prevalence of sickness is one of the indirect evidences that the Bible is true. The Bible explains it. The Bible answers the questions about it which will arise in every inquiring mind. No other systems of religion can do this. They
all fail here. They are silent. They are confounded. The Bible alone looks the subject in the face. It boldly proclaims the fact that man is a fallen creature, and with equal boldness proclaims a vast remedial system to meet his wants. I feel shut up to the conclusion that the Bible is from God. Christianity is a revelation from heaven. “Thy word is truth” (Joh 17:17).
Let us stand fast on the old ground, that the Bible, and the Bible only, is God’s revelation of Himself to man. Be not moved by the many new assaults which modern skepticism is making on the inspired volume. Heed not the hard questions which the enemies of the faith are fond of putting about Bible difficulties, and to which perhaps you often feel unable to give an answer. Anchor your soul firmly on this safe principle, that the whole book is God’s truth. Tell the enemies of the Bible that, in spite of all their arguments, there is no book in the world which will bear comparison with the Bible, none that so thoroughly meets man’s wants, none that explains so much of the state of mankind. As to the hard things in the Bible, tell
them you are content to wait. You find enough plain truth in the book to satisfy your conscience and save your soul. The hard things will be cleared up in one day. What you know not now, you will know hereafter.’ This is from John C. Ryle’s booklet SICKNESS and may be downloaded at https://www.chapellibrary.org/search
Some of these religious elites have the gall, do they not?
‘Jerry Falwell, Jr. promoted the Gospel openly and has mocked it privately. He is mocking it again publicly by suing the institution his father founded. Jerry Jr. led Liberty University in a laudable way at a million-dollar annual salary while the national average for university presidents is $512,987.00. He has been getting a million each year and has a 10 million dollar retirement package, yet he is suing the school. Jerry is like the dummy that made soup out of the goose that laid golden eggs. Now he is whining about his treatment and using the court to add additional golden eggs to his basket.
Jerry has sued Liberty University for defamation and breach of contract because university officials allegedly damaged his reputation, forcing him to resign. Wow, that’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath. Some of the accusations against him may never be authenticated, but there is substantial evidence of their wrongdoing. The suit is a ploy to refurbish his tarnished image, but the rust and blemish are irrevocable.
In other words, his self-inflicted wound was terminal.
In his complaint filed in the Virginia Circuit Court in Lynchburg, Falwell also claims that university officials accepted what Falwell alleges are false claims about his involvement in an extramarital affair between his wife and a former business partner without investigating the matter.
According to the Associated Press, “This action seeks redress for the damage Liberty has caused to the reputation of Mr. Falwell and his family.” Of course, that is lawyer-speak; surely, Jerry has more brainpower than that. Even a flickering one candlepower brain understands that Jerry and his wife are the culprits even if acknowledging that the university officials didn’t do everything right.
I believe the Board of Trustees, which includes five friends of mine of 40 years, was very slow on taking charge and holding Jerry’s feet to the fire. That includes the new president of the school Dr. Jerry Prevo, one of the most gracious and kind men I know.
By taking the initiative, Jerry thinks it will convince the non-thinkers to say, “Well, maybe Jerry and Becki are not fornicators, voyeurs, liars, and hypocrites after all.” After all, would guilty people drag others into court, thereby bringing attention to themselves again, again, and again? Sure, they would. All you need is some money, unprincipled lawyers, and much chutzpa. Evidently, Jerry and Becki have what’s needed.
The Associated Press reported that the lawsuit alleges, “Liberty’s actions are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.” Jerry doesn’t seem to admit that his kettle is black, very black. Yet, the kettle keeps calling the pot black. The God-haters inside and outside Christianity look for opportunities to throw stones at any professing Christian, and Jerry’s maneuverings have given everyone reasons to throw stones at him, and by extension, at all Christian entities.
Forget what accusations against Jerry that may never be proved; consider what we know.
We know Jerry used the university plane for personal use. That is illegal. He was fiduciary of a nonprofit entity, not the Sultan of Morocco. He could afford a first-class ticket to Miami, but he would have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi; therefore, he took advantage of his position.
We know that numerous Falwell family members are on the university payroll, and that suggests either nepotism or the family has many highly talented people. No doubt, some are qualified and would be hired if their last names were Smith or Jones.
Jerry, with his limited knowledge and no educational experience, would not have been president of Liberty if his name were Jerry Jones.
We know Jerry and various family members partied, danced, and drank at a Florida nightclub. Falwell first denied being there and then admitted he had. His daddy would have been aghast, angered, and ashamed.
We know that Jerry helped his son Trey, a Liberty vice-president, finance a Miami hostel known for being “gay-friendly.” I hope no one in Heaven has told Jerry Sr. that fact.
We know that Becki had a yearlong affair with a young pool worker in Miami after her successful seduction of him. Both the Falwells admitted that allegation; however, Jerry still denies he watched them from time to time. He admitted he might be a fornicator and drunk and a cuckold, but not a voyeur.
According to Politico, Becki seduced and provided oral sex on a student who was in the band with her son, Trey, during an all-night stay at Falwell’s home. The media reported a close friend of the Falwell’s and a neighbor confirmed that Becki had told her about her affair with the student.
It seems Becki is not only a Jezebel with major character deficiencies; she is also stupid.
We’ve seen, as has the world, a photo of Jerry on a boat with a young woman with both their pants partly unzipped and him holding a glass of “black water,” according to Jerry. Falwell captioned the post, “More vacation shots. Lots of good friends visited us on the yacht. I promise that’s just black water in my glass. It was a prop only.” He was incredibly stupid or immature to permit such a photo. Then to send it to others is beyond the pale.
We now know that it was probably booze since Becki called 911 after he fell at home in a drunken stupor.
The New York Post reported that Jerry’s daughter-in-law and a female Liberty student were using the family’s guesthouse for cooking a meal. Falwell said that the friend pulled up her own skirt, as a joke, while she was cooking. The daughter-in-law was video recording the girl and sent screenshots around, according to Falwell. “She had on, I don’t know how to say this, granny panties,” he said, saying the image “wasn’t sexual.” Well, I may be a little dense or naïve, but when a woman lifts her dress to reveal her underwear, that is sexual. Falwell said he sent the screenshot to several people because he thought it was funny!
I knew Jerry Sr. since the 1960s, and he was known for his jokes, often on himself and sometimes very involved, but the son didn’t get his father’s sense of comedy or character or conscience.
On November 1, Politico published another scandal about Jerry and Becki playing a secret game called “Would you rather.” According to a former student, the Falwells walked through the university campus and eyeballed different students discussing what it would be like to have sex with them.
It is incredible the Falwells could be so carnal-minded, but then to tell others of their not so secret “game” indicates dwindling and flickering intellectual candlepower and spiritual blindness.
These people are worldly, wild, and weird people. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are discussing Jerry and Becki’s failures (which all of us have in varying degrees), but I have doubts as to their personal salvation. I almost never make that judgment, and all Christians fail (sin) from time to time, but we don’t live in a vile lifestyle for months and years without repentance or without even awareness.
There is a big difference between committing adultery and repenting and living in adultery for years without repenting.
Jerry sued the university because they hurt his reputation, but it appears to anyone, blind in one eye and cataract-laden in the other, that the Falwells did it to themselves.
It appears that Jerry has added to his sins of carelessness, carnality, drunkenness, nepotism, arrogance, and greed, the sin of taking other Christians to court. Most non-Christians won’t be aware of this, but Christians are not to take other Christians to court but settle all disputes within the church walls. Christians have honest disagreements and misunderstandings that require a just settlement since we are not perfect, just born again. Paul said that Christians will judge angels, so we should be able to solve our human problems.
Falwell charged the university officials had defamed him multiple times, such as in an announcement that there had been a “lack of spiritual leadership” at the school. No sane, honest person could say Falwell had given any spiritual leadership to the school. In that, he was a total failure. While enforcing the rules on students, faculty, and workers, he flaunted the most basic Christian principles.
Liberty did not defame Falwell, and he is trying to get in court what the court of public opinion can not give him. If I ever saw a hard sell, that is one. But anything can happen in court.
However, Jerry will appear before another Court where truth, fairness, justice always reign, and the sentence is always just. I don’t know what will happen with Jerry’s suit, but I know in Heaven, his name, influence, money, and friends will have no standing.
His claim of defamation is frivolous, faulty, fanciful, and false. The public’s assessment of him as a hypocrite is sadly true, and hypocrites must exercise remorse, repentance, and return to their first love.
My relationship with Jerry Sr. revealed a man of character, but the carnality, crassness, and compromises of his eldest son reflect badly on his legacy.
So sad. Such a tragedy.’http://donboys.cstnews.com/jerry-falwell-drags-liberty-university-into-court
Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Philippians 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.
1Timothy 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.
‘Brian Houston, global senior pastor of the international Hillsong Church, announced today that an independent investigator will review the “inner workings” of Hillsong’s New York City branch after the firing of its lead pastor, Carl Lentz, on Nov. 4.
“We need a solid foundation for a fresh start and new beginning,” Houston said in a tweet, adding, “The best is yet to come.”
We are launching an independent investigation into the inner workings of Hillsong NYC/ East Coast. We need a solid foundation for a fresh start and new beginning. The best is yet to come.
— Brian Houston (@BrianCHouston) November 12, 2020
On Nov. 4, Houston emailed staff and members of Hillsong East Coast about Lentz’s termination. His email, which was obtained by The Roys Report, cited “leadership issues and breaches of trust, plus a recent revelation of moral failures” for Lentz’s firing but did not reveal more details, saying to do so “would not be appropriate.” He later posted a similar statement on the church’s website.
The following day, Lentz, who founded the New York Hillsong location in 2010 with Houston’s son Joel, admitted in an Instagram post that he’d been “unfaithful to my wife.”
Lentz’s confession was accompanied by a photo of Lentz with his wife and three children. “I now begin a journey of rebuilding trust with my wife, Laura and my children and taking real time to work on and heal my own life and seek out the help that I need,” Lentz wrote.
According to Boz Tchividjian, a former prosecutor and founder of GRACE, an organization that works with churches to investigate abuse, he and an unnamed source reported sexual transgressions to Hillsong in 2017, but were rebuffed. “There have been many sexual transgressions at Hillsong NYC,” Tchividjian said. “We tried to address them in 2017 and we were told that we were spreading gossip.’”
Tchividjian added, “This is a common & effective method leaders use to shame victims into silence in order to protect offenders & institutional reputations.”
Brian Houston and his wife Bobbie founded the original Hillsong Church in 1983 in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It now has locations in 28 countries around the world and, pre-pandemic, saw an average 150,000 attenders each week, according to its website.
The various global churches all report to Houston and a board of male elders.
Relatively unknown before taking the helm of Hillsong NYC, Lentz became a media darling for his hipster clothes, tattooed arms and his celebrity congregants, including Justin Bieber and his wife, Hailey Baldwin Bieber, as well as the Jenner sisters. He was one of a number of pastors GQ Magazine has described as “hypepriests” who lead churches frequented by celebrities.
In answer to Lentz’s Instagram post, Esther Houston, Joel Houston’s wife, implied that, despite his admission, Lentz had not stopped the affair that led to his dismissal.
“Amazing to see all the support being poured out for this despicable ongoing behavior,” she said in the comment. “Listen. I’m not gonna play this game. I fully denounce this and will make no excuses for it. You’ve been dealt a good hand, and you played it wrong.”
The British tabloid The Sun has reported that Lentz posed as a sports agent when he met a 34-year old designer, who identified herself only as Ranin, in a Brooklyn, New York, park. Ranin told The Sun she had been having an affair with the pastor for the past five months.
Ranin said after a few dates, she began to suspect he was married and asked. At that point, he admitted he had three children and had been married for 17 years. She later used his phone number to find out his last name and, at that point, discovered he was a pastor.
“My mind was blown,” she told the tabloid.
Ranin said Lentz told her that when he first saw her, “God told him to tell me that I need to know my worth and there’s something special about me … whatever whatever.”
According to Ranin, the two broke up last week. She said Lentz’s wife discovered their text messages on his computer at the Hillsong offices, with several of his coworkers there.
Lentz met his wife, Laura, a family friend of the Houston’s, in Australia when he attended Hillsong’s training program, Hillsong College. It is unclear whether she will remain in her position at Hillsong NYC, though some reports have said that she has also been let go.
In a brief appearance at Hillsong NYC’s Sunday streaming service, Brian Houston expressed gratitude for the team of leaders at the Manhattan church and said they were not only supportive of the decisions made, “but were part of the process.”
Houston also noted that during transitions, “It’s always a time where there’s speculation, rumor and gossip when change is made, and especially when radical change is made.”
“There’s great days ahead,” Houston assured the church. “We will continue to stay in touch when it comes to the long-term leadership of Hillsong East Coast.”
Neither Hillsong NYC nor Hillsong Global immediately responded to request for comment.’https://julieroys.com/hillsong-investigation-lentzs-firing/?mc_cid=17ba77ef58&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)
‘This instruction has created an undue amount of “interpretation” over the past century. The terminology is not unclear, but the culture (particularly in the Western world) has resisted the idea that God has specifically designed the structure of the family—beginning with the role of the wife and mother in the home.
She is to “submit” to her husband. The Greek word is hupotasso, a compound term that simply describes an “orderly arrangement.” Obviously, the instructions assume obedience to the design for human procreation “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6-7) and an understanding of the judgment handed down to humanity in Genesis 3.
That sentence on women (through Eve) is placed on all women, since “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14). Also included in the description in Genesis 3:16 is that the woman will “long” (Hebrew teshuqateh) for her husband, and her husband will “have power” (Hebrew mashal) over her.
The arrangement, therefore, is designed to prevent further debility and to protect the woman through the man’s willing obedience to love her sacrificially and unconditionally, as “Christ loved the church.”
Ultimately, of course, all obedience is voluntary. Wives are to “arrange” themselves under their husband’s authority, knowing that the instructions are given by an omnipotent and omniscient heavenly Father whose care for each of us is greater than we can imagine.
This basic family structure is “fit in the Lord,” promising us that our obedience will ensure His care and blessing within the most intimate of all human relationships.’https://www.icr.org/article/12440/?utm_source=phplist9140&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=November+10+-+Family+Structure%3A+Wives