Page Title

CHAPTER 8

RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS

1. The definition, examples and agenda of Political Correctness

2. The definition and agenda of Religious Correctness

3. Examples & Dangers of Religious Correctness

4. Defeating Religious Correctness

DEFINITION, Examples & Agenda of Political Correctness:

In order to understand Religious Correctness, as I am using the term, we must also

understand Political Correct

ness. Political Correctness is a group of both written and

unwritten ideas, definitions of words and redefinitions of

words that are used to establish a

code of conduct and a way of thinking that all people in the culture must adhere

to or suffer

painful penalties. However, if one does adhere to Political Correctness, the culture is quick

to grant

liberal rewards and great opportunity for advancement either politically or

practically. In politics and culture Political

Correctness came to replace the term “party

line”. The party referred to was the Communist Party. An important

aspect of the “party

line” was the proper use of words. Even then it was important to vilify “capitalists and the

rich.”

Even today the liberals encourage us to use appropriate left wing terminology and

discourage us from using

“inappropriate” outdated and offensive language.

When I became a Christian in the Berkeley, California area in 1969 I became quite surprised

that the views that I

had previously held were almost totally against the Scriptures. This was

because the left wing organizations that I

was involved with taught us unscriptural principles

and even anti-scriptural views. The party line that we were to

adhere to hated the law of

God. Two principles that I heard many times were: 1) the ultimate goal of communism

was

anarchy or lawlessness and 2) religion was the opiate of the people. Their cultural and

political views were

almost COMPLETELY against God’s Word and Christianity. The party

line that I had learned seemed to support

EVERYTHING that was against Scripture and

HATE everything that was in Scripture.

Over the decades following I came to learn that this was also true of Political Correctness.

At its heart Political

Correctness, like the party line is essentially Anti-Christ. It counts as

important things that Scripture either is

against or does not mention and hates or perverts

most of Scripture.

Later in the 1980’s or 90’s the term “party line” went out of fashion. The term “Politically

Correct” supplanted the

older term. Most of us have a fairly good idea of what is Politically

Correct and politically incorrect. For example,

it is Politically Correct to call people of the

Negroid race African Americans or People of Color. It is now incorrect

to call them

Negroes. It is politically incorrect to name your sports team anything to do with native

American

people. For example names such as the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves or

Florida State Seminoles are

now politically incorrect. It is Politically Correct to look at

criminals as victims of society or even more Politically

Correct to recognize criminals as

victims of capitalism or the rich. There is a Politically Correct way to respond to

Christians.

There is a Politically Correct way to treat or to view women. Because of the influence of

feminism in

the media and on the college campus, we no longer refer to the head of the

committee as “chairman” rather they

are called “chairpersons”. Political Correctness

even

has a handicap system to level the playing field. From an

employer’s standpoint, it is

economically advantageous to hire women and people of color.

Another aspect of Political Correctness, as was earlier alluded to is the twisting and

redefinition of terms and the

removal of words that represented the “old” order. It is also

important if one is to be Politically Correct to use new

words or use different words, which

speak of different concepts to replace the words of the old order. The impact

of certain

terms has been changed significantly by Political Correctness. As was earlier mentioned,

we cringe

when someone is referred to as a Negro. Terms such as the “rich” and “capitalist”

have come to have a negative

connotation in America. Both the rich and capitalists are

people that we cannot trust. Much of Political Correct

ness has as its goal the over

sensitization of people, and the creation of dissatisfaction with the present old

fashioned

male dominated puritanical capitalistic rulership that needs to be overthrown. Women in

general and

many racial and national groups have become extremely sensitive about what

they are called by other people and

how they are to be treated.

Women are particularly sensitive regarding their role as abused servants in the marriage

relationship and how

motherhood has become just another shackle so they can be kept

down. In the last few years, however, many left

wing Hollywood movie actresses have

made it clear that Motherhood is good. For awhile in America the term Ms.

had supplanted

the terms “Miss or Mrs.” by some in our culture. At that same time many women chose to

either

cast off the last names they had been given by their husbands and use their maiden

names or use a hyphenated

name that included both their last name and their husband’s last

name. Some women expected their husbands to

also use the hyphenated name.

The reason feminism is such an important issue in Political Correctness is because the

Scriptures, especially the

New Testament, have such a unique view regarding the place of

women in the marriage relationship. Heathen

religions typically have not protected women in

the marriage relationship. Often they are just slaves of their

husbands. In some heathen

religions, however, women are inordinately elevated as objects of reverence. In the

Bible

we see Baal worship which denigrates women and Ashtorah worship which both elevates

and perverts

women. The Christian view of women in the marriage relationship is that they

are to be subject to their husbands,

but the husband is commanded by God to love his wife

as Christ loves the Church.

Satan’s perversion of the Christian view of the roles of men and women in the marriage

relationship has greatly

harmed the American family and the Church of Jesus Christ in

America. The politically correct among us have

called for the

wife to reject the Scriptures

which say that she is to submit herself to her husband as her head. The

Scriptures teach

that the husband was to be the head of the wife has been mocked and vilified by them

because

these notions were said to be old fashioned and the products of a male dominated

culture. Satan has successfully

used these views to pervert the scriptural view of marriage

and family values. Political Correctness also has

popular

ized terms to describe perverse

sexual behavior in a positive light. Homosexuals are called “Gay”.

Criminals are not sinners

but victims. Drunkenness is not a sin, it is a disease. Homosexuality is not a sin; it is an

alternative lifestyle. This twisting and redefinition of terms has done great damage to our

culture. Much of what I

have mentioned here tends towards a lawless attitude.

The dictum

and teachings of God’s law in the Scriptures

are essentially politically incorrect. Much of

Political Correct

ness is also against the Person of Jesus Christ.

Satan has used Political Correctness to partially eliminate the Name of Jesus Christ from our

buildings, our

language

and our thinking. Political correctness dictates that we give more

than equal attention to all other

religions. Multi

culturalism has been used as a platform to

sympathetically introduce children to religions such as

Hinduism, Mohammedism, Animism

and Wicca. Multi

culturalism is really ultimately about multi-religions and the

idea that it is

fair to only worship Jesus Christ. We must respect and honor all other religions and their

gods.

This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the overwhelmingly predominant

religion of the United States for

hundreds of years has been the Christianity of the Protestant

Reformation. These other religions have been used

in the government schools supposed

to help explain culture. However, these same government schools will not

even allow the

majority religion (Christianity) to be represented. Even terms like “Merry Christmas” are

deemed

unacceptable. As we all know, “Happy Holidays” is the appropriate Politically

Correct term to use. This term too

may eventually be discarded when they discover that the

original meaning of HOLIDAYS was Holy-Days.

If the Person of Jesus Christ is to be discussed on most television programs, He is

discussed in terms that

challenge the Scriptures and greatly weaken or destroy His divinity.

Satan has used the government schools, the

educational system, the culture and the media

to pervert the Person and the ministry of Jesus Christ as it is

revealed and expounded in the

New Testament. By doing so, he has even created doubt in the minds of church

attendees

as to who He is and what He has called us to do. If looked at closely, it is very evident that

Satan is the

innovator and initiator of Political Correctness in the culture of America.

The ultimate agenda of Political Correctness is not merely to weaken the culture. In the

spiritual realm, Satan’s

true goal is the weakening of the Church of Jesus Christ. When the

Church becomes weak and worldly, it is

powerless to fight off the will of the enemy and the

establishment of his kingdom in America and on this earth.

First he must break down the

culture and its Christian foundation through the courts, the political process, the

educational

systems and the media. In the media, while it is Politically Correct to depict witches and

warlocks as

being enemies of evil and friends of mankind; it is also Politically Correct to

depict Christians who believe in the

Scriptures as being either very stupid or very evil and by

implication their God, Jesus Christ, is essentially depicted

as either a false god, an evil

influence or a weak influence.

After Satan has polluted and permeated the culture with attitudes and actions that break

down God’s law and sully

the reputation and Name of Jesus Christ, he then is ready to

subvert and weaken the Church as well. He can only

do this if the Church has close ties with

and desires to be acceptable to the culture and the world they live in. The

world is already

in Satan’s hands but he will use the world to neutralize the power of God’s people. He can

do this

the same way he has done in other countries: by the subtle altering of the Church’s

doctrine and practices. In the

Old Testament Baalim knew that God’s people could only be

defeated if they became a spiritually compromised

people. He knew that then God would

judge them for their sins. Because of this knowledge, he attempted to

com

promise them

with beautiful heathen women who practiced idolatry. He knew if the Israelites fell to their

temp

ations, married them and worshiped the gods of their wives along with worshipping

Jehovah, then God would

have to judge them. So today, Satan is tempt

ing the Church with

adulterous and idolatrous imagery and verbiage

through the media and educational system.

Israel was eventually destroyed as a nation because she became

idolatrous. Satan has

used the tolerance and acceptance

of other religions to tempt religiously correct Christians.

He is tempting them to become tolerant of such cults as the Roman Catholic Church and

Mormanism, two of our

staunchest allies in the culture wars. If the Church does not fall on

its face and repent of its failure to stand strong

against the temptations of our culture,

America will eventually be destroy

ed as a country. If America falls, it will be

primarily

because the Church has become so weak that it will not be able to stave off the attacks of

Satan any

longer. The Church is the only organization that can successfully fend off and

defeat the Enemy that wants to

destroy America.

If Satan can twist and pervert the roles of men and women in the culture, the family or the

Church he will

successfully weakened the culture, the family and the Church. We must

understand that even as the people of

God in the Old Testament were weakened and

punished severely, so the Church in America will be weakened

and punished severely

if it

does not stand against the arguments and temptations of the enemy. Political

Correctness

and Religious Correctness are Satan’s two most successful ways to weaken and destroy the

United

States of America and weaken

and if possible destroy the Church of Jesus Christ in

America.

DEFINITION & AGENDA OF RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS:

Some liberals use the term “Religious Correctness” to describe beliefs and activities of

Christian Conservatives that

are against the agenda of the Left. I am NOT using the term in

this way. The Religious Correctness that I am

referring to is an outgrowth of the Political

Correctness of the Left, but is practiced by people who would identify

themselves as

Evangelicals and/or Charismatics. This Religious Correctness however, is not spiritual and

not

scriptural.

In the religious culture of Evangelicals and Charismatics Religious Correctness is ultimately a

more damaging

influence than Political Correctness. As Political Correctness has a political

and cultural agenda in mind, so

Religious Correctness has a spiritual agenda in mind.

Inadvertently many in the Saul Church today have fallen into

the same blind obedience that

has affected the adherents of Political Correctness.

Religious Correctness is often a group of written or unwritten ideas, words, or thoughts that

are used to establish

a code of conduct, or party line, that all must adhere to or suffer painful

penalties. However, if one does adhere to

Religious Correctness, the Church is quick to

grant liberal rewards and great opportunity for advancement. As in

Political Correctness

there is an attempt to change conduct and ways of thinking in the body of Christ by, among

other things, redefining, renaming and using terms or words in ways not used before.

The agenda of the Religiously Correct Church is much like that of Israel during the time of

Samuel and Saul.

The Israelites sincerely believed and felt it was necessary that they

should have rulership that would help them to

be like the nations. They felt it was necessary

to be like the nations so that they could defeat the nations.

Eventually they had

their prayers

answered, and God sent them a man after their own heart who did everything

he could to be

everything they wanted him to be. He chose the best things of the world for the purposes of

wor

ship and for the purposes of warfare. The Religiously Correct Church is doing the same

thing. They are choosing

the best of Political Correctness so they can have huge Churches

with lots of people. They compromise doctrines

so that they can add to their numbers,

because they are afraid that if they don’t, then people will never attend their

church to hear

their gospel preached or

the people will leave. The Religiously Correct Church is the modern

day

counterpart of Israel under Saul. This Saul Church, like its namesake, WILL be

defeated by the modern day

Philistines that they looked to for these new ideas and new

methodology.

EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS:

The following are examples of words that have been introduced into the Christian vocabulary

or have been

redefined by those who adhere to the Religiously Correct viewpoint.

DOCTRINE:

This term has fallen into disrepute by the Religiously Correct. Particularly in the Charismatic

Movement we have

associated the term doctrine with tedious interpretations of the Word of

God that are either unclear or unimportant

because they are not basic to salvation. I have

heard men say, “I don’t teach doctrine, I just teach the Scriptures”

as if doctrine was the

faulty or overly complex interpretation of Scripture. The teaching of sound doctrine is

considered extremely important by the Scriptures. Doctrine essentially means “teaching”. I

have heard other

preachers or pastors say, I don’t believe doctrine is important. I teach

relationship rather than religion. Today

most Christians don’t know what Scripture says

about justification, sanctification, redemption or election. In fact,

these words are fast falling

out of use with most preachers and church goers alike. Most church goers are not

familiar

with biblical repentance, biblical discipleship, God’s grace or even proper use of the law.

What they have

been taught is the need for unity with all religions that identify themselves as

Christian, the importance of balance,

how to get in touch with your feminine side,

the need

for a healthy and high sense of self-esteem, the need to

have a covering, the importance of

not “touching the Lord’s anointed”, warnings of being divisive and the

importance of not

judging others or even others judging them. To

a large extent we have integrated the

doctrines

of Scripture with the philosophies of men. Of course, there are some great

Churches that cover fundamental

doctrines and teach appropriate application. I believe

however, that for every Church that teaches solid doctrine

there are at least five that do not

do so. Most churches feel that the teaching of doctrine should be minimal. They

are

concerned that teaching too much doctrine might have a divisive effect on the congregation.

JUDGMENT:

Judgment is a touchy subject with the Religiously Correct. First of all, they have all heard

about the preacher

who beats his sheep up with threats of fire and brimstone. These

messages are deemed inappropriate in the

enlightened 21st century Church atmosphere. It

is much more civilized to draw people to God with His love in a

positive manner. I have even

heard preachers refer to the Old Testament God of wrath and the New Testament

God of

love—as if God changed or grew or evolved.

The term judgment now is a negative term that is used only when dealing with people outside

the Church. Final

judgment and hell are usually referred to in passing but not as the major

topic in a speaker’s message. The

assumption is that when someone preaches the

judgment of America that we will be judged because of the

influence of the liberals, the

Hollywood Left and the media elite.

The Church in America according to these people may “suffer for righteousness sake” but is

in no real danger of

being judged or punished by God for their sin or poor doctrine. The

evangelical and charismatic Churches in

America have a VERY high sense of self-esteem.

When a prophetic message comes forth that warns the Church

that it will be judged by God

if it does not repent of its sin, that message is typically thought to be a manifestation

of “the

spirit of condemnation”.

There is a frightening confidence and a blind braggadocio that is content to talk about the

millions of converts, the

HUGE churches, impressive outreach movements and the

tremendous “growth” of charismatic and evangelical

churches in America. The Church views

itself as quite wealthy. One denomination almost casually discussed the

quarter billion dollar

sale they made of their radio station. The churches in America have indeed become very

wealthy and confident that it is preaching the true gospel because of the great financial

blessings they have

received. In one sense, many believe that God is “confirming their

message or word” by blessing them with large

numbers of people and/or lots of money.

However, the Scriptures say, “I know your deeds, that you neither cold nor hot; I wish that

you were either cold or

hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will

spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I

am rich, and have become wealthy and have

need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and

miserable and poor and

blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become

rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and the shame of your nakedness

will not be revealed;

and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I

love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be

zealous and repent.” Rev 3:15-19.

DIVISIVE:

This term applies to anyone who disagrees with the leadership regarding conduct or

doctrine. Even if the concern

ed person merely wants to discuss the issues in private, often it

is considered inappropriate to do so. The

suggestion of leadership often takes the form of

“if you don’t agree with us, perhaps you should think about joining

another Church”. There

seems to be no room for discussing the issues from a biblical viewpoint in the Religiously

Correct Church. Gone are days when men would feel comfortable listening to a divergent

viewpoint, and consid

ering it from the standpoint of Scripture. The Scripture that is quoted is

“mark them that cause division”. This new

application of the word is a tremendous tool of

Satan to keep anyone from repenting or moving into greater light.

Every revival has been

marked by men who question the conduct or the doctrine of current leadership. Martin

Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church. He wanted the Catholic Church to leave

the foul practices and

doctrines of the Dark Ages. George Whitfield and John Wesley never

wanted to leave the Church of England in

the eighteenth century. They wanted the Anglican

Church to embrace scriptural concepts such as “you must be

born again.”

The view that identifies as divisive any man who disagrees with the conduct or doctrine of a

Church,

will keep that Church from experiencing great revival or reformation.

HARSH:

The Religiously Correct will apply this term to anyone in authority who raises their voice to

someone under them.

Particularly in reference to family matters. If a mother or father

raises their voice in correcting their child, this is

considered harsh and the prevailing attitude

is that this will cause the child be be injured psychologically or

spiritually. If a preacher

raises his voice in criticism to activities that his hearers have committed, he will be judged

harsh. Jesus, of course, was harsh in His vocabulary and likely His tone, when He

pronounced the 7 Woes

against the Scribes and the Pharisees. It is never appropriate to

harangue or berate people especially our

spouses or children, but there is a time for more

volume and to speak in a tone of urgency or deep disfavor. The

Religiously Correct are

highly sensitive regarding the reception of criticism and will find a way of invalidating that

criticism by referring to that criticism as harsh.

VERBALLY ABUSIVE:

This term is often used by men or more likely women as grounds for divorce by the

Religiously Correct. The

Religiously Correct have added abuse, either verbal or physical, as

grounds for divorce. The victim of verbal

abuse, either real or imaginary, tends to define any

negative comment as verbal abuse. Worse, they can stir up

the potential abuse with soft

spoken insults so that he or she will respond in a loud or inappropriate fashion. The

needling

of a person to illicit a sinful verbal or physical response should be taken into account when

evaluating the

respective guilt or innocence of either party. This has become one of Satan’s

greatest tools in the dissolution of

marriages and the attendant suffering of children. It is

worth noting that Scripture does not excuse divorce on the

grounds of such abuse.

COVERING:

Covering is a relatively latter day concept. This term although used earlier probably became

popular in the early

1970’s when Bob Mumford taught that every sheep needed a shepherd,

and every shepherd needed a covering

ministry to whom he was accountable. This

“covering” doctrine typically meant that one could not be ministering

in obedience to the Lord

except he be submitted or under another man of God or ministry. By doing so, he was

protected from the enemy and the world by this covering of authority.

This doctrine of covering ministry has now reached the status of being Religiously Correct.

In practically all of the

Charismatic movement and in many Evangelical churches, this concept

is accepted as Biblical.

The term covering, as it relates to our discussion, is only used once in the New Testament--

1Cor 11:15 says,

“…her hair is given to her for a covering”. (NAS) This Scripture may

possibly have some symbolic reference to

the husband’s authority over the wife, but there is

no Scripture in the Bible that would defend the term “covering”

to indicate that every

legitimate ministry must be established under a man or a Church’s authority. Neither are

there any Scriptures that indicate that a man or a Church’s authority will protect another

ministry. 1 Cor 11:3 says,

“Christ is the head of every man…” It does not suggest that

every man needs a denomination or another minister

to be his head or his covering if he is a

man of God or a minister for the Lord. The Religiously Correct feel very

uncomfortable with

ministries that are not supervised or ministries that are not “accountable” to someone

(accountability will be discussed in the next section). If the Religiously Correct are using this

term to indicate

Scriptural authority, accountability or protection, then that authority,

accountability or protection would be in one

way supplanting Christ as the Head of every

man.

The covering doctrine is another example of elevating men and denigrating the authority of

Jesus Christ in a man’s

life. Men in general and ministering men in particular, must learn to

establish a personal relationship with Jesus

Christ without ANY mediator or covering. They

must also learn to depend upon the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit

on their own. This does

not go against any idea of learning from or listening to another man or ministry, but there

are

times when a man must go to Jesus without ANY mediator or assistance. By establishing

covering as a

necessity, we insert a Mediator, and there is no other Mediator between God

and man except Jesus Christ.

Covering in this sense does not need to sanction everything

or ANYTHING that a man does, but Jesus Christ, His

Holy Spirit and the Word of God MUST

sanction everything that a man does, whether he is a husband or a minister

of the Word.

This doctrine of covering is not dissimilar to the Roman Catholic doctrine which indicates that

every

man must be under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Jesus made it clear

regarding covering. When His

disciples indicated that others were ministering using the

name of Jesus Christ in healing, He did not discourage

them from doing so: rather Mark 9:38-

40 says, “John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons

in Your name,

and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us (he did not have our covering)

but

Jesus said, ‘do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My

name, and be able soon after

ward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for

us.’’’ This makes it abundantly clear that we do not

need a group or an individual to be over

us so that we can function in obedience to our Lord. It is true that

Paul

went to Jerusalem to

meet with the pillar apostles. That, however, was not so that he could get covering. That

was so he could learn from them, fellowship with them and show them what God was doing

in his ministry. Many

men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Finney functioned

without covering and still succeeded to bless

God, His people and the world.

The covering of any man, whether he is a pastor, prophet or husband is always and only the

Lord Jesus Christ.

He must be the one that directs him in his activities. He must do what

the Father says and the Son confirms by

the Holy Spirit. When he enters ministry, when he

changes ministry and when he quits ministry. Jesus Christ is

the Head of every man. As the

man rules his family and ministers to his wife and children, Jesus is his Head. No

pastor,

divisional superintendent, elder, board member or bishop can instruct him apart from what

the Lord tells

him. He must be extremely careful not to obey any unscriptural directive that

he receives from any of these people.

He is responsible to God and NOT to them to

interpret, teach and obey the letter and the spirit of Scripture.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

The accountability doctrine has some very good points and can be useful in developing and

maintaining character.

Like the covering doctrine, however, it has some problems that we

need to mention. As was said in the previous

section, men must learn to be accountable to

the Scriptures and to God in a highly personal way. They must learn

to look for all the

answers to all their questions in the Scriptures, regarding their family, their job and every

other

facet of life. They must come to know the Person of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and

our heavenly Father by

soaking up the Word of God and praying that God would open their

eyes and asking Him through Jesus Christ to

give them guidance through His Scriptures.

When they need a directive concerning a path they should take or a

choice they need to

make, they should always go to the Lord first. Accountability doctrine can become a way of

either lessening a man’s relationship with the Lord or expanding his relationship with the

Lord. If he learns to go to

the Lord and the Scriptures first for help with any temptation or

with any decision or with any need to understand

His Word, then that is good. If his first

choice is usually going to his accountability partner or mentor for help, then

that is bad. A

good accountability partner or mentor will always guide him to go to the Scriptures and to

the Lord

Himself first. Prayer partners can be good and accountability relationships can be

good, but the other individual

must himself be steeped in the Scriptures and not in the

wisdom of men. He must be a man that always encour

ages greater relationship and greater

understanding from the Scriptures and God Himself. In the Scriptures God

makes it clear

that we are always ultimately accountable to Him and Him alone, but He also tells us our

need for

counselors, ministers and men to come along side us in our struggles with the

world, the flesh and the devil.

Scripture also directs us to submit to those in the church that

have authority over us, but NEVER if their directives

or teachings go against the teachings of

Scripture.

MUTUAL SUBMISSION:

The mutual submission doctrine was popularized in the Charismatic Movement in the 1960’s

and 1970’s. This

doctrine in some of the Charismatic Churches has been around for a long

time, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s this

doctrine became widespread. In simple terms, the

doctrine says that even as the wife is to be subject to her

husband, so the husband is to be

subject to his wife. The two Scriptures that supposedly support this argument

are found first

in Eph 5:21, “…and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” The other scriptural

reference

is in Gal 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free

man, there is neither male or female:

for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This interpretation of Scripture was likely helped along by the popularity of the women’s

movement in the 1920’s in

America. Women had been fighting for, among other things,

equal rights in the voting booth, and had just won a

significant victory with the establishment

of the 19th Amendment which allowed them to vote. There also was

strong pressure by

society to allow women to have a much greater voice in the household regarding family

matters.

By the 1970’s the movies made it clear that men were typically both abusive and

ignorant as they led their families.

There were still popular images of men as good leaders

in such television shows as Little House on the Prairie.

But there were an equal number of

demeaning male images in such television shows as All in the Family. By the

late 1970’s the

authority of the husband in the family and the marriage relationship as depicted by television

and

the movies was greatly damaged. It was Politically Correct for a woman to consider

herself to be equal in authority

with her husband in the marriage relationship. The culture

accepted the fact that the husband was not the head of

the wife, as Christ is also the Head

of the Church, as Eph 5:23 states. The Scripture that says, “as the Church is

subject to

Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Eph 5:24) was also

ignored.

From the 1980’s on most fathers and husbands, in both television and the movies,

were depicted as weak at best,

and often the cause of the family’s worst problems. Since

then, men have generally been depicted as immature,

having no understanding at all

concerning their wives and lacking understanding of the marriage relationship.

Typically they

are not to be respected because they are not worthy of respect. They are always

interested in sex,

but never interested in love. The children are held in greater esteem than

they are. The wife is much more likely

to ask counsel, not from husband, but from her son

or daughter regarding an important decision. Men are often

depicted as merely little boys in

grown up bodies. Even on Christian radio, one advertisement for Mother’s Day

had the

woman saying about her husband, “He is really just one of my children.”

The Church remained comparatively unscathed by these views until the 1970’s. It was at

that time that the Church

began to draw more and more of its teaching from secular

psychology. As was mentioned before, secular

psychology for decades had held a view that

marriage was a partnership, and that it was puritanical, old fashioned

and harmful to the

raising of children to allow the man to have such power over his wife and family. It was at

that

time that the mutual submission doctrine became popular in the Charismatic Movement.

The Church chose to use

the Scriptures mentioned earlier to validate the equality of the

sexes with regard to authority one over the other

(“be subject one to another” and “there is

neither male nor female in Christ Jesus”). Looked at in their context,

these two Scriptures

have nothing to do with mutual submission. The Scripture in Ephesians which says, “be

subject to one another” does not indicate mutual submission but respective submission:

children to parents, slaves

to masters, and wives to husbands. Slaves according to Eph 6:5

are to be obedient to their masters (not master’s

being obedient to slaves) and children are

to obey their parents according to Eph 6:1 (parents are not supposed to

obey their

children). So too, the wife is to be subject to her husband (not the husband to be subject to

his wife).

The husband’s role is tough enough. He is to love his wife like Christ loves the

Church.

The Religiously Correct, however, have completely taken away the authority of the husband

as the head of the

wife. I have heard it preached that Christ is the Head of both the husband

and the wife and the husband had

better recognize that, if he wants to have a good

relationship with his wife. Typically when reading and teaching

the Scriptures in Ephesians

most Charismatic pastors and speakers will make sure to mention that the husband

should

not take advantage of the Scriptures regarding his wife’s submission to him. They are

always warned not

to make her a “door mat”. She too, is exhorted not to let her husband

make her a door mat. When the subject of

a husband loving his wife like Christ loves the

Church is preached, it is usually pointed out that Christ was a

servant-leader whose main

role was to be a servant to the Church, and consequently, the main role of the hus

band was

to be a servant for his wife. When discussing the husband’s responsibility to love his wife

like Christ

loves the Church, it is NEVER mentioned that a wife should not take advantage of

her husband’s love for her and

service that he is to give her. It is always assumed that it is

only the husband that would ever abuse these

Scriptures; it is tacitly assumed that the wife

would never abuse her husband in that way.

The Scriptures, on the other hand, indicate that the man is the stronger vessel. Actually 1

Peter 3:7 says to

husbands “…live with your wives in an understand way as with a WEAKER

VESSEL since she is a woman; and

grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so

that your prayers may not be hindered.” It is important to

note that this setting does not

dictate that women should be berated for their weakness, rather they are, among

other

things, to be treated more delicately because of their weakness. Paul, when discussing

ministry in

1 Timothy indicates that one aspect of that weakness is that they are more likely

to be deceived than their

husbands. He says in I Timothy 2:14, “and it was not Adam who

was deceived, but the woman being quite

deceived fell into transgression.” Because of this

Paul according to I Tim 2:12 did not “…allow a woman to teach

or exercise authority over a

man, but to remain quiet.” (I Timothy 2:13 indicates that another reason for this is that

Adam

was first created and then Eve). God created men to lead and be the head of their wives,

not the reverse.

Our culture and the Religiously Correct teachers of the Church make it

clear that they consider the woman to be

at least equal with the man and in some ways even

superior. A prominent conservative Bible teacher on the radio

when preaching on prayer

said “that there are no stronger prayers than those of a mother for her children.” He

then

went on to expound at great length that a mother was actually emotionally and spiritually

more equipped to

pray for her children than her husband. He discussed how difficult life was

for him after his mother died and he no

longer was the recipient of her prayers. Scripturally

we see very few if any examples of a woman’s prayer for her

children, but we see Jacob

praying for his sons. Scripture in no way indicates that a mother’s prayers are superior

inferior to her husband’s.

Often the scriptural descriptions of a woman’s comparative weakness, and the scriptural

directive to submit to her

husband are dismissed as the result of the culture that the apostles

lived in and would not apply today. This is a

direct attack on the reliability of the Scriptures.

Any Christian generation that goes against these clear teachings in

Scripture will be terribly

weakened and eventually easily defeated.

INTUITION:

In the Religiously Correct Church of today women are reputed to have more intuition than

men. This is a cultural

myth that many people accept, but the word intuition is kind of a

vague word at best. In this context does it mean

more spiritual sensitivity? If that were so,

then the preponderance of those who prophecy in the Scriptures would

be women, but at

least 90% of those who prophesy in the Scriptures are men. Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha,

Isaiah,

Jeremiah, Daniel, Jesus, Agabus and John the Revelator were all prophets. Deborah

was a prophetess in the Old

Testament, Anna was a prophetess at the time of Jesus’ birth

and before, and Philip had daughters who also were

prophetesses. This is not to discount

the fact that women were included in the exhortation to prophesy in I Cor 14:

1, “pursue love,

yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” More compelling

is Acts

2:17, “…your SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy…” However, there is

NO INDICATION in ANY area

of Scripture that women are either naturally or supernaturally

superior to men in their ability to know the voice of

God and speak it forth. In fact there is

evidence in Scripture to indicate that even before the fall women were more

likely than men

to not hear correctly and to be deceived. As was mentioned in the last section, 1 Tim 2:14

says,

“and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into

transgression.” In fact this

innate lack of ability to distinguish the truth from a lie is the

fundamental reason why Paul did not “allow a woman to

teach or exercise authority over the

man…” A woman’s “intuition” is nothing more than a fiction of the enemy to

elevate the

woman’s authority above that of the man and turn God’s order of authority upside down.

SERVANT-LEADER:

When Jesus overheard a dispute between His disciples as to which one of them was to be

regarded as the great

est, “…He said to them, ‘the kings of the Gentiles lord it over them;

and those who have authority over them are

called benefactors. But it is not this way with

you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the

youngest and the

leader like the servant’’’ (Luke 22:25-26). Matt 20:25-27 says, “But Jesus called them to

Himself

and said, ‘you know that the rulers of the Gentiles rule it over them, and their great

men exercise authority over

them. It is not this way among you, but whosoever wishes to

become great among you shall be your servant, and

whoever wishes to be first among you

shall be your slave.”’

In the Scriptures Jesus taught His disciples a great object lesson when He put on a servant’s

apron and proceeded

to wash their feet. He did this in response to Peter who asked who

was to be the greatest among the disciples.

Jesus said, “He who will be servant among you

will be the greatest among you”. He did this to illustrate that being

a good leader, whether

you are a husband, a parent, a pastor or a boss, requires that you take good care of those

that you lead or have authority over. He did not say this so that those under Him could order

Him around; make

pointed suggestions as to what He should do, or somehow reverse roles

with the Master or Leader. Once again,

He did this to show them that a good leader takes

good care of those under Him. He did not do this in any way to

compromise His own

authority or suggest the compromise of the authority of any leader. A husband leads his

wife

and children by loving her like Christ loves the Church, and loving them as the Father

loves us. We must

understand that at times this love is manifested in terms of correction or

punishment. A good leader never sacrifices

his God given authority as head of his wife and

father of his children. Instead, he sacrifices his own desires and

his own will as he is

directed through prayerful reading of the Scriptures and his personal communication with the

Lord Jesus Christ. The religiously correct Saul Church implies that leadership involves a kind

of servile submission

to those whom you lead. Husbands and fathers are never to cast off

their God given authority by being pressured

by anyone to imply that this servant role is to

be worked out in terms of doing what others tell him is important.

Neither are they to rely

upon their wives “intuitive powers.” In some cases, their views certainly should be taken

into

consideration, however, before God; he is responsible to function on the basis of the

authority of the Word.

He will not be able to excuse any action that is not pleasing to God

by telling Him that he was only doing what his

wife asked or told him to do. Unfortunately

this attitude has given some Christian women the false assumption that

they are to be

treated like royalty. Perhaps there is a time to treat her in a very special way, even like

royalty.

However, in some cases, the desire of the wife is to be served as royalty and treat

her husband as a mere servant.

We must keep in mind that both the husband and the wife

are fallen creatures, and at times, will take advantage

of the other spouse to serve their own

desires. This is not limited to the husband “using his wife as a doormat.”

The wife, because

she too is a fallen creature, can just as easily take advantage of her husband’s role as a

servant. An equally dangerous decision of the husband is to give her headship in the family

and expect her to

care for him as Christ cares for the Church. Also, it is not pleasing to the

Lord when the woman takes upon her

self the headship of the family and does not respect

and honor her husband as her head.

The husband is to serve her needs and the needs of his children as the Lord directs him and

not necessarily as

they desire or even as the pastor or the “Christian” counselor directs him.

This is to be done even if his wife and

the children out vote him regarding his decision.

Scripture does not define the marriage relationship, the family

situation or the church as a

democracy.

UNITY:

In the 17th chapter of The Gospel According to John, shortly before Jesus and His disciples

went to the Garden of

Gethsemane, Jesus prayed a prayer to His Father in the hearing of

His disciples. Among other things, He prayed

about unity. In verse 11 Jesus prays, “…Holy

Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given

Me, that they may be one

even as We are.” Verses 17-22 say, “For their sake I sanctify Myself, that they

themselves

also may be sanctified in the truth. 20: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those

who also

believe in Me through their word: 21: that they may all be one; even as You,

Father are in Me and I in You, that

they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe

that You sent Me. 22: The glory which You have given Me I

have given to them, that they

may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected

unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have

loved Me.”

It’s important to note that the unity that Jesus is praying for is accomplished solely by the

Father. Verse 17-20

says, “Sanctify them in the truth…that they may all be one…” Before

they are to be one they must be sanctified in

the TRUTH by the Father, and the purpose of

this sanctification in the truth is so they may be all one. When they

become one, then the

result will be that the world may believe that the Father sent Jesus (vs 20-21). In verse 22

Jesus says, “The glory which you have given Me, I have given to them that they may be one,

just as We are one.”

Jesus states there clearly, that He gave His own glory to them that the

Father gave Him so that His people may be

one. He goes on to say in verse 23 that the

purpose of them becoming one was so that they would be perfected

in unity. And the

purpose from the viewpoint of the world was so that the world would know that the Father

sent

Jesus and loved His disciples even as the Father has loved Jesus. This oneness is

something that is not accom

plished by men, but is solely accomplished by our heavenly

Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Men are not able to

orchestrate the glory of God. This

prayer of our Lord’s will most definitely be answered in His time, in His way.

This is not a

unity or a oneness that will come into being by the machinations of men. We cannot

organize or

excite ourselves into this unity. We are not even sure who is really His and who

is not really His. First we must be

sanctified in THE TRUTH and then experience His glory.

THEN we will become one, even as He and the Father

are one. The oneness that the Saul

Church has attempted to accomplish in the Body of Christ is a false unity or

oneness that is

not of the Father but is of the flesh. TRUTH has become an unimportant commodity with the

Saul

Church. There is little concern regarding the truth of Scripture. The Saul Church values

unity much more than

truth. Calling conferences for the purpose of unifying the Body of

Christ is basically of the flesh. Getting tens of

thousands of men to meet together in a show

of unity at a demonstration or event is of the flesh. Establishing

organizations that unite

Evangelicals and Roman Catholics is particularly sad. Five hundred years ago the

Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church because of their false gospel of

faith plus works, their

dependence upon penance as a way to deal with sin, their indulgences

which released their loved ones from

thousands of years of pergatory, their reliance upon

Mary as a co-mediatrix, their support of the Pope as the Vicor

or earthy representative of

Jesus Christ and many other contradictions with Scripture. The Catholic Church still

believes

and practices and demands the same things that she did five hundred years ago. The

Catholic Church is

not a group of people that we should want to be unified with. The people

of the Catholic Church should be people

that we share the true gospel with and do

everything that we can to see them come to the Lord Jesus Christ by

faith in His shed blood

alone. Catholics and Evangelicals Together is not an organization that was founded by the

prompting of the Holy Spirit, rather it was an attempt to further an unscriptural unity that will

not merely produce no

fruit, but in fact will produce very bad fruit. When members of the

Catholic Church are sanctified in the truth and

when members of the Religiously Correct

Evangelicals and Charismatics are sanctified in truth, then we will be on

our way to becoming

one in Christ.

Another Scripture that many quote as they call for unity in the Body of Christ is from the

Book of Acts. Acts 1:14

says, “These all with one mind were continually devoting

themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary

the mother of Jesus, and with His

brothers.”

It is EXTREMELY important to note that they were “ALL OF ONE MIND.” Most, if not all of

them, had sat under the

teaching of Jesus Christ, Himself, for three years. It is likely that

they all believed that He was the Messiah sent

from God. It is also important to notice that

there were only 120 of them in the Upper Room. Most of the 7,000

who had seen Him

miraculously feed them were not there. Of the 500 who watched Him leave in a cloud, less

than 25% of them were there. There was no solicitation by the disciples to have a unity

conference. There was

no cry for the multitudes to come and join in. This was a sovereignly

chosen group of people that were in

attendance. This group was chosen by our heavenly

Father and not one person was missing, and not one too

many was present. Once again,

this meeting was totally and solely arranged by God, so that these men and

women would

experience His glory and His sanctification in the truth.

The Saul Church is not unlike the world which rejects and denigrates true Christians who will

not recognize the

gods of the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. The Saul Church does not

want to appear narrow minded to other

Christian faiths so they do not reject Roman

Catholics and in some cases Mormons who preach another Jesus

and another Gospel.

They no longer agree with Paul who said in Galatians 1:6-12,

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ,

for a different gospel;

which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing

you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But

even if we, or an angel from heaven, should

preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he

is to be accursed! As

we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to

what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God?

Or am I striving to

please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-

servant of Christ. For I would have you

know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached

by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from

man, nor was I taught it, but I

received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

The pathetic attempt of men to create unity by solicitation that is not approved by God has

accomplished nothing

except false hope and failure. The unity they have striven for has not

been accomplished and will not be

accomplished until God’s perfect timing. Not only that,

NOTHING in this world will keep that unity from occurring.

It is enough for us to preach the

pure and total Word of God and to do all that He requires of us and has taught us.

The attempt of the Saul Church to artificially create unity is strikingly similar to the same

attempt of The World

Council of Churches in the mid 20th century. This organization also is

not very concerned about doctrine and wants

to unite in spite of our differences, so we can

bless the earth with our unity. At one time Charismatics and

Evangelicals recognized that

this group was not of God. I don’t know how they view the World Council of Churches

today.

BALANCED:

“Balanced” at one time meant that a man was able to preach judgment and blessing, eternal

punishment and

eternal rewards, and the ravages of sin and the blessings of holiness. Like

other Religiously Correct words the

meaning of this word has also changed radically.

Perhaps at one point in Church history, balance meant “balance your total hatred of sin with

a total love for God”,

or “balance your understanding of the use of the law in Scripture with

your understanding of the use of grace.”

But that is not what many proponents of the

teaching of balance are teaching us today.

A “balanced man” has come to mean a man who understands and depends upon both the

Scriptures and

understands and uses the BEST ways of the world. The proponents of this

view do not suggest that the Bible is

not the answer to man’s problems. They firmly believe

that it is the answer to our problems. It is just that they say

we also need to recognize the

importance of the wisdom that the world has to offer. They justify this viewpoint with

the

phrase, “All truth is God’s truth.” They take the best that psychology and psychiatry have to

offer, and then

along with the Bible, present balanced Christian counseling. In my

undergraduate Christian psychology course my

teacher who was a licensed psychiatrist said

that Jay Adams, the writer of our class text book, was out of balance

and behind the times

because he did not incorporate modern psychology and psychiatry into his teachings. Later,

when I pursued my Master’s Degree in seminary, I was chided for my views regarding the

writings of Sigmund Freud

and Carl Jung. I suggested that their views were confusing, often

contradictory to one another and their general

theories regarding human behavior were

worse than useless. My teacher felt that I was quite out of balance and

did not understand

the importance of the teachings of these men and other intellectual giants in the world of

psychiatry and psychology. The problem is that what they consider to be the best often

contradicts or falls short of

Scripture. Balancing secular psychology with biblical counseling

often removes the fear of the Lord and a desire to

esteem others more highly than

themselves. In fact, securing a high sense of self esteem can replace or

discourage

meekness, humility and self denial.

The “balanced man” recognizes that one must have understanding of the world to balance his

understanding of

things spiritual.

I have heard dozens of pastors refer to an individual as being “so heavenly minded that he is

of no

earthly good.” This individual is apparently so consumed by his passion for heaven and

being with our Lord Jesus

Christ that he has become out of touch with day to day living and

cannot relate well with the general population.

They believe that this type of asceticism

would make him an ineffectual witness for the Lord. In the Saul Church,

Old Testament

prophets, John the Baptist and even Jesus would be considered out of balance.

The balanced Christian also needs to balance his political life with his spiritual life. Many

believe and teach that

Christians are to blame for the demise of morality, justice and clear

political thinking in America because they have

not been politically active. They believe that

this demise has come about because Christians have not voted

enough and have not

supported conservative candidates properly. They believe we need to balance our spiritual

life with a healthy political life. I firmly believe that many individuals, both Christian and non-

Christian, are called to

participate in the political and cultural wars that are now being

waged. But the Church as an entity is not to commit

her energy to politics and the cultural

war. We need to do our job, which is to preach Jesus Christ and Him

crucified, and to make

disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the

Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. He DID NOT command us

to be politically

involved. We should not feel guilty for majoring on the Word, the whole Word

and nothing but the Word. The

balanced man rationalization however makes it seem that we

are second class if we do not involve ourselves in

some way in the political and cultural wars.

The reason we have failed is not because we have failed to support conservative candidates

or failed to vote. The

reason we have failed is because we have become double-minded like

Saul and the people of Israel during his

time. Because of our lack of single hearted

commitment to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, we

have left a void for

Satan to fill and as always, he has done so. We need to focus on our own failure as a

representative of Jesus Christ on this earth. Unfortunately, anyone who “sighs and groans

over the abominations

which are being committed in the midst of Jerusalem (the Church)”

(Ezekiel 9:4) is radical and way out of balance.

Balance is NOT the issue in Scripture. The issue is COMPLETENESS! Col. 2:10 says,

“And in HIM you have

been made COMPLETE.” Also in Tim 3:16 it says, “All scripture is

inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for

reproof, for correction, for training in

righteousness and IS SUFFICIENT.”

DEFEATING RELIGIOUS CORRECTNESS:

The defeat of Religious Correctness will most certainly be difficult and painful. It will cost us

as much as it cost the

Protestants 16th century. Many were persecuted for righteousness

sake, some were killed and ALL were consid

ered ANATHAMA by the Roman Catholic

Church.

Until Jesus comes, there will always remain elements of Religious Correctness. There will

always be churches that

will please men by using the teachings of men that they get from

the World and the religions of the World. Even

after the Great Reformation of the 16th

century was accomplished, the most religiously correct institutions of that

time STILL

flourished. The Roman Catholic Church lost some ground in northern Europe, but still

retained great

power in the world system. The Roman Catholic Church was essentially

shelved by God as being any kind of

vessel for Revival and never dominated Christendom

again. Even to this day however, it is considered by some

to be the largest denomination in

the world. Others, more correctly judge it as being the largest Christian cult in

the world.

So too, there will come a day when the Saul Church will no longer be a vessel for real

Revival as she

has been in the past. The time will come when the David Church will be God’

s vessel for Revival and a

manifestation of His great power and love.

This in no way should discourage us from exposing and defeating Religious Correctness in

these last generations.

In order to defeat Religious Correctness we must know first of all that it is a weapon of

Satan and not merely a

cultural aberration. The second thing we must do is start to look for

Religious Correctness in our own lives, our

own churches and our own denominations. We

must NOT assume the attitude that we must not judge ministries

as to what they say or what

they do. We MUST judge righteous judgment. Third, we must recognize just how

dangerous

Religious Correctness is and how much it has damaged God’s people and our effectiveness

against

the enemy. Fourth, we must be aware of the fact that Religious Correctness is

merely an outgrowth of our desire

to please people. All of us want to please people. We all

want to fit in, whether we are in high school or whether

we are in the ministry. We want our

words and our actions to be approved of men. We live in perhaps the most

self-conscious

and man pleasing of all generations. Our self-consciousness has to do with how we look,

how we

sound and how we act. If we live a Religiously Correct life we will be most praised

by men and least ridiculed by

them. In order to defeat Religious Correctness, we must have

an entirely different agenda than the Religiously

Correct have. For at least the last 200

years of Church history the focus slowly has been shifting from an emphasis

on God’s

desire, God’s power, God’s sovereignty and His glory to an emphasis on man’s desires, man’

s power,

man’s desire and man’s needs. We have been taught that if we adhere to a strict

regimen of prayer and fasting,

and if we gather around us many others, regardless of

doctrine and then unite, we will see great culture changing

revival. We firmly believe that it is

up to us. We have taken the responsibility away from the Lord and we have

taken it upon

ourselves to save mankind. We have advertised extensively our revivals, we have collected

billions

of dollars to see the world changed for Jesus Christ and we have changed our

clothing, so as not to offend seekers;

we have done surveys to determine what they really

want, we have toned down our message so as not to offend

them, we have drastically

altered our doctrine to include many of the beliefs of the world, and if we open our eyes

honestly and widely, we can clearly see that the culture in America is further away from

Jesus Christ than it has

ever been! Accommodating men has NOT worked and NEVER will!

I Chron 7:14 say, “If my people who are called by my name will repent of their sins and cry

out to me, then I will

heal their land.” We have been incorrectly taught that “our land” is the

country in which we live (United States of

America). WE CHRISTIANS are a HOLY

NATION. WE are the PEOPLE OF GOD (I Peter 2:9-10). Our land is

the kingdom of God,

spiritual Israel, the Church of Jesus Christ. THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE HEALED of its

divided heart; then we will see God move dramatically in our country. We must repent of the

grievous sin of

pleasing men and not PLEASING God. We must re-focus ourselves to

understand that even evangelism is not

essentially for men and the unsaved; rather

evangelism should be for the glory of God; we should witness to

people and pray they get

saved primarily for God’s glory and God’s pleasure. We build a church for God’s glory

and

God’s pleasure. We hold fellowship dinners for God’s glory and God’s pleasure. We preach

messages for

God’s glory and God’s pleasure. We pray for the sick not just so people will

be healed but so God will be glorified.

We preach the gospel not just so that people will be

saved and not have to go to hell, but for God’s glory and God’s

pleasure. The focus of the

Church must once again be upon Jesus Christ. He must be the issue of our salvation,

our

sanctification, our glorification in heaven and any gift or power that He gives us. We must be

a spiritually and

scripturally correct people who recognize that the Word of God is sufficient

and that God’s grace is sufficient, and

that the faith that God gives us is sufficient: Sola

Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fida. Everything we have is of God

and for God. OF

COURSE, we are magnificently blessed and others are magnificently blessed, but we don’t

get

the full joy or even the full power of our salvation until we understand it is primarily for

Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit

and our Heavenly Father. We are NOT primarily the issue, HE

IS, and Scripture declares this clearly from Genesis

to Revelation. When we stop esteeming

ourselves, our church or our denomination highly and start esteeming

Jesus Christ highly,

then we will have taken the first step towards defeating Religious Correctness and Satan

himself.