A Treatise Against Christian Zionism!

Athanasius' refutation of the Jews! 

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 297 – 373) Bishop of Alexandria, was a chief theologian and early Church Father of the Christian faith. To this day he is widely respected within Western Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. As a staunch Trinitarian, Athanasius spent much of his life battling against the groundwork laid by his predecessor, Arius, a non-Trinitarian. In his writings Against the Heathen, Orations Against the Arians, and The Incarnation of the Word of God, Athanasius stresses the urgency of holding to the faith proclaimed by the apostolic teachings of Scripture. Historically he has been credited as being the first person to identify the same twenty-seven books of the New Testament that are familiar to Christians today.

At the Nicaean Council of A.D. 325, the young Athanasius made the following statement: “Jesus, who I know as my Redeemer, cannot be less than God.” This passion for exalting the Eternal Trinity forced him into exile five separate times by Roman Emperors. However, as providence would have it, Athanasius returned undis­turbed to his home in Alexandria to spend his final years writing and preaching, until his death at the age of seventy-six. 

The following is Chapter 6 of Athanasius' Commentary, where he deals with the conflict between what Jews believe about Jesus Christ, and his profound refutation of the dogma they use to deny His divinity.

"We have dealt thus far with the Incarnation of our Savior, and have found clear proof of the resurrection of His Body and His victory over death. Let us now go further and investigate the unbelief and the ridicule with which Jews and Gentiles respectively regard these same facts. It seems that in both cases the points at issue are the same, namely the unfittingness or incongruity (as it seems to them) alike of the cross and of the Word’s becoming man at all. But we have no hesitation in taking up the argument against these objectors, for the proofs on our side are extremely clear.

First, then, we will consider the Jews. Their unbelief has its refutation in the Scriptures which even themselves read; for from cover to cover the inspired Book clearly teaches these things both in its entirety and in its actual words. Prophets foretold the marvel of the Virgin and of the Birth from her, saying, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name ‘Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’” [Isaiah 7:14] And Moses, that truly great one in whose word the Jews trust so implicitly, he also recognized the importance and truth of the matter. He puts it thus: “There shall arise a star from Jacob and a man from Israel, and he shall break in pieces the rulers of Moab. [Numbers 24:17] And, again, “How lovely are thy dwellings, O Jacob, thy tents, O Israel! Like woodland valleys they give shade, and like parks by rivers, like tents which the Lord has pitched, like cedar-trees by streams. There shall come forth a Man from among his seed, and he shall rule over many peoples.” [Numbers 24:5-7] And, again, Isaiah says, “Before the Babe shall be old enough to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria from under the eyes of the king of Assyria.” [Isaiah 8:4] These words, then, foretell that a Man shall appear. And Scripture proclaims further that He that is to come is Lord of all. These are the words, “Behold, the Lord sitteth on an airy cloud and shall come into Egypt, and the man-made images of Egypt shall be shaken.” [Isaiah 19:1] And it is from Egypt also that the Father calls him back, saying, “Out of Egypt have I called My Son.” [Hosea 11:1]

(34) Moreover, the Scriptures are not silent even about His death. On the contrary, they refer to it with the utmost clearness. They have not feared to speak also of the cause of it. He endures it, they say, not for His own sake, but for the sake of bringing immortality and salvation to all, and they record also the plotting of the Jews against Him and all the indignities which He suffered at their hands. Certainly nobody who reads the Scriptures can plead ignorance of the facts as an excuse for error! There is this passage, for instance: “A man that is afflicted and knows how to bear weakness, for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and not considered, He bears our sins and suffers for our sakes. And we for our part thought Him distressed and afflicted and ill-used; but it was for our sins that He was wounded and for our lawlessness that He was made weak. Chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His bruising we are healed.” [Isaiah 53:3-5] O marvel at the love of the Word for men, for it is on our account that He is dishonored, so that we may be brought to honor. “For all we,” it goes on, “have strayed like sheep, man has strayed from his path, and the Lord has given Him up for our sins; and He Himself did not open His mouth at the ill-treatment. Like a sheep He was led to slaughter, and as a lamb is dumb before its shearer, so He opened not His mouth; in His humiliation His judgment was taken away.” [Isaiah 53:6-8] And then Scripture anticipates the surmises of any who might think from His suffering thus that He was just an ordinary man, and shows what power worked in His behalf. “Who shall declare of what lineage He comes?” it says, “for His life is exalted from the earth. By the lawlessnesses of the people was He brought to death, and I will give the wicked in return for His burial and the rich in return for His death. For He did no lawlessness, neither was deceit found in His mouth. And the Lord wills to heal Him of His affliction.” [Isaiah 53:8-10]

(35) You have heard the prophecy of His death, and now, perhaps, you want to know what indications there are about the cross. Even this is not passed over in silence: on the contrary, the sacred writers proclaim it with the utmost plainness. Moses foretells it first, and that right loudly, when he says, “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes, and shall not believe.” [Deuteronomy 28:66] 

After him the prophets also give their witness, saying, “But I as an innocent lamb brought to be offered was yet ignorant of it. They plotted evil against Me, saying, ‘Come, let us cast wood into His bread, and wipe Him out from the land of the living.” [Jeremiah 11:19] And, again, “They pierced My hands and My feet, they counted all My bones, they divided My garments for themselves and cast lots for My clothing.” [Psalm 22:16-18] Now a death lifted up and that takes place on wood can be none other than the death of the cross; moreover, it is only in that death that the hands and feet are pierced. Besides this, since the Savior dwelt among men, all nations everywhere have begun to know God; and this too Holy Writ expressly mentions. “There shall be the Root of Jesse,” it says, “and he who rises up to rule the nations, on Him nations shall set their hope.” [Isaiah 11:10]

These are just a few things in proof of what has taken place; but indeed all Scripture teems with disproof of Jewish unbelief. For example, which of the righteous men and holy prophets and patriarchs of whom the Divine Scriptures tell ever had his bodily birth from a virgin only? Was not Abel born of Adam, Enoch of Jared, Noah of Lamech, Abraham of Terah, Isaac of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac? Was not Judah begotten by Jacob and Moses and Aaron by Ameram? Was not Samuel the son of Elkanah, David of Jesse, Solomon of David, Hezekiah of Ahaz, Josiah of Amon, Isaiah of Amos, Jeremiah of Hilkiah and Ezekiel of Buzi? Had not each of these a father as author of his being? So who is He that is born of a virgin only, that sign of which the prophet makes so much? Again, which of all those people had his birth announced to the world by a star in the heavens? When Moses was born his parents hid him. David was unknown even in his own neighborhood, so that mighty Samuel himself was ignorant of his existence and asked whether Jesse had yet another son. Abraham again became known to his neighbors as a great man only after his birth. But with Christ it was otherwise. The witness to His birth was not man, but a star shining in the heavens whence He was coming down.

(36) Then, again, what king that ever was reigned and took trophies from his enemies before he had strength to call father or mother? Was not David thirty years old when he came to the throne and Solomon a grown young man? Did not Joash enter on his reign at the age of seven, and Josiah, some time after him, at about the same age, both of them fully able by that time to call father or mother? Who is there, then, that was reigning and despoiling his enemies almost before he was born? Let the Jews, who have investigated the matter, tell us if there was ever such a king in Israel or Judah—a king upon whom all the nations set their hopes and had peace, instead of being at enmity with him on every side! As long as Jerusalem stood there was constant war between them, and they all fought against Israel. The Assyrians oppressed Israel, the Egyptians persecuted them, the Babylonians fell upon them, and, strange to relate, even the Syrians their neighbors were at war with them. And did not David fight with Moab and smite the Syrians, and Hezekiah quail at the boasting of Sennacherib? Did not Amalek make war on Moses and the Amorites oppose him, and did not the inhabitants of Jericho array themselves against Joshua the son of Nun? Did not the nations always regard Israel with implacable hostility? Then it is worth inquiring who it is, on whom the nations are to set their hopes. Obviously there must be someone, for the prophet could not have told a lie. But did any of the holy prophets or of the early patriarchs die on the cross for the salvation of all? Was any of them wounded and killed for the healing of all? Did the idols of Egypt fall down before any righteous man or king that came there? Abraham came there certainly, but idolatry prevailed just the same; and Moses was born there, but the mistaken worship was unchanged.

(37) Again, does Scripture tell of anyone who was pierced in hands and feet or hung upon a tree at all, and by means of a cross perfected his sacrifice for the salvation of all? It was not Abraham, for he died in his bed, as did also Isaac and Jacob. Moses and Aaron died in the mountain, and David ended his days in his house, without anybody having plotted against him. Certainly he had been sought by Saul, but he was preserved unharmed. Again Isaiah was sawn asunder, but he was not hung on a tree. Jeremiah was shamefully used, but he did not die under condemnation. Ezekiel suffered, but he did so, not on behalf of the people, but only to signify to them what was going to happen. Moreover, all these even when they suffered were but men, like other men; but He Whom the Scriptures declare to suffer on behalf of all is called not merely man but Life of all, although in point of fact He did share our human nature. “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes,” they say, and “Who shall declare of what lineage He comes?” With all the saints we can trace their descent from the beginning, and see exactly how each came to be; but the Divine Word maintains that we cannot declare the lineage of Him Who is the Life. Who is it, then, of Whom Holy Writ thus speaks? Who is there so great that even the prophets foretell of Him such mighty things? There is indeed no one in the Scriptures at all, save the common Savior of all, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. He it is that proceeded from a virgin, and appeared as man on earth, He it is Whose earthly lineage cannot be declared, because He alone derives His body from no human father, but from a virgin alone. We can trace the paternal descent of David and Moses and of all the patriarchs. But with the Savior we cannot do so, for it was He Himself Who caused the star to announce His bodily birth, and it was fitting that the Word, when He came down from heaven, should have His sign in heaven too, and fitting that the King of creation on His coming forth should be visibly recognized by all the world. He was actually born in Judea, yet men from Persia came to worship Him. He it is Who won victory from His demon foes and trophies from the idolaters even before His bodily appearing—namely, all the heathen who from every region have abjured the tradition of their fathers and the false worship of idols and are now placing their hope in Christ and transferring their allegiance to Him. The thing is happening before our very eyes, here in Egypt; and thereby another prophecy is fulfilled, for at no other time have the Egyptians ceased from their false worship save when the Lord of all, riding as on a cloud, came down here in the body and brought the error of idols to nothing and won over everybody to Himself and through Himself to the Father. He it is Who was crucified with the sun and moon as witnesses; and by His death salvation has come to all men, and all creation has been redeemed. He is the Life of all, and He it is Who like a sheep gave up His own body to death, His life for ours and our salvation.

(38) Yet the Jews disbelieve this. This argument does not satisfy them. Well, then, let them be persuaded by other things in their own oracles. Of whom, for instance, do the prophets say “I was made manifest to those who did not seek Me, I was found by those who had not asked for Me? I said, ‘See, here am I,’ to the nation that had not called upon My Name. I stretched out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.” [Isaiah 65:1-2] Who is this person that was made manifest, one might ask the Jews? If the prophet is speaking of himself, then they must tell us how he was first hidden, in order to be manifested afterwards. And, again, what kind of man is this prophet, who was not only revealed after being hidden, but also stretched out his hands upon the cross? Those things happened to none of those righteous men: they happened only to the Word of God Who, being by nature without body, on our account appeared in a body and suffered for us all. And if even this is not enough for them, there is other overwhelming evidence by which they may be silenced. The Scripture says, “Be strong, hands that hang down and feeble knees, take courage, you of little faith, be strong and do not fear. See, our God will recompense judgment, He Himself will come and save us. Then the eyes of blind men shall be opened and the ears of deaf men shall hear, and stammerers shall speak distinctly.” [Isaiah 35:3-6] What can they say to this, or how can they look it in the face at all? For the prophecy does not only declare that God will dwell here, it also makes known the signs and the time of His coming. When God comes, it says, the blind will see, the lame will walk, the deaf will hear and the stammerers will speak distinctly. Can the Jews tell us when such signs occurred in Israel, or when anything of the kind took place at all in Jewry? The leper Naaman was cleansed, it is true, but no deaf man heard nor did any lame man walk. Elijah raised a dead person and so did Elisha; but no one blind from birth received his sight. To raise a dead person is a great thing indeed, but it is not such as the Savior did. And surely, since the Scriptures have not kept silence about the leper and the dead son of the widow, if a lame man had walked and a blind man had received his sight, they would have mentioned these as well. Their silence on these points proves that the events never took place. When therefore did these things happen, unless when the Word of God Himself came in the body? Was it not when He came that lame men walked and stammerers spoke clearly and men blind from birth were given sight? And the Jews who saw it themselves testified to the fact that such things had never before occurred. “Since the world began,” they said, “it has never been heard of that anyone should open the eyes of a man born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.” [John 9:32-33]

(39) But surely they cannot fight against plain facts. So it may be that, without denying what is written, they will maintain that they are still waiting for these things to happen, and that the Word of God is yet to come, for that is a theme on which they are always harping most brazenly, in spite of all the evidence against them. But they shall be refuted on this supreme point more clearly than on any, and that not by ourselves but by the most wise Daniel, for he signifies the actual date of the Savior’s coming as well as His Divine sojourn in our midst. “Seventy weeks,” he says, “are cut short upon thy people and upon the holy city, to make a complete end of sin and for sins to be sealed up and iniquities blotted out, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy One of holies. And thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the Word to answer, ⁵ and to build Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince.” [Daniel 9:24-25] In regard to the other prophecies, they may possibly be able to find excuses for deferring their reference to a future time, but what can they say to this one? How can they face it at all? Not only does it expressly mention the Anointed One, that is the Christ, it even declares that He Who is to be anointed is not man only, but the Holy One of holies! And it says that Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and that after it prophet and vision shall cease in Israel! David was anointed of old, and Solomon, and Hezekiah; but then Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and Asaph and Nathan, and later Isaiah and Hosea and Amos and others. Moreover, those men who were anointed were called holy certainly, but none of them was called the Holy of holies. Nor is it any use for the Jews to take refuge in the Captivity, and say that Jerusalem did not exist then, for what about the prophets? It is a fact that at the outset of the Exile Daniel and Jeremiah were there, and Ezekiel and Haggai and Zechariah also prophesied.

(40) So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, “A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself.” [Genesis 49:10] And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming “The law and the prophets prophesied until John.” [Matthew 11:13] So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about? Again, they see the heathen forsaking idols and setting their hopes through Christ on the God of Israel; why do they yet deny Christ Who after the flesh was born of the root of Jesse and reigns henceforward? Of course, if the heathen were worshipping some other god, and not confessing the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses, then they would do well to argue that God had not come. But if the heathen are honoring the same God Who gave the law to Moses and the promises to Abraham—the God Whose word too the Jews dishonored, why do they not recognize or rather why do they deliberately refuse to see that the Lord of Whom the Scriptures prophesied has shone forth to the world and appeared to it in a bodily form? Scripture declares it repeatedly. “The Lord God has appeared to us,” [Psalm 118:27] and again, “He sent forth His Word and healed them.” [Psalm 107:20] And again, “It was no ambassador, no angel who saved us, but the Lord Himself.” [Isaiah 63:9] 

The Jews are afflicted like some demented person who sees the earth lit up by the sun, but denies the sun that lights it up! What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the God-denyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Surely, then, it must be plain even to the most shameless that the Christ has come, and that He has enlightened all men everywhere, and given them the true and divine teaching about His Father.

Thus the Jews may be refuted by these and other arguments from the Divine teaching!"

"

[To read the entirety of Athanasius' Commentary, please click here]

How to Create Anti-Zionist Christian Youth, by Rev Ted Pike

What is "church" for the increasing number of anti-Zionist Christians who are rejected and even expelled from the mainstream pro-Zionist churches of the Western world?

The most frequent question I am asked is whether I know of a church in the questioner’s area which is evangelical yet critical of Zionism. Almost invariably, I don’t. I am glad to invite them and their families to the light of truth contained in our online Bible studies at truthtellers.org.

When King Saul turned against David, driving him out of Israel into the wilderness and the land of the Philistines, the people of Israel largely followed Saul. They told David, in effect, “Go serve other gods” (1 Sam. 26:19). His brethren said he had no place of worship, no church, any longer in Israel.

A very similar situation exists today. Light dawns when a Christian understands that modern Talmudic Jewry is notthe apple of God’s eye but the synagogue of Satan.  He sees that the 1948 return of Jews to Palestine was a counterfeit leading to establishment of a Jewish world dictatorship, Babylon the Great. (See 'Babylon the Great' is Israel)  If this believer shares his new found knowledge in his local evangelical church, he is no longer welcome.

He and his family can hide out in such a church, taking advantage of its fairly shallow, probably Calvinistic Bible teaching and fellowship -- but only by not declaring what they really believe. As soon as this church realizes they have in their midst one of those who "curses God’s chosen people" by criticism of Israel, such alleged “anti-Semites” will be shunned and very likely excoriated from the pulpit. Like David fleeing Saul and his own place of worship, such an anti-Zionist family can "go and serve other gods" as far as the ostensibly loving, caring, pro-Israel church is concerned.

In this Bible study, we continue to discuss what the true church of Jesus is and show that Christian truthtellers have not left the church. Rather, the pro-Zionist evangelical "church" has left the Bible in favor of Israel and pro-Zionism.  It has ignored massive biblical teaching concerning God’s conditional terms on Jews to be His people or occupy Palestine. (See List of Conditional Salvation/Conditional Occupation Verses) The established evangelical church now largely constitutes an Israel-serving cult of Christianity.

Christ’s Definition of His Church

Jesus’ definition of His Church is radically simple. As few as two or three gathered together as His spiritual bride, being called by His name in fellowship and worship of Him, are the Church (Matt. 18:20). Jesus made no mention of a larger, more complicated church as vital to the development of the Christian family. He never said a large building, carpeted sanctuary and padded pews, fellowship among many people, retreats and summer camps, singles groups and even Christian rock concerts for the youth were at all necessary. He said the Church is wherever He is: guiding, purifying, comforting His people and leading them to all truth.

This raises an extremely important question. Can an anti-Zionist Christian father and mother rear a godly family operating only according to Christ’s very minimalist definition of the Church? Can we fulfill the New Testament edict not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together in such a stripped-down “congregation?”

It is not only possible but it may actually, in many circumstances, be the best way to rear a godly and politically enlightened family in this age of delusion. I know this from personal experience. The National Prayer Network and its truthtellers.org website, with its worldwide outreach of truth and political action, would not exist unless my siblings and I had been reared and nurtured in the kind of church I am recommending. Allow me to describe my early religious training.

My father and mother came from Methodist and Quaker upbringings respectively. In 1939, after ordination in the Evangelical United Brethren Church (a Wesleyan denomination), my father Claude and his new bride Mignon spent the next ten years starting and pastoring churches in Oregon and California. They were dutiful servants of the burgeoning post-World War II evangelical movement led by Billy Graham.  Yet my mother became very concerned by the evils of political and religious liberalism as well as the rapid spread of communism, which ended free expression of Christianity in China in 1949. A gifted writer, she began to express her opinions in various evangelical publications, stirring controversy and resistance. It became clear that the evangelical movement was not interested in political truth. The pervasive reply was that if Christians only preach the gospel, communism and liberalism will automatically decline.

But the burden my parents felt would not go away. As a result, they left the conventional ministry, attempting primarily through my mother’s writings and my father’s preaching to develop a ministry of their own. It was like trying to ignite wet kindling, made harder because their venture was being undertaken during the McCarthy era when the church, following the lead of the Jewish media, obediently distanced itself from anti-Communist "hysteria." It preferred to follow the dictum, “We must be positive…We must be respectable.” Such political non-engagement was rationalized and its supposed truth confirmed by the staggering success of Billy Graham.

Our “Wilderness Experience”

Cut adrift from the church, yet still hoping to begin a Christian conservative awakening, my parents and their family of three young children began what can only be called a wilderness experience of poverty and isolation from the church. It was a decade of divinely imposed intercession for the church and the nation.

A talented carpenter and boat builder, my father felt compelled and constrained by the Holy Spirit from simply going into business.  This could have allowed our family to enjoy the post-World War II economic boom of the 50s that everybody else was making the most of. Instead, as he continued to struggle on tiny radio stations or through mailings of mimeographed writings, he and my mother had more than average time to devote to the spiritual nurture of their children, especially every Sunday. We read the Bible and discussed it and our destiny.

As early as eight, when I gave my heart to Jesus, I was keenly aware that our family was different from the families of most Christians attending conventional churches, including those of our relatives. Our family had a mission to bring religious and political truth to the church and world. This was our great calling. It was made possible by first giving everything to Christ, freeing the Holy Spirit to indwell us, empowering us to aspire to perform exploits for Jesus. None of us realized, of course, how far down into poverty and isolation God would take us.

As a boy of nine, living in a cabin at the top of a mountain range, during seven snows of one of the coldest winters on record, heated in the winter only by a fireplace and hot bricks in our beds, we existed with no electricity or running water or indoor plumbing.  We had no car, virtually no money and, at times, no food. However, I was spiritually electrified, young as I was, with our high calling.  I vividly foresaw the day when I would be able to tell thousands how our family had been set aside by God in a time of great prosperity to fast and pray for that national revival of which we dreamed. My mother comforted herself during the winter by claiming the many prophecies of Isaiah.

At age 11, I saw clearly in my mind’s eye that a very beautiful, tall, brunette woman would become my wife, watching admirably as I shot my .22 rifle (signifying sending out e-alerts). I knew at that age that someday I would be well-known, at least to many of the worthy; and, of course, all of this has been fulfilled.

Proto-Conservative Awakening Gives Hope

In the early 1960s, the Christian conservative awakening for which we had been interceding so long began to materialize. Although it was soon largely crushed by the liberal Jewish media’s attack on the John Birch Society, it provided significant opportunities for our family to exert conservative leadership in Oregon. With the emergent anti-Communist emphasis from figures such as Dr. Fred Schwartz, Billy James Hargis, Robert Welch and Sen. Barry Goldwater, my parents began to be much less isolated and actually sponsored well-attended rallies in Portland featuring nationally known conservative leaders such as William F. Buckley, Fulton Lewis III, Dan Smoot and even Ronald Reagan.  We engaged in vigorous leadership in Oregon on the political scene.

Part of such leadership was to join several other veteran conservatives to tell Oregonians of the Communist record of a man running for governor. As a result, my father and his friends were indicted by the State of Oregon and charged with “criminal political libel.”  My father was briefly imprisoned and wrote his evening radio broadcast in Portland's Rocky Butte jail. The charges could have resulted in at least three years in prison.  However, he was exonerated in court. The judge found no substance to the claim of the State of Oregon against my father or the other defendants.

During this period in the early 60s, in which I entered high school, our family became enlightened concerning the Jewish roots of communism, liberalism and Jewish financial and media control. Listeners to my father’s nightly radio programs sent us quotes by Winston Churchill, Henry Ford, Gerald L. K. Smith, Father Coughlin and others. By 1971, at age 25 I had thoroughly studied the Babylonian Talmud and the writings of Elizabeth Dilling and was well on my way toward writing my book, Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma (345 pages, softbound, $24.90, post-paid,available at Truthtellers.org).

Home church remained constant throughout these years, although many other people now joined us and meetings large enough to accommodate them were often held in rented halls. In all such meetings, the same formula of death to self-will, speaking only the whole truth, never varied.  During the 1970s, my parents played an important role in moral renewal in Oregon and even America. My mother, a registered political lobbyist, led efforts to prevent legalization of child pornography in Oregon as well as block pro-sodomite legislation in the state capital. In fact, in 1980, it was at a large rally my parents organized in Portland opposing homosexual legislation that, after I had spoken, scores of homosexuals rioted, attempting to pull out the cord to my microphone. Watching me admiringly was a tall and beautiful brunette, Alynn Dunham, my future wife.

My father’s last major accomplishment was spearheading revival of the National Day of Prayer, jump started through the publicity flight of my father, brother, and me in a great circle around America in our 1929 monoplane. (See How Faith - and an Old Airplane - Helped Revive the National Day of Prayer)  It was dramatically successful, with my father invited to the Oval Office as President Reagan reinstated this almost forgotten national observance.

Guidelines for Your Christian Anti-Zionist Family

Although Christian anti-Zionist parents cannot follow our path exactly, the essentials can and must be duplicated if the anti-Zionist Christian family is to flourish.

Here are the non-negotiable goals such Christian parents should pursue.

1. Parents must be entirely given to God, willing to sacrifice anything for Christ.
2. They must seek and follow the voice of the Holy Spirit as He leads into all truth and into all action of a serious or moral nature. Regardless of their "tent-making" source of income, they must have a mission of evangelism and serving and glorifying Christ. 
3. Children must be encouraged to give their hearts entirely to Jesus as early as possible.
4. Parents must do their best to inculcate a sense of mission in their children.  Parents must not be afraid, but proud, to teach their children their family is different: different from the majority, different from the mainstream evangelical church -- a family seeking the salvation of souls and God’s truth more than anything.
5. Children must see their parents publicly stand up for true and Christian values, willing to pay the price of social ostracism. Children must see parents who live their Christian witness and moral and political convictions all week. When children see this and understand that possible controversy and even persecution are part of following the leading of the Lord, children will be much more inclined to admire their parents and share parental goals at a very early age, becoming little Christian conservative activists themselves. (Matt. 5:10-12)

Thus, as in our family, it is possible to entirely avoid the so-called “rebellious teenager phase.” Our admiration for our parents was too great to permit such petty indulgence.

Of course, parental activism must be undertaken with Spirit-led moderation and under the Holy Spirit’s intimate leading. Many Christian conservative zealots have needlessly alienated their children with extremes of fleshly idealism and striving.

Many parents will reply that they do not have sufficient theological training or time and energy to prepare and lead family church once a week. This causes me to ask: “If you can’t make time to be a mature Christian leader of your family, do you really have any business bringing eternal souls into this world, especially with the Jewish media so intent on corrupting and destroying them?”  (See Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)

Risks of Staying in Pro-Zionist Churches

The purpose of Truthtellers.org is to help equip parents to become straight on political and theological issues. If you don’t have the time for preparation of a spiritual lesson, we have hundreds of Bible studies archived and briefly described that will assist you. If, however, you simply cannot overcome the obstacles to having your own home church and decide to let the local pro-Zionist church instruct you and your children, allow me to share with you the risks:

1. Statistics show the evangelical church is losing about 93% of its young people to the world after high school graduation. It would be insane to turn over your life savings to an investment company that had a record of losing 93% of the funds entrusted to it.  Why entrust the eternal souls of your most precious possessions, your children, to the local evangelical church? 
2. Our young people are alienated largely because they do not see in the church and its leadership what I saw in my parents: mission and willingness to suffer if necessary for what we know is right. Instead, children in community churches see 34% of married church couples divorce, with many unbiblical remarriages blessed by the church. (See What Christ Really Taught About Divorce and Remarriage)  Considering such spiritual weakness and hypocrisy, most local community churches could not be more calculated to alienate your precious children.

You may say: "Although it’s not perfect, our presence as a family with our children in such a church will unify us and minimize the damage. We can actually exert a salty effect for truth. We will be able to take the best from the pro-Zionist church concerning Bible teaching and fellowship while privately warning our children against its errors."

I am not passing judgment if you feel the Holy Spirit is leading you to stay in the church and shed what good influence you can. Christ did not demand everyone forsake the Pharisee-dominated synagogues of His day (Matt. 23:2). However, you are involved in a spiritually unhealthy situation. Staying in such a church is perilous because of how your children will be interpreting your liberty. On one hand, you are aware that the very greatest evil of all time is now being poured out on society by Jewish supremacy. On the other, the very evangelical church you are attending unconditionally supports Israel, the visible manifestation of such evil. What do your children conclude from your example of not speaking up, especially during times of vivid moral conflict, such as the latest episode of shelling of Gaza or Jewish-inspired attacks on Christianity through ABC’s “Good Christian Bitches”? It is that you are willing to exchange truth for security and non-controversy. Far from setting a clear pattern of putting God’s truth first, regardless of the cost, you are saying it is fine to obscure truth of the greatest importance in order to pursue a hidden agenda of trying to enlighten “Israel-firsters” as well as benefiting from the fellowship, Sunday school, and "worship experience" of your local church.

Sooner or later, Christian anti-Zionists who have lived such a double life must take to heart the words of Paul in II Corinthians 6:17: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” Many pro-Israel evangelicals, aware of Palestinian suffering, yet bidding Godspeed to Antichrist Zionism, have become partakers of its evil deeds and are defiled by such compromise. Despite exuberant professions of love and acceptance, the pro-Zionist church really believes that if you criticize Israel you are cursed by God. If you ever betray your true beliefs, you will be despised, humiliated and expelled as its enemy, a person the church will have no hesitancy in calling a tool of the devil.

An alternative form of Christian worship and education exists at our website. We invite people of every doctrinal persuasion (including those who have no religion) to consider our alternative to the errors of popular Christianity. Babylon the Great is an evil so enormous and threatening it will eventually destroy the church itself. Can you stand before Christ on the Day of Judgment and proudly say you were part of a church which helped make the Great Harlot’s world control possible?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian, conservative watchdog organization. NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org

Has the Contemporary Church Become Obsessed With Political Solutions?

By Darryl M. Erkel (1997)

Are Christianity and politics compatible? Can individual Christians ever involve themselves in the political arena for the betterment of society? Should the Church look to the power of politics to affect moral reform within America? Such questions are important for us to consider, particularly since evangelicals are growing more fond of political strategies to combat the rising tide of secular humanism. We believe that the following points may help to clarify the believer’s relationship to government and politics.

1. Christians may involve themselves in the political arena as individuals, but it is not the place of the Church (corporately speaking) to change political/governmental institutions. Our Lord has not given His Church a political agenda, but a spiritual mandate to proclaim the Gospel and disciple the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Such a mandate far transcends any political or cultural mission. Interestingly, the early church, living under a much more oppressive government than we in America, willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to form a political party or change Roman laws. They refused to allow any political crusade to take priority over the Gospel. They had a heavenly mission and eternal goals as opposed to temporal ones. They weren’t merely interested in making a better society; they wanted to completely transform it with the message of the Gospel. If the Gospel is truly "the power of God unto salvation," (Romans 1:16), why would we preach anything else? Why are so many sincere, but misguided Christians today, down-playing the centrality of the Gospel for a message of moral reform through political action? Have not our priorities become rather mixed?

2. As ambassadors for Christ, we are not to disobey civil government (except, of course, when they compel us to disobey God’s Word – Acts 5:29), but subject ourselves to it (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17) and pray for such rulers and authorities so that we might live a tranquil life (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

3. We must understand that spiritual results can only be achieved through spiritual means. Genuine moral reform will never come by merely changing laws, but by changing the hearts and minds of people. This means that we must recover the art of persuasion (although, ultimately, it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict humans – John 16:8). As evangelicals, out greatest power is not found in protest, but in Gospel proclamation – for, indeed, if the Gospel is truly "the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), why would we ever turn to political rhetoric and ideology?

Strange as it may sound to some, the problems we face in America today are not primarily political or even moral, but theological and spiritual. It is because people are alienated from a holy God and possess no knowledge of Him and His ways, that we are experiencing massive hedonism within our land. The remedy, therefore, must be primarily theological and spiritual. This, no political or moral crusade can ever rectify. The great apostle to the Gentiles has said it well: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses" (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; cf. Ephesians 6:10-18). As a political insider and former presidential aide to Richard Nixon, we would be wise to listen to the words of Charles W. Colson:

Today’s misspent enthusiasm for political solutions to the moral problems of our culture arises from a distorted view of both politics and Christianity – too low a view of the power of a sovereign God and too high a view of the ability of man. The idea that human systems reformed by Christian influence, pave the road to the Kingdom (or at least, to revival) has the same utopian ring that one finds in Marxist literature.  It also ignores the consistent lesson of history that shows that laws are most often reformed as a result of powerful spiritual movements (not vice versa). I know of no case where a spiritual movement was achieved by passing laws ("The Power Illusion." Power Religion, ed. Michael S. Horton [Chicago: Moody Press, 1992] p.32).

4. In voicing our opinions and beliefs to those in government, we must never adopt an "in your face" attitude. Arrogance and shouting down one’s political opponent may be the way of the world, but it is not the way of Christ. We are, instead, to reply with "discretion and discernment" as did Daniel to Arioch (Daniel 2:14). We are to manifest the kind of respectful demeanor which Paul displayed before Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26; cf. Titus 3:1-2; Colossians 4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:15). Regardless of our personal feelings towards our political leaders, we are commanded to "honor the King" (1 Peter 2:17).

5. We must not view any country or human government as our ultimate home – "for our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). For the time being, we are "strangers and exiles on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13; cf. 1 Peter 2:11). We are looking forward to a "heavenly country" (v.16) and God Himself has promised to prepare a city for us (v.16). This being true, why would we so entangle ourselves in the affairs of this world that we forget our heavenly country and the Divine mandate which Christ has given to His Church?

6. We should not be ignorant of the major political and cultural controversies of our day. As evangelicals, we are called to use our minds for the glory of God and to test all issues, whether religious or political, by the standard of Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). At the same time, however, we must recognize that the Bible will not always be as clear or direct in addressing the issues we currently face. Thus, "we should have Christian approaches to politics, recognizing that there will be a variety of these, but we should not expect to produce ‘the Christian political program’" (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America [Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989] p.139).

7. Because of God’s common grace, Christians can work with unbelievers in attempting to promote justice and civic peace – and we can do so not only because it is good for believers and religious liberty, but because it is good for all people (Galatians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Writing on this very matter, the authors of The Search for Christian America have stated:

Some Christians speak as though there is an absolute antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought, neglecting the degree to which Christians themselves are hampered by sin and error, and the degree to which God’s common grace allows substantial room for communication and cooperation among all people in practical everyday life .

. . Because we all live in God’s world, we have, in God’s common grace, some basis for discussing and shaping public policy without explicit appeal to the Bible. In fact, people from all nations of the world have been able to agree on many principles of justice and human interest, as for instance, in agencies and statements of the United Nations. That they violently disagree on other points or on the application of their common principles should not obscure this degree of commonality. So Christians and non-Christians may be able to agree on the value of charity toward the poor and the starving, on the undesirability of genocide, that literacy should be encouraged, on the virtue of loyalty to friends and parents, and on many other things (pp.135-136).

8. Since the arrival of Christ, we must not look upon any nation as God’s chosen nation or even upon America as a "Christian nation." "The New Testament teaches unmistakably that Christ set aside national and ethnic barriers and that He has chosen to fulfill His central purposes in history through the Church, which transcends all such boundaries . . . The Lord of history has not aligned His purposes with the particular values of any given country or civilization" (The Search for Christian America, p.24).

9. The evangelical church of the 50s and 60s rightly criticized the liberal churches for abandoning its responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and, turning instead, to the "social gospel." Ironically, evangelicals today are doing the very same thing which they condemned liberal churches for doing by seeking to better society, not through Gospel proclamation and intelligent discussion of biblical truth, but through political power strategies, legislation, and efforts to move the unbelieving majority to live like Christians.

It seems that our primary concern is not with accurately preaching a God-centered Gospel and its implications for both pagans and believers, but with abortion, traditional values, and a romanticized view of America as a "Christian nation." While these might be important issues, it is not the Gospel nor is it a message that mankind most needs to hear. How said it is that some Christians are more versed in conservative politics than in the writings of both the Old and New Testament’s. Evangelicals need not repent of their involvement in politics per se, but only of their obsession with it. As Charles W. Colson has said:

That’s one of the weaknesses of the evangelical movement today – that it is so obsessed with politics. It believes that there’s got to be a political solution to everything . . . You don’t change a culture by passing laws. You change a culture by changing people’s habits. That’s why the Gospel is so central to the possibilities of cultural reformation in American life (Interview, "Running the Race," Rutherford [Journal], August 1996, p.15).

10. We must remember that political solutions are not ultimate, but temporal. We cannot afford to look to human government (even the best ones) for providing the final answers to the moral problems that we face. For that, we must look to Scripture and the God who is portrayed within its pages. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3); "Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength’" (Jeremiah 17:5).

What Some Christian Leaders Are Saying About Bringing America Back to God (with my response):

1. Robert Dugan, Director of the National Association of Evangelicals’ Office of Public Affairs, believes that he can offer a strategy for "those who want to reshape society through the political process" (Winning the New Civil War, p.88).

The above statement is theologically naïve – for when has any society been reshaped for spiritual and moral good through the "political process"? Genuine moral reform will simply never come through the "political process", but only through lives transformed by the sovereign hand of God working through the greatest message in human history: The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. Randall Terry has said, "If righteousness is going to prevail; if paganism is going to be turned back, then we must move to restore this nation to being a Christian Nation. Otherwise, we will lose the war for America’s soul, and the United States as we know it will perish. And if we are going to reform and rebuild our country, we’re going to have to deliberately infiltrate the power bases of America. We’ll deliberately have to raise up men like John Adams and Teddy Roosevelt to be morally correct, not politically correct statesmen" (Why Does A Nice Guy Like Me Keep Getting Thrown in Jail? pp.80-81).

Terry naively assumes that righteousness will prevail only when America is restored to being a "Christian Nation." But, again, like so many Christians involved in the contemporary "culture war," he has failed to learn the lesson of history which teaches that political power and legislation can never truly reform the human heart. Terry also wrongly assumes that America was a "Christian Nation." While America has, indeed, been influenced by Christian values, it has never truly been a "Christian Nation," unless, of course, we wish to water-down the theological meaning of the term "Christian" and reduce it to one which merely denotes common morality and virtue. The only "Christian Nation" that the New Testament speaks of are those who have been spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 21:43; 1 Peter 2:9) and who reside – not simply in the United States – but in every country and region of the world (Revelation 5:9; 7:9).

One further point. Contrary to what Terry and others may believe, God has not called us to convert whole nations – nor is our "success" dependent upon doing so. We are, indeed, called to faithfully and accurately proclaim the Gospel to those who are unregenerate, but we are not expected to convert them – only God can do that (John 1:12-13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:15-18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 1:18). Thus, we are called to be faithful to the message of the Gospel, not necessarily numerically successful in "results" (as commonly defined) – for it is God alone who adds to His Church (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7; Colossians 2:19).

Evidence that the Early Church Did Not Have a Political Agenda:

1. We need to remember that the first-century period had many of the same problems that we have today (abortion, crime, drunkenness, immorality, poverty, corrupt and evil rulers, etc.), yet they never pursued any form of moral reform through political action, nor did they align with the numerous political/social zealots existing at that time who wanted to either reform or overthrow Rome. They had, undoubtedly, every reason to do so, but never did.

2. Because the early church recognized that man’s greatest problem was sin and, thus, the remedy was spiritual in nature, they did not preoccupy themselves with making a society, that was under God’s judgment, outwardly virtuous – but, instead, concentrated their efforts on faithfully articulating the Gospel and living lives which demonstrated the reality of their claims (1 Peter 2:11-17).

3. Because Jesus Himself taught that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36); because the early Christians recognized that "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh," but spiritual in nature (2 Corinthians 10:3-4); because they recognized that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood," but against demonic forces (Ephesians 6:12); because they recognized that their true citizenship was in heaven (Philippians 3:20); because they viewed themselves as "strangers and aliens" within this world (1 Peter 2:11); and because they desired a "heavenly country" (Hebrews 11:16), they did not concentrate their efforts to pursue political action or even social reform (although the early church did seek to provide for the poor). They had set their minds upon heavenly realities and eternal goals, rather than seeking to apply temporary bandages upon a society that was destined to eternal judgment.

Contrary to what some critics might assume, this was not a case of being "so heavenly-minded that they were no earthly good." It was, instead, a clear indication that their priorities were in order. It must be kept in mind that the early Christians still sought to minister to the physical needs of people (Mt. 26:8-9; Acts 6:1; Galatians 2:10; 1 Timothy 6:18; Titus 3:14). Thus, they were not guilty of neglecting the physical and necessary aspects of man under the guise of a false piety. Even still, this was a far cry from any form of political action and even further from the modern day "social gospel" which seeks to place any political or social cause under the banner of the Gospel.

4. The early Christians of the first century lived under a much more oppressive government than we in America, and yet they willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to form a political party or even change Roman laws that they deemed immoral. They had much more justification for doing so than we in America, but never did.

5. When both Paul and Peter dealt with the issue of slavery in their respective epistles (Philemon and 1 Peter 2:18-20), they did not, in any way, encourage Christians to revolt against the evils of slavery, but to remain obedient to their masters – even cruel ones! But we must ask, if the early church possessed such political and social zealotry, why didn’t they begin a labor party to protect the rights of slaves? Why didn’t they gather all of the runaway slaves and form a protest march all the way to Rome? Even if one argues that this would not have been feasible under the tyrannical government of Rome, couldn’t they have done something more than to simply encourage slaves to remain obedient to their masters and endure their abuse? To those who possess the mindset that all, or at least most, of our problems can be solved through the political process, this does not make much sense. But to those who possess the mind of Christ and who recognize the inherent limitations of political/social action, it is Divine wisdom.

6. When Christians were being slandered and persecuted by their pagan neighbors, Peter didn’t suggest that the Christians start a "Christian Anti-Defamation League," but instead, encouraged them to "patiently endure it" and to not retaliate (1 Peter 2:12-21; 3:13-17; 4:3-4, 12-19). Does this sound like the kind of advice that would come from one who was politically oriented? Would the current leaders of the "Religious Right" encourage their followers to do the same?

7. It’s interesting to note that when Paul stood before the governing authorities on several occasions, he never once engaged such rulers in political or social discourse. No doubt, these instances were grand opportunities for him to complain about such social evils as slavery and excessive taxes, yet he apparently never did. Why would Paul, if he was indeed so politically minded, allow such golden opportunities to pass by? Instead, as in the case of Felix recorded in Acts 24:24-25, we find him speaking to this ruler about faith in Christ, righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come! Was Paul, in this instance, guilty of being so heavenly-minded that he was no earthly good? Shouldn’t he have argued vigorously for human rights and social reform (issues which would have affected a broader range of people), than simply limit his discussion to soteriological matters? Once again, where the political zealot sees a missed opportunity, the discerning believer sees fidelity to the Gospel and priorities that are in order.

Evidence that America is Not, Nor Was Founded, As A "Christian Nation":

1. The founding of our country was a mixed bag of both Christian and Enlightenment influences. To say that it was solely Christian ideas and influences which shaped the founding of the United States, is to be naïve of American history.

2. While some of our founding fathers were Christians, many of them were not. For instance, John Adams opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and spoke of the deity of Christ as "this awful blasphemy" which it was necessary to get rid of. Thomas Jefferson, likewise, was anti-supernaturalistic, eventually producing his own version of the Bible which jettisoned all of the recorded miracles – including the resurrection! James Madison believed that the government should in no way sanction national days of prayer. The truth is, while all of the founding fathers believed in a Divine Creator, they did not necessarily adhere to distinctly Christians ideas about Him – nor did they all believe that salvation was found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. Many of them were Deists rather than Christians. Thus, when we find statements from them which speak of "God" or a "Creator," we must immediately ask, "What God do they have in mind?" "Which Creator are they referring to – the impersonal god of Deistic belief or the holy and personal God revealed in Scripture?

Some well-meaning believers have tried to argue that all or at least the vast majority of the founding fathers were Christian because they were enrolled as members of Christian churches. But while it is true that many of them were registered members of Protestant church bodies, this does not at all mean that they were spiritually regenerate (which is the only kind of Christian that the New Testament speaks of) any more than the people today, who regularly attend Christian churches, are truly converted. It must be remembered that church attendance during this period was common and it was quite fashionable and proper to consider oneself "Christian." Moreover, this does not mean that the majority of the founding fathers viewed life from a distinctly Christian worldview nor possessed a mature biblical-theological foundation in Christian doctrine. And even if, for the sake of argument, they were all genuine Christians, this is far from proving that they were seeking to establish a "Christian Nation."

3. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America’s founding documents (Declaration of Independence and The Constitution). In fact, the Constitution doesn’t even make a single reference to God! Isn’t this rather odd for a nation that’s supposedly a "Christian Nation"? Why would supposedly Christian men leave out the founder of their religion in such important documents that will serve as the basis of their "Christian Nation"?

4. The United States was the first Western nation to omit explicitly Christian symbolism (such as the cross) from its flag and other national symbols. Why would the founding fathers neglect to employ such Christian symbolism on the national flag if, indeed, it is true that they were seeking to establish a "Christian Nation"?

5. In 1797, the United States made a treaty with the Islamic nation of Tripoli. This particular treaty was negotiated under George Washington, ratified by the Senate, and signed by President John Adams. But notice what is said in the actual document: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims, . . . it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" (Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States [Government Printing Office, 1930], Vol. II, p.365).

Recommended Reading:

Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989).

Michael S. Horton, Beyond Culture Wars (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994).

Eds. Os Guinness & John Seel, No God But God (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992).

Ed. Michael S. Horton, Power Religion (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992).

Thomas W. Frazier, Jr., "The Church: Living in the Present World Under the Cross of Christ," ed. John Armstrong, Reformation & Revival [Journal] (Winter – 1996, Vol.5/No.1), pp.65-80.