PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN RALLY SPEECH IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA~LIBERAL MAYOR TRIES EXTORTING PRE-PAID RALLY COSTS; BANS POLICE UNIFORMS AT RALLY; POLICE CREATE PRO-TRUMP TEE SHIRT

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN RALLY SPEECH IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 10, 2019

Trump Campaign, city of Minneapolis still split on additional fees associated with rally

EXTORTION: MAYOR WANTS TO CHARGE TRUMP CAMPAIGN $530,000 & COLLECT MONIES BEFORE RALLY
Pres. Trump: I stand with the great police officers of Minneapolis
Minneapolis Police Officers Create Shirts to Wear to Trump Rally After Mayor Bans Uniforms

WARNING: ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ’S NEW BOOK “JESUS IN ME: EXPERIENCING THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A CONSTANT COMPANION”~NOT FOR THE BIBLICALLY DISCERNING

Anne Graham Lotz: Jesus in Me | The Eric Metaxas Radio Show 
BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH HER POSITIONS:
Anne Graham Lotz Not recommended. While the core of Anne Graham Lotz’s teaching isn’t radically off base, biblically, (i.e. she’s not blatantly teaching Word of Faith, NAR, or other heretical doctrine) there are too many red flags about her teaching and behavior to regard her as a trustworthy teacher of God’s word. She has no qualms about preaching to men. False teachers Rick Warren and Beth Moore have each written forewords for Anne’s books. Anne has poor hermeneuticsHere, she completely ignores the context of 2 Chronicles 7:14 and claims it as a promise for America. Here, while correctly stating several times that God speaks through His word, she also seems to teach extra-biblical revelation by saying we can mistake other people’s voices for the voice of God and continually using the phrase “listening for God’s voice.” Anne endorses unbiblical “circle-making” prayer, and she is beginning to dabble in NAR-esque prophesying. Click here for more information on Anne Graham Lotz.
_____________________________________________________________
THE SAME OCCULT “CIRCLE MAKING” THAT NANCY DEMOSS-WOLGEMUTH PRACTICES

LOTZ … Of Nonsense

I’m going to go out on a limb and state that Anne Graham Lotz is not someone Christian women can trust to teach them the Bible, as she has demonstrated that she does not rightly handle the Word of Truth. (2 Tim. 2:15)  My saying this will surely upset women who believe that Anne’s a solid Bible teacher simply because she’s Billy Graham’s daughter and Franklin’s sister.  Bud Ahlheim of Pulpit & Pen offers many reasons for not taking her teaching seriously.
But before I get to that, for those who are unaware of –or doubt–Mrs. Lotz’s decline into “hermeneutical roadkill,” I’ve provided several articles at the bottom of the page that make it clear that the path she’s on is decidedly unbiblical.
Now to Bud Ahlheim’s blog post:
While discernment is a mandated chore for every Christian, one that can only be finely honed by the Spirit-illuminated study of Scripture, sometimes it doesn’t take a whole bunch of that skill to recognize the smell of hermeneutical roadkill that’s trying to be passed off as spiritual barbecue.
Such is the case with Anne Graham Lotz. That she has parlayed her father’s almost hallowed name within evangelicalism into what some see as a reputable “ministry” is probably no surprise, especially when viewed from a, shall we say, more pragmatic fiscal perspective. That hers is a “reputable” ministry, one “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) is another matter altogether. Then, of course, there’s the even more fundamental question, “Should SHE even be doing this?” (1 Timothy 2:12)
In any case, Lotz has a nifty name for her endeavor that, no doubt for her, is imbued with significant spiritual meaning – AnGeL Ministries. You’ll note, in what can only be seen, perhaps, as divine providence, that the word “angel” is built around her monogram. Neat-o, huh?
Lotz, though, has a substantial history of “imbuing” things with spiritual meaning that, most often, represent bonafide violence to both the text and tenor of Scripture. She ought to imbue less, methinks, and abide more in the Word.
From Lassoing Baptists With Wiccan Prayer Circles by promoting a Jewish Mystic to now emphasizing a prophetic “word from the Lord” about the woeful spiritual condition of America, Lotz has made herself into a modern-day prophetess.
From her own website, Lotz, in April 2015, advised her followers that, as a result of studying the Book of Joel, and because “the messages almost made the hair stand up on the back of my neck,” (always a valid hermeneutic) she was certain Jesus “is soon to return to take all His followers to heaven.” You may ask how she knows this. “Because God was clearly warning that His judgment is coming on America and on our world, and it’s going to be ugly. I knew it then, and I know it now.”  (God was, you understand, talking about America back there in the days of Joel.  Try to keep up, okay?)
Okay, well, hmmm. Yes, we are told, by Jesus, no less, to be ready. “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:36)  Well, Lotz didn’t prophesy a date and time, so maybe she’s in the clear on this one.
But, “it’s going to be ugly?” Sadly, for many people, the righteous wrath of God as He judges sin will be ugly. It will be ugly, terminal, and eternal. But not for believers, since we tend to believe that we have been justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Any warnings of ugliness should be to motivate us to “preach the Gospel,” not shudder in fear of a judgment for which Christ has paid our ransom.
Lotz points out the ugliness in her 2015 blog because she wanted to offer “a prayer I have written personally for each of the 9 days,” … “for those who sign up.” The “9 days” are the dates she identifies as May 15 – May 23, the days “between the Day of the Ascension of Jesus and the Day of Pentecost.” You see, those have “traditionally been days of prayer and fasting for an outpouring of God’s Spirit.” Oh, yeah, sure.
(Insert sound of annoying discernment tocsin here … again.)
Most believers understand the Pentecost event from Acts 2. What most tend to disregard is that this event was not the only “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” recorded in Acts. Similar events occurred with each of the geographic people groups Christ included in Acts 1:8. An outpouring occurred in Jerusalem and Judea with Jewish believers. (See Acts 2) It also occurred for the Samaritans and “God fearers.” (See Acts 8:14-17Acts 10:44-48Acts 11:13). Finally, it came to the Gentiles, notably under the ministry of the Apostle Paul. (See Acts 19:1-7)  Plus, that last outpouring?  Yeah, it was the last outpouring.  Not something happening in our day.  Continue reading
Related:
_______________________________________________________
RELEVANT ARTICLE: 

Open Letter to Anne Graham Lotz Regarding The Circle Maker

EXCERPT: You have been given much Anne; thus your accountability before Jesus is far greater than the hundreds, probably thousands, who are going to read what you said about “The Circle Maker” and say to themselves, well, if Anne Graham Lotz believes and endorses and practices what the circle maker says, then it must be okay. BUT IT ISN’T. Thus, you have now become a stumbling block and not a stepping stone to all who will follow your lead.”
__________________________________________________________________

Anne Graham Lotz Promotes Jewish Mystic

EXCERPTS: This issue with Lotz’s email should be clear to discerning Christians. In a similar fashion to those of the Word-Faith Movement, Lotz has said that we need to pray like Honi. The way Honi prayed was not how a humble, worshipful Christian should be expected to pray. Honi, who treated God as his personal cosmic butler, is not a man who should be held up as an example to be imitated.”
“Lotz’s email, in a way similar to Batterson’s book “The Circle Maker”, promotes a mystic practice that misunderstands both the nature of  God and of prayer. Christians need not draw a circle (physical, mental, or spiritual; literal or metaphorical) around any nation to pray for it . Furthermore, Christians should not be presumed to present God with ultimatums.”
“Those subscribed to Anne Graham Lotz’s mailing list should rethink the wisdom of their subscription.  It is prudent for Christians to keep one degree of separation between themselves and heretics.” 
_____________________________________________________________

Lotz-a-palooza: God Circle-Prayed The Creation?

EXCERPTS: “A woman who embraces the heresy of circle praying, itself borne out of Wiccan witchcraft, will be taking the helm of the National Day Of Prayer Task Force.
Pandering to the discernment-free and Scripture-disregarding, ecumenical efforts of the modern evangelical church, the false teacher Anne Graham Lotz will presumably be drawing circles around the entire nation as she mystically leads it to pray for “repentance, revival, and a recommitment to serious prayer.””
“Anyone familiar with Lotz’s less-than-orthodox practices (She gives “prophetic” words, too, FYI) may herein recognize yet further departure from God’s Word by the larger “evangelical” church.  As we know, the enemy may disguise himself as an “angel of light,” this time perhaps via Lotz’s self-monikered, anagrammatic AnGel Ministries. “God has called me to be a messenger. I have used my initials, AGL, to name my non-profit ministry AnGeL Ministries because in Scripture angels are God’s messengers.”” Instead of a logical and literal interpretation, Lotz suggests an esoteric meaning.  She is stating that prayer was God’s mechanism for the creation of the world.  HUH?  Did God draw a circle around nothingness and ask for the world to be made?  Is she claiming that God prayed to God for the creation of the world and that God answered God by doing it? (Here, friends, is an example of eisegetical violence being done to Scripture.)
______________________________________________________________
THE BEST, MOST COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW & EXPOSURE OF LOTZ’S HERESIES:

“THE DANIEL PRAYER” BY ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ: A BOOK THAT WILL MOVE YOUR CREDIT CARD, CHANGE YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, & LEAVE YOU DOCTRINALLY BEWILDERED

The Daniel Prayer_2.indd
EXCERPTS: “Released on May 10, 2016 Anne Graham Lotz’s latest book is sure to make its mark in the “Christian” publishing market.  The reasons for this are twofold.  The book is authored by someone with the evangelically hallowed name of “Graham,” which itself is enough cause to prompt the Biblically-astute to cast a discerning eye.  Secondly, in the world of “Christian” publishing, false “prophets” create genuine profits.”
“The Daniel Prayer is a mess, and a dangerous mess, at that.  Lacking any pervasive Scriptural logic, unless contemplative, egocentric mysticism counts, the tome seems borne mostly out of an overly mystical, decidedly anthropocentric form of American Christian theology, with the emphasis being on “America,” not “Christian.”  That such a system could be even considered “theological” is erroneous since it gives mere lip service, not strict adherence, to Scripture, elevates man’s desires far above the plans of God, and promotes its tenets with the underlying theme that America is the new Israel.  Lotz perpetuates this fallacious theology throughout the text. The subtitle of the book, Prayer That Moves Heaven And Changes Nations, highlights an apparent denial of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God that remains consistent throughout the book. 
America is losing favor with God, according to Lotz, and that calls for the Daniel prayer.  She proceeds to excise this prayer from the historical narrative of Scripture and promote its modern incantation as a miracle fix for the woes of America.
Lotz lauds herself for everything from choosing God, to knowing Scripture, to using prayer successfully, to getting messages, and “messengers,” from God, to understanding prophetic messages from the news. 
Soteriologically, Lotz denies faith is a gift from God.”
____________________________________________________________

Anne Graham Lotz
Has Lots of False Doctrine

EXCERPTS: Obviously, the claim is that Mrs. Lotz is “proclaiming the word of God.” We hope you will see, this is a lie. She is a false teacher who follows in the footsteps of her broad way father, Billy Graham.”
“Instead of disagreeing with Phillips, Lotz agreed and stated that the Pope “believed in Jesus,” “believed in the Scriptures,” was “a great leader,” was “a man of character,” and she respected him “as a person, a leader.” She applauded his ecumenism “to bridge the gaps between Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Catholics,” and called it “a wonderful thing.” She said,

And I think the Pope was someone who found God’s calling in his life, and he fulfilled what he believed was God’s purpose for him. (www.annegrahamlotz.com/images/stories/cnn%20april%208.pdf, hard copy on file)”

 “But then, in her next paragraph she lied against the true gospel of God (e.g. Romans 3:11) and stated the wicked are seeking Christ.”
______________________________________________________________

THE PROPAGANDA VIDEOS FOR THE NEW BOOK 
JESUS IN ME: Who is the Holy Spirit?
JESUS IN ME: Power to Change You and Me
JESUS IN ME: Not By Yourself
____________________________________________________________________
THE FRUIT OF BILLY GRAHAM’S FALSE GOSPEL: 
Giving My Life to Jesus and Asking Jesus 
Into My Heart
BY DAVID CLOUD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Oftentimes an individual tells me, “I have given my life to Jesus,” or “I have invited Jesus into my heart.”  I have no doubt that some people who describe their salvation in these terms are genuinely saved, but these are not biblical descriptions of salvation and I am convinced that to use such terminology is not a harmless matter. To “give my life to Christ” or to merely “invite Jesus into my heart” gives the wrong idea, in fact.  TO “GIVE MY LIFE TO CHRIST” implies that I have something good or worthwhile to offer to Him and that there is something good in me that God would accept, which is definitely not true. “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). The Bible says that even our supposed righteousness is unacceptable before a thrice holy God: “... we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).  TO “INVITE JESUS INTO MY HEART” is not the same as acknowledging my wicked sin and my frightful unsaved condition and putting my trust in what Jesus Christ has done on the cross for me as the only means of salvation. To “invite Jesus into my heart” implies that my heart is not the filthy thing that the Bible says that it is. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9). It is true that the Bible says Jesus Christ comes into the life of the believer. In 2 Cor. 6:16God says, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them,” but this is only after the individual is redeemed and cleansed and sanctified by faith in Christ’s atonement.  The term “invite Jesus into my heart” is usually based on Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” First of all, this is not an invitation to an individual but to a church. See verse 19. “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Jesus is graciously knocking on the door of the wayward church and inviting individuals to respond to His rebuke by repenting of their apostate condition. I do not doubt that there is an application of this verse that extends to Christ’s blessed invitation to individual sinners, but we know that one verse cannot contradict everything else the New Testament says about salvation.  To tell the sinner merely to receive Jesus into his or her heart gives the wrong idea UNLESS we carefully explain about his sinful condition and God’s judgment of sin (Rom. 1:18 - 3:18) and Jesus’ sacrifice for sin (Rom. 3:19-24). This is the true Roman’s Road plan of salvation.  The gospel is not inviting Jesus into my heart; it is summarized as follows by the Lord’s apostle: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 20 as repenting of my sin and self-will, which means to surrender to God, and putting my faith in Jesus Christ as my sin bearer. This is the message that Paul preached. “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).  Biblical salvation is described in Romans 10 in terms of believing in the heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Biblical salvation is described in John 3 in terms of being born again by putting my faith in what Jesus did when He was lifted up on the cross (John 3:314-16).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 4 in terms of believing in Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Saviour (Acts 4:10-12).  Biblical salvation is described in Acts 8 in terms of believing with all one’s heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He paid the sacrifice that was demanded by God’s law and that is described in Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:26-27). There are many other descriptions of salvation in the New Testament, but nowhere is salvation described as “giving my life to Jesus” or merely “inviting Jesus into my heart.” We need to be very careful about salvation, because nothing in this life is more important than finding the right way of salvation and the Bible warns that there are false gospels and false christs and false spirits (2 Cor. 11:1-4).  We are saved by believing from the heart “that form of doctrine which was delivered” to us, which refers to the doctrinal content of the biblical Gospel. “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17).  Shallow presentations of the gospel can become “another gospel” if the individual is left with a wrong concept of what it means to be saved. It is instructive that many of those who are victims of the “Quick Prayerism” method of evangelism and who have merely prayed a sinner’s prayer but do not show any evidence of regeneration describe their salvation in the aforementioned terms. ___________________________ SOME RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE: ”I agree completely. Most of us have probably been guilty of repeating terminology we have heard, even if it is not biblically sound, including these phrases. However, I think it is important to use the language of the Bible. These two phrases are not descriptive of Bible salvation, reflect a shallow understanding and presentation of the gospel, and could easily deceive someone about the true nature of repentance and faith” (Thomas Smith, Pastor, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, St. Clair, Missouri).  “I think this is a subject that needs to be dealt with frequently. Tozer pointed out many years ago that ‘accepting Jesus into my heart’ is not biblical terminology, and that ‘receiving Christ’ (John 1:11,12) conveys a much more serious truth” (Buddy Smith, Pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Malanda, Queensland, Australia). “The whole message of ‘ask into the heart’ is very recent in the history of the Lord’s churches. It looks to me like Baptists accepted it from evangelicals of other denominations. It was not the preaching of the old Baptists. There are several songs along the same line as this also. Sadly, it seems that a lot of people get their doctrine from their songs instead of getting their songs from their doctrine. Is there a sense in which the Lord dwells in our hearts? In light of Gal. 4:6 and Eph. 3:17 the answer is yes, but we still are never commanded to preach ‘Ask Him into your heart,’ nor do we see the Gospel heralds in the New Testament preaching that. When I preached on this recently, the immediate reaction of one man who has been saved for years was, ‘This sounds like borderline heresy,’ simply because he had always heard this, even in his years at BJU, other sound churches, etc. When I opened the Word and we looked together he agreed that what I preached was Biblical. My dad has been preaching for years that we are not telling people to ask Jesus into their life or give their life to Jesus. Their life is wrong; it is a mess; it is wicked. We are preaching that sinners need ‘new life in Christ’” (Bobby Mitchell, Jr., Pastor, Mid-Coast Baptist Church, Brunswick, Maine). “I think the reason for the problem terms you mention (‘I have invited Jesus into my heart,’ etc.) grow out of a shallow or weak presentation of the Gospel. If the lost person would be led to see himself as the wicked & lost hell bound sinner the Word of God says he is and that he is under the wrath & condemnation of a Holy God, he would recognize that there is not one ounce of good in him. If the purpose of ‘The suffering Lamb of God’ on the cross would be plainly preached and the lost sinner would be made to see the great sacrifice of the Christ -- as He bleeds and dies, as He is making the Atonement in His blood sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, as He is suffering the wrath of God poured out on Him, as He bears the sins of all mankind, as He is personally bearing the sins of the sinner who is being witnessed to. And if the Holy Spirit would then convict this sinner of the desperately wicked condition of his own heart and life and he would then see his hopeless, worthless position outside of God’s grace, surely he would repent of his sins and be saved. At this point it would seem like the only words the lost sinner would then be able to utter would be ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner.’ Seeing God’s great love for lost sinners in Christ on the cross and being convicted by the Holy Spirit would surely produce believing faith in the finished work of Christ for the salvation of the soul” (Wilbert Unger, Pastor, Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario).

UNCONSTITUTIONAL & FRAUDULENT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UNDERWAY~LARRY KLAYMAN ASKS “WHERE IS THE SENATE?”

UNCONSTITUTIONAL & FRAUDULENT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UNDERWAY~
LARRY KLAYMAN ASKS “WHERE IS THE SENATE?”
In this special simulcast with Crowdsource the Truth, Larry Klayman clarifies the Senate’s responsibility and upsetting shortfall as Adam Schiff and others continue to push their latest hoax in the ongoing effort to unseat President Donald Trump.

Visit https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/

Visit: www.crowdsourcethetruth.com

  Trump DEFIES Impeachment Circus and Tells Democrats to SHOVE IT!!!

Manufactured Impeachment Treachery


EUROPEAN UNION COURT: BIG TECH MUST CENSOR CRITICS OF POLITICIANS WORLDWIDE

EUROPEAN UNION COURT: BIG TECH MUST CENSOR CRITICS OF POLITICIANS WORLDWIDE
BY ALEX NEWMAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Calling out inept, traitorous, and corrupt politicians among Europe's ruling class online is officially banned, worldwide. After usurping authority over the peoples and nations of Europe, a European Union court just ruled that U.S.-based social-media companies must comply with anti-free speech decrees by European authorities. Under the ruling handed down by the so-called European Court of Justice last week, judges made clear that the criticism of a fringe political figure must be censored all over the world — not just inside the EU or in the specific nation where authorities consider the speech illegal. Critics called the move Orwellian and crazy.
The case in question involved Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a far-left Austrian politician with the totalitarian Green Party who was ridiculed on Facebook by her critics. Among other criticism, she was referred to online as a “corrupt oaf” and a “lousy traitor of the people” for her extreme political views. Obviously these were the opinions of the authors. Another critic blasted her Green Party for being a “fascist” political party. Apparently Europeans thought her demands for never-ending tax-funded welfare payments for refugees were ridiculous, among other positions. But expressing that opinion publicly is now illegal, worldwide, under the ruling from the Luxembourg-based court.
Glawischnig-Piesczek filed a complaint in Austria's courts, alleging that the opinions expressed by her critics were “defamatory.” Facebook complied with a court order to remove the criticism. However, the social-media giant, which has developed a global reputation for its hostility to free speech and support for left-wing politics, only censored the offending views within Austria. That was not enough for Glawischnig-Piesczek — she did not want anyone, anywhere on the planet to be able to read what people thought about her, or to post anything similar. So she appealed. After winding its way through that nation's legal system, the Austrian Supreme Court asked the European Court of Justice to take up the case.
Oral arguments were heard in February. And last week, the ECJ, as the court is known, ruled that if speech is ruled illegal in one EU member state, then technology companies must censor it all over the world. The ruling also noted that duplicate or identical content posted in other countries must be removed, too. That means, for instance, that certain Eastern European governments still largely under the control of “former” communist tyrants will now be able to censor their critics and prevent foreigners from learning the truth. Even Americans may be banned from posting it. Companies will not be held liable, though, as long as they delete the content or “equivalent” opinions “expeditiously” upon being ordered to do so.
In a statement issued on behalf of the EU's top court, the judges said that under the ruling, EU member states were free to order Internet companies to censor “information [deemed unlawful] worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law.” EU member governments are supposed to take that international “law” into “account” when ordering companies to block access to the material. Officially, there is no way to “appeal” the EU court's ruling, although it is not clear how the outfit may be able to enforce its rulings on the U.S.-based firms.
In an incredibly Orwellian response, the radical politician claimed the ruling was “a historic success for human rights against web giants.” As analysts pointed out, though, real rights include the right to hold and express an opinion about politicians. On the other hand, there is no right for politicians or anyone else not to be offended. Meanwhile, the victory was not against “web giants,” but against everyday citizens seeking to express their opinions about a Green politician working to rule them and hand their hard-earned money to foreigners.
The claim that the ruling against free speech was somehow a victory for “human rights,” though, does contain truth if one uses the "international" definition of human rights. Unlike in America, where the Founding Fathers said it was a self-evident truth that God created people with certain unalienable rights (life, liberty, property, and so on) and that government is instituted to protect those rights, under the human rights vision advanced by the United Nations and the EU, there are no God-given rights, or any rights at all, actually. As the UN explains in Article 29, your “rights” may in “no case be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
So in a twisted sort of way, global censorship of political tyrants is actually a “historic success for human rights,” as Glawischnig-Piesczek put it. As the UN has made clear for years, it considers the unalienable rights guaranteed to Americans under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions — free speech, self-defense, gun rights, due process, and more — to be violations of the UN's “international human rights law.” Even laws restricting the killing of unborn babies have been attacked by the UN as a “violation” of “human rights.” So it is no surprise to see totalitarians claim that censorship of political discourse is also needed for “human rights.”
In a bit of unintended irony, a U.K.-based free speech group named “Article 19” — a reference to the UN's “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and its article on free expression — slammed the controversial ruling. “This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” Article 19 Executive Director Thomas Hughes was quoted as saying in the media, with legal analysts quoted in various press reports noting that the ECJ ruling would apply in the United Kingdom, despite Brexit.
“Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online,” continued Hughes. “The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters. The ruling also means that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”
In a statement after the ruling, Facebook expressed concerns. “It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country,” the company complained. The judgment also raises questions about free expression and “the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.” During a meeting with employees after the decision was handed down, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg reportedly said: “I think it’s a very troubling precedent to set.”
Of course, as regular readers of this magazine know well, the Big Tech social-media giants — especially Facebook — hardly needed to be coerced into helping globalists and totalitarians censor the Internet. In fact, the U.S.-based technology giants willingly joined hands with both Brussels and the UN to squelch voices they disagreed with. As The New American reported in June of 2016, the Big Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), Microsoft, and more signed on to the EU's “Code of Conduct” promising to censor everything from criticism of Islam and concerns about mass migration to support for marriage and biological reality on gender. Just last month, the technology companies joined with the UN to censor “extremism” online.
The EU court's action is not the beginning of censorship by that entity; it is merely an escalation. Before that, in 2015, the EU's police agency vowed to combat “online propaganda” and “extremism” online. More recently, in November of 2018, under the guise of promoting “tolerance,” the EU's Parliament passed a resolution demanding that critics of homosexuality, gender confusion, Islam, open borders, and more be prosecuted. “The right to freedom of speech is not absolute,” the EU resolution reads, repeatedly blasting “right-wing extremism” without any reference to left-wing extremism, communism, jihad, anti-Christian persecution, or any of the real threats facing Europe today.
The EU has long been seeking to impose its totalitarian schemes on the once-independent, formerly self-governing peoples of Europe — even against their will, as it showed when it forced the European Constitution on France and Holland despite both nations voting "no." The totalitarian super-state has also been imposing its decrees on non-members such as Switzerland, which was recently coerced into adopting EU demands on gun control. Now, the EU wants to impose its rule on all of humanity. If liberties as fundamental as free speech are not safe, nothing is. It is time for Europeans and Americans and people everywhere to draw a line in the sand.
Related articles:

ISLAM’S ERASURE OF THE MIDEAST’S JUDAIC & CHRISTIAN HERITAGE

ISLAM’S ERASURE OF THE MIDEAST’S 
JUDAIC & CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
Another attempt to portray conquerors as victims and victims as conquerors
BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The Muslim world is at war with history.  It needs to be, if it hopes to change the narrative concerning how it came into being and, more importantly, how no one but Muslims has any right to any land claimed by Islam.
For example, the Palestinian Authority’s minister of culture, ‘Atif Abu Sayf, recently stated on official PA TV that
Our struggle is with this State [of Israel] that came out of nowhere, without a history and without geography, stole our land, and wants to put an end to our existence...  There is nothing in history that proves this presence. They have not found one stone... [Israel knows] that they have no connection to this city [Jerusalem], that they have no connection to this history, and that they have no connection to the geography, just as they have no connection to the future.
Days later, in early September 2019, the minister of culture made similar assertions: “Our struggle with the occupying entity is a struggle over the narrative. We are the legal inheritors of all that is on the land…  The occupier's narrative is false, and all of its attempts to find justification for its presence here have failed.”
Abu Sayf’s views are standard among Palestinians.  As a September 15, 2019 report notes, “One of the central elements of the Palestinian narrative is the negation of the entire Jewish history in the Land of Israel in general and in Jerusalem in particular. Despite numerous sources and archeological finds proving the opposite, the Palestinian Authority regularly repeats this claim because it is the basis for the PA's denial of Israel's right to exist.”
The irony is that, although Judaism has a millennia-old history and presence in Jerusalem, Muslims from Arabia brutally conquered, colonized, and Arabized that ancient city in the year 637.
This is the “philosophical” problem confronting not just Palestinians but much of the Muslim world: most of the territory Islam claims was taken from non-Muslims through violent conquest and colonization
As such, if conquerors and their descendants base right on might—as Islam has always done—it would seem that they have few rights to claim once their might wanes. Hence the Muslim tendency to rewrite history when dealing with non-Muslims—to prove that they are not conquerors but the “rightful” claimants of this or that land. 
While such revisionism is evident in the aforementioned PA quotes concerning Israel, it is especially ubiquitous in Islam’s attempts to erase evidence of Christianity from the lands it conquered.  This is unsurprising considering that the heart of the Muslim world—including all of North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey—was Christian centuries before the scimitar of Islam came.
As Dr. Hena al-Kaldani once said during a conference in Amman, Jordan hosted by the Jerusalem Center for Political Studies: “There is a complete cancelation of Arab Christian history in the pre-Islamic era,” “many historical mistakes,” and “unjustifiable historic leaps in our Jordanian curriculum.”  “Tenth grade textbooks omit any mention of any Christian or church history in the region.”  Wherever Christianity is mentioned, omissions and mischaracterizations proliferate, including the portrayal of Christianity as a Western (that is, “foreign”) source of colonization, said al-Kaldani.
“It’s the same situation in Iraq,” said Sharara Yousif Zara, an influential politician involved in the Iraqi Ministry of Education:  “There’s almost nothing about us [Christians] in our history books, and what there is, is totally wrong.  There’s nothing about us being here before Islam.  The only Christians mentioned are from the West.  Many Iraqis believe we moved here.  From the West.  That we are guests in this country.”
“It sounds absurd, but Muslims more or less know nothing about Christians, even though they make up a large part of the population and are in fact the original Egyptians,” said Kamal Mougheeth, a retired teacher in Egypt: “Egypt was Christian for six or seven centuries [before the Muslim invasion around 640].  The sad thing is that for many years the history books skipped from Cleopatra to the Muslim conquest of Egypt.  The Christian era was gone.  Disappeared.  An enormous black whole.”
This comports with what Copts have told me concerning their Egyptian classroom experiences: there was virtually no mention of Hellenism, Christianity, or the Coptic Church—one thousand years of Egypt’s pre-Islamic history. History began with the pharaohs before jumping to the seventh century when Arabian Muslims “opened” Egypt to Islam. (Wherever Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, Islamic hagiography euphemistically refers to it as an “opening,” fath, never a “conquest.”)
The Muslim world’s expunging of Christianity from Middle Eastern history has for generations successfully indoctrinated Muslim students to suspect and hate the Christian minorities living among them, who are presented as non-organic parasitic remnants supposedly left by Western colonialists (though as seen, Christianity precedes Islam in the region by some six centuries).
This also explains one of Islam’s bitterest ironies: the ancestors of those many Muslims currently persecuting Christians throughout the Middle East—including in PA territory—were themselves persecuted Christians who over the centuries converted to Islam to end their own persecution. In other words, Muslim descendants of persecuted Christians are today slaughtering their Christian cousins, without suspecting their common origins.
Such is the tragedy caused by Islam’s rewriting of history—a rewriting that is required whenever Muslims try to portray themselves as the “rightful” inhabitants of this or that land.

AS THE WORLD AWAKENS TO THE THREAT OF EXPANSIONIST CHICOM TYRANNY, EVERYONE MUST PICK A SIDE

AS THE WORLD AWAKENS TO THE THREAT OF EXPANSIONIST CHICOM TYRANNY, 
EVERYONE MUST PICK A SIDE

Backlash explodes as Corporate America bows before China, and the resistance to groveling mounts

BY KIT DANIELS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Amid public outrage over the NBA cowering to China and Blizzard Entertainment banning a pro-Hong Kong gamer, it’s worth noting that Alex Jones was purged from social media last year after warning about ChiCom infiltration of US industries and culture.
In short, Jones was the first domino to fall – and was the first because he blew the whistle on American companies increasingly agreeing to Chinese-style censorship and control in exchange for doing business in China.
Now any American who supports the Hong Kong protests – or free speech in general – is facing censorship just like Alex Jones, but they’re now at the Rubicon in which they must choose between protecting free speech or bowing down to a foreign government.
First they came for Alex Jones…
But we’re all Alex Jones now: Stand up to ChiCom censorship or lose free speech forever.
Chinese dominance is also penetrating US politics, as Jones warned President Trump in the aftermath of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)’s staffer who was exposed as a Chinese spy.
As Jones explained in Aug. 2018, with the transcript provided by RealClearPolitics:
Mr. President, you know the Office of Personnel Management [hack] was done by insiders, that’s even come out in intelligence reports. They have tried to keep it quiet because it’s such treason, it’s unbelievable.
We know China owns the majority of our debt after the private Federal Reserve. We know they now own Hollywood.
You’ve helped block some of them buying up American Bandstand, a few final things they didn’t own. We know that they’re teaching Maoism in the colleges of all 50 major state-funded colleges, have major ChiComm infiltration.
Some of them are run by the ChiComms, even The Washington Post had to admit. We know that the people’s army of China has been caught running Dianne Feinstein’s operation.
We know their penetration is hundreds of times that of the Russians.
We know they’re involved in election meddling, and they’re so arrogant they went to Davos a year and a half ago and said they would stop your agenda, along with Junker.
…And if you make the fact that we need an Internet Bill of Rights, and anti-trust busting on these [Big Tech] companies, if they don’t back off right now.
And if you don’t come out and point out that the communist Chinese have penetrated and infiltrated and are way, way worse than the Russians — because it’s true, and the Democrats are scared of that coming out.
______________________________________________________________

Chinese Citizens Will Need to Pass Facial 

Recognition Test to Use the Internet

Social credit tyranny accelerates
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
Chinese citizens will be forced to pass a facial recognition test to use the Internet in the latest expansion of the country’s draconian social credit score system.
“At present, a Chinese citizen will need to show his or her ID card while applying for a landline or the internet,” reports the Daily Mail. “The facial-recognition test is set to verify that the ID card belongs to the applicant.”
Under its social credit score system, China punishes people who criticize the government, as well as numerous other behaviors, including;
– Bad driving. – Smoking on trains. – Buying too many video games. – Buying too much junk food. – Buying too much alcohol. – Calling a friend who has a low credit score . – Having a friend online who has a low credit score. – Posting “fake news” online. – Visiting unauthorized websites. – Walking your dog without a leash. – Letting your dog bark too much.
Back in August, the Communist state bragged about how it had prevented 2.5 million “discredited entities” from purchasing plane tickets and 90,000 people from buying high speed train tickets in the month of July alone.
People in the west are already being banned by entire websites and services due to their opinions.
Given that Silicon Valley has aided China in helping develop its social credit system, how long before they’re banned from using the Internet altogether?
SEE ALSO:
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/10/woke-espndisney-banned-staff-
discussing-hong-kong-daniel-greenfield


DAVID CLOUD ON THE GETTYS: THE PIED PIPERS OF CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP MUSIC

The Gettys 
The Pied Pipers of Contemporary Worship Music

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational 
and research purposes:
Updated October 10, 2019 (first published September 27, 2012)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, 
fbns@wayoflife.org
The following is from the latest edition of the Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians, which is available in print or as a free eBook from Way of Life Literature, www-wayoflife.org —

Photo of the book Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians

Keith and Kristyn Getty’s “contemporary hymns” are used widely among “traditional, non-contemporary” churches because they are considered relatively safe.
Keith and Kristyn Getty partner with Stuart Townend to form Getty-Townend Music (GTM). 

“Up to 100 million people worldwide sing Keith Getty’s hymns in church services each year” (“Hitting the right notes,” 
Belfast Telegraph, Aug. 11, 2018). The Getty-Townend hymn (Townend wrote the lyrics and Getty, the music) “In Christ Alone” has become one of the most famous hymns ever written, with an estimated 40 to 50 million people singing it in church services each year.

At least eight of the Gettys’ songs are included in Majesty Music’s 
Rejoice Hymns

Twenty-nine of their songs are featured in 
Hymns Modern and Ancient, published by Heart Publications, a ministry of Steve Pettit Evangelistic Association and compiled by Fred Coleman who heads up Bob Jones University’s Department of Church Music.

Both Crown Baptist College and West Coast Baptist College, the two largest independent Baptist Bible colleges, have performed Getty-Townend material in their services.

The Gettys’ popular songs include “Don’t Let Me Lose My Wonder,” “In Christ Alone,” “Speak, Oh Lord,” and “The Power of the Cross.”

Typically, the lyrics are Scriptural and the tunes are not boisterous rock & roll (though the Gettys can and do rock out in their concerts).

What could be wrong with this?

Among all of the contemporary worship musicians, I consider the Gettys perhaps the most dangerous, because what they are offering is wrapped in a package that is attractive to “fundamentalists” — their Irish brogue and their physical attractiveness, their fairly conservative appearance and effervescent cheerfulness, their foot-tapping, Emerald Isle-tinged music, and the spiritual depth of their lyrics. They aren’t writing the typical CCM 7-11 music (7 words sung 11 times). 

But as likable as the Gettys are, that attractive, “conservative-appearing” package is a bridge to great spiritual danger.

The Getty’s goal is to “bring everyone together musically” (www.keithgetty.com). They want to “bridge the gap between the traditional and contemporary” (http://www.gettymusic.com/about.aspx).

The Gettys have no boundaries. They don’t believe in separation. They are positive-only, non-judgmental. They are representative of evangelicalism today, at the heart of which is “a renunciation of separatism,” as Harold Ockenga stated it in the 1940s. The Gettys are people that say they love sound doctrine, but they don’t separate from heresy. They say they love righteousness, but they don’t hate worldliness. At least they don’t speak out about it, and they should! 

“Therefore I esteem all 
thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128).

They don’t draw clear lines as the Bible requires. They don’t speak out against error and issue warnings as the Bible demands. 

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove 
them” (Ephesians 5:11).

“Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

They don’t preach repentance, though it is a major and essential message of Scripture. 

They keep everything on a positive note.

When their song “In Christ Alone” was chosen to be performed for the enthronement of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury in 2013, Keith Getty said, “We are so honored that one of our hymns would be used for such an historic occasion in British life” (“In Christ Alone Featured,” Mar. 22, 2013,
NeuFutur.com).

He should, rather, have said that he was ashamed to be associated with the terrible apostasy of the Archbishops of Canterbury, and he could have reproved their wickedness.

1953, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury – “… there is no such thing as revealed truth” (
Nature and God).
1961, Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury – “I expect to see many atheists in heaven” (
London Daily Mail, Oct. 2).
1982, Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury – “As to why Jesus suffered on the cross, I am an agnostic” (
Sunday Times, Apr. 11).
2008 – The Church of England officially apologized to Charles Darwin for rejecting his doctrine of evolution.
2013 – The Church of England dropped its ban on gay clergy in civil partnerships becoming bishops.

Because of the lack of boundaries, the Gettys are a bridge to the exceedingly dangerous world of the “broader church” with all of sins and heresies, as surely as Hillsong or any of the other contemporary worship groups.

We are living in the age of end-time technology, which means that one can no longer use songs and hymns without the listeners being able to come into communication with the authors with great ease. Whereas even 30 years ago, it was difficult to contact and be influenced by authors of Christian music, that has changed dramatically with the Internet. 

Today if people in a Bible-believing church hear songs by MercyMe or Stuart Townend or Hillsong, songs heard in “adapted form” in many Bible-believing churches, they can easily search for that group or individual on the web and come into intimate contact with them–not only in contact with their music (typically played in “real” rock & roll style as opposed to the watered-down soft-rock ballad versions performed in churches that are beginning to dabble with contemporary praise music), but also in contact with their ecumenical/charismatic/separatist hating/one-world church philosophy. 

Let’s say someone hears the choir perform “In Christ Alone” or “The Power of the Cross” by Getty-Townend. He likes the music and decides to check them out on the web. He comes across the Gettys rocking out at their concerts and begins to question his church’s stand against rock music. He sees the Gettys associating with anyone and everyone and begins to question biblical separation. “The Gettys seem so sincere and Christ-loving; maybe I’ve been too hard-nosed in my Christianity; maybe the separatist stance is all wrong; perhaps I should lighten up.” He comes across Keith Getty’s July 2013 interview with Assist Ministries and decides to listen to what the man has to say. He hears Getty speak highly of Bono and C.S. Lewis, so he decides to take a look at these people, and by so doing he begins to question fundamental Bible doctrines. After time, through the influence of the Gettys, the soul who was once a contented member of a Bible-believing church, raising his children in a Bible-believing path, is on the high road to the emerging church and his children and grandchildren will end up who knows where. 

The same could be said for the influence of MercyMe or Hillsong or hundreds of other prominent contemporary worship musicians, because they hold the same philosophy and represent the same bridge to spiritual danger.

Men who are defending the use of contemporary praise music will answer to God for the souls that cross the bridges they are building to the dangerous world that is represented by this music. 
The Gettys are a bridge to new Reformed Calvinism.
The Gettys are new Reformed Calvinists. Keith leads worship at Parkside Church, Cleveland, Ohio, pastored by Alistair Begg. This is the world of John Piper, David Platt, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur. 

Reformed Calvinism is not biblically sound. It is a path to the world of Augustine, the church fathers, John Calvin, Protestantism, the Puritans, infant baptism. It is a path to Replacement Theology (the church is Israel). It is a path to Amillennialism and the rejection of the imminency of Christ’s return and the loss of all of the spiritual benefits of that important doctrine.

New Reformed Calvinism, unlike old Reformed Calvinism, is ecumenical. There are no strict boundaries. The Gettys associate in ministry with almost anybody: Pentecostal, Charismatic, Roman Catholic, deniers of the blood atonement (C.S. Lewis), theistic evolutionists (John Lennox). Keith Getty favorably quotes all sorts of unsound men. For example, in his 2017 book 
Sing! he quotes the Roman Catholic mystic J.R.R. Tolkien, Augustin, C.S. Lewis, and Sting. 

New Reformed Calvinism is sympathetic toward Rome. The old Reformed men believed that Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, drunken with the blood of the martyrs. But the new Reformed have ecumenical relationships with Rome. Consider The Gospel Coalition. The Getty’s pastor, Alistair Beggs is the head. The web site promotes ecumenical unity. One report was entitled “The Urgency of Evangelical Ecumenism.” The report “Should Christians Be Ecumenical?” said, “Can evangelicals and Catholics truly be together? … Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Body obligates me to see the ecumenical task as important for Christianity.” This is false. Jesus’ prayer has nothing to do ecumenism. In fact, a careful reading of this prayer refutes ecumenism. Yet this article was written by Trevin Wax, a Southern Baptist Wheaton College professor who associates closely with the Gettys.

And New Reformed Calvinism (also called neo-Puritan), unlike old Reformed Calvinism, is not separated from the world. In July 2019, longhaired rocker Alice Cooper gave his testimony at Parkside. They should rather have reproved him for his association with the vile world of rock & roll. Mark Driscoll, one of the most influential new Reformed Calvinists, said, “We are theologically conservative and CULTURALLY LIBERAL.” His church in Seattle, Mars Hill, had New Year’s Eve champagne dance parties.

Consider the issue of dress, which most churches today consider of little consequence, but it is a clear biblical issue. Kristyn Getty is one of the few contemporary worship artists that wears a dress of any kind in her performances, but she also wears tight pants and low-cut tops and other types of immodest attire, so there is no consistency. And some of the other female musicians in the Getty performances are even less modest. An advertisement for the Getty’s 
Sing! 2019 conference featured a young woman dancing an Irish dance in extremely tight pants. That type of thing is very sensual and has no place in Christian worship. A few years ago, when we asked for feedback from Christian men about how various types of female dress affect them morally, many made the observation that tight clothing is as seductive as slight clothing. One man wrote, “I would say the number one problem is any garment that is form-fitting, be it jeans, pants, skirt, dress, shirt, whatever. Anything that is tight, no matter how long it is, leaves nothing to the imagination, and that defeats the whole purpose of covering the skin in the first place!” Another wrote, “One thing I see in my church is tight clothing. Oh, it may very well be covering but it is revealing the shape in a woman. This can be even more tantalizing to a man.” (See “Tight Clothing and Modesty” at www.wayoflife.org.)

The Gettys represent the “cool New Calvinism” that is sweeping through evangelicalism and the Southern Baptist Convention and that is capturing large numbers of “young fundamentalists.” 

It is influencing Bob Jones University graduates, which is probably why the school is being drawn to the Gettys.
The Gettys are a bridge to the world of rock & roll.
The Getty’s music is syncretistic. They “fuse the music of their Irish heritage with the sounds of Nashville, their newly adopted home.” They are “crossing the genres of traditional, classical, folk and contemporary composition.”

There are no effectual boundaries to the Getty’s music that we can discern. 

Their printed music is conservative and doesn’t use rock building blocks such as the backbeat and beat anticipation. They do this to broaden their influence into the most conservative of churches, but their performances are often out-and-out rock. Their vocals incorporate rock stylings such as slipping and sliding and croaking. (See 
A Plea to Southern Gospel Fans, a free eBook available from www.wayoflife.org.)

And while they don’t write hard rock worship songs, they don’t speak against this, either. They are always “positive, non-judgmental.” Keith Getty said that he is glad for edgy, hard-rocking renditions of his music by artists such as Newsboys, Ricky Skaggs, Owl City, Alison Krauss, and Natalie Grant, because “it is an honor” for him to witness popular modern musicians record them, and “it’s also interesting to hear their interpretation of it and useful for the song because it helps the song get played more” (“The Gettys Exclusive: Famed Hymn Writers Talk Irish Christmas Tour,” 
Christian Post, Dec. 2, 2014).

Rapper Trip Lee was featured at the Getty’s Sing! 2019 conference (“Getty Music Continues Their Five-Year Journey,” Sep. 24, 2018, gettymusic.com). 

The Gettys list the Beatles as a major musical influence, and I have never heard them warn God’s people to stay away from the Beatles. 

In a July 2013 interview, Keith Getty mentioned vile rocker Sting and homosexual rocker Elton John in a positive light, with not a hint of warning. The interview was with Dan Wooding of Assist Ministries and was broadcast on Frontpage Radio from Nashville — www.assist-ministries.com/FrontPageRadio/FPR06.09.13KeithGettyMono.mp3.

In the same interview Keith Getty heaped praise on Bono of the Irish rock band U2, calling him a “brilliant theological thinker” and saying that Bono “cares for a lot of the things that Christ asks us to care about.” He also said, “I love his passion for life and his passion for learning.” Getty had absolutely nothing to say about Bono by word of warning. 

Bono rarely even attends church, and when he does it is often a viciously heretical “church” like Glide Memorial United Methodist in San Francisco (Bill Flanagan, 
U2 and the End of the World, p. 99). Bono’s biographer said that he has been a frequent worshiper at Glide. Cecil Williams, former pastor of the church, doesn’t believe in heaven; he began performing homosexual “marriages” in 1965; and church “celebrations” have included dancing with complete nudity. 

This is Bono’s type of Christianity. Bono says that he believes that Jesus died on the cross for his sins and that “he is holding out for grace,” but Bono’s “grace” is a grace that does not result in radical conversion and a new way of life; it is a grace without repentance; it is a grace that does not produce holiness, in direct contrast with Titus 2:11-15. Nowhere does Bono warn his myriads of listeners to turn to Christ before it is too late and before they pass out of this life into eternal hell. In fact, he says that heaven and hell are on this earth (
Bono on Bono: Conversations with Michka Assayas, 2005, p. 254). Bono says that the older he gets the more comfort he finds in Roman Catholicism (Bono on Bono, p. 201). But he has nothing good to say about biblical “fundamentalism,” falsely claiming that it is a denial that God is love (Bono on Bono, p. 167) and calling it vile names (p. 147). The problem is that Bono defines love by the rock & roll dictionary rather than by the Bible, which says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3). Bill Flanagan, a U2 friend who has traveled extensively with the group, in his authorized biography describes them as heavy drinkers and constant visitors to bars, brothels, and nightclubs (Flanagan, U2 at the End of the World, p. 145). Bono admits that he lives “a fairly decadent kind of selfish-art-oriented lifestyle” (Flanagan, p. 79). Many of Bono’s statements cannot be printed in a Christian publication. Appearing on the Golden Globe Awards broadcast by NBC television in 2003, Bono shouted a vile curse word. Bono told the media that he and his bandmates planned to spend New Year’s Eve 2000 in Dublin, because “Dublin knows how to drink” (Bono, USA Today, Oct. 15, 1999, p. E1). In 2006 Bono said: “I recently read in one of St. Paul’s letters where it describes all of the fruits of the spirit, and I had none of them” (“Enough Rope with Andrew Denton,” March 13, 2006). In October 2008, Fox News reported that Bono and rocker friend Simon Carmody partied with teenage girls on a yacht in St. Tropez. The report was accompanied by a photo of Bono holding two bikini-clad teenagers on his lap at a bar (Fox News, Oct. 27, 2008).

(For more about Bono see the report “
The Rock Group U2” at www.wayoflife.org.

This is the man that Keith Getty publicly calls a brilliant theologian and praises for caring about things that Christ tells us to care about! Doesn’t Christ care about truth and holiness and a pure gospel and repentance and sound doctrine and separation from the world, Keith? Aren’t these absolute fundamentals? Doesn’t the Bible say, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4)? Doesn’t the Bible say, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4)?

Any bridge that Bible-believing churches build to the Gettys is a bridge beyond to the filthy world of secular rock, because the Gettys speak in positive terms of that world instead of reproving the unfruitful works of darkness in accordance with Ephesians 5:11. Any bridge that Bible-believing churches build to the Gettys is a bridge beyond the Gettys to people like Bono of U2.
The Gettys are a bridge to C.S. Lewis.
In the 2013 interview with Dan Wooding of Assist Ministries (broadcast on Frontpage Radio), Getty claimed C.S. Lewis as a major theological influence. Yet Lewis rejected the fundamental doctrines of the infallible inspiration of Scripture and “penal substitutionary atonement” and believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” 
Christianity Today, Dec. 2005). Lewis rejected the historicity of Jonah and Job. He believed in prayers to the dead and confession to a priest. He held to theistic evolution, believing that “man is physically descended from animals” and calling the Genesis account of creation “a Hebrew folk tale” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain). He denied the eternal torment of hell and claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (Lewis, Mere ChristianityThe Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle). 

In its August 2019 cover story (“The Rise of the Bible-Teaching, Plato-Loving, Homeschool Elitists” by Louis Markos), 
Christianity Today stated that “increasing numbers of evangelicals” have followed C.S. Lewis to “fantasy lands populated by wizards” and “to the Catholic Middle Ages” and to the pagan “works of ancient Greek and Rome.” Christianity Today says that “Lewis helped unlock in the evangelical soul a longing for things of which they had been taught to be suspicious: tradition, hierarchy, liturgy, sacrament, numinous awe, and literature that was not specifically Christian.” Christianity Today admits that “this tectonic shift in the evangelical world has led significant numbers of conservative Protestants to become Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican.” 

(For more about Lewis see the free eBook 
Evangelicals and C.S. Lewis at www.wayoflife.org)

This is a man that Getty honors as a major theological influence and about whom he has nothing negative to say. No warnings. No separation. No boundaries.

Any bridge that Bible-believing churches build to the Gettys is a bridge beyond the Gettys to dangerous heretics like C.S. Lewis. 
The Gettys are a bridge to the Charismatic movement.
Keith arranged some of the songs on Michael W. Smith’s charismatic 
Healing Rain album. 

The Gettys have a close working relationship with Stuart Townend. Their music company is GTM (Getty Townend Music). 

Townend is radically charismatic and ecumenical. Not only do they write and publish songs with Townend, but they also tour together, joining hands, for example, in the Celtic Islands Tour 2012.

Townend is charismatic in theology. He leads worship at the Church of Christ, a New Frontiers church in Brighton, England. (New Frontiers is a network of charismatic churches that believes in modern apostles and prophets.) The senior pastor is Terry Virgo. Townend supports the “extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit,” which refers to the demonic/fleshly charismatic mysticism such as meaningless gibberish, prophesying, spirit slaying, holy laughter, and shaking. (This church is also the home of the Christian rock band Phatfish, with whom Townend has toured. Their music is described as “jazz-funk-rock.”)

Townend is radically ecumenical in philosophy, supporting the Alpha program which bridges charismatic, Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches.

Townend’s testimony of salvation is extremely weak, as stated in the following biographical sketch from WorshipTogether.com:
“Stuart grew up as the youngest of four children in a Christian family in West Yorkshire where his father was a Church of England vicar. Stuart’s family always enjoyed music and one brother, Ian, went on to become a member of the group Heartbeat. Stuart himself began to play the piano at the age of 7. It was while living in West Yorkshire that at the age of 13 he made his Christian commitment. Then later at the age of 18, when helping to lead a children’s camp in Hand Cross, West Sussex, he had a profound experience of the Holy Spirit.”
Townend has a false concept of Christ. When asked, “What would Jesus sing?” he replied:
“I think he would be doing thrash metal or hip hop or something where we’d go, ‘He can’t do that!’ Because I think he would be challenging our comfortable perceptions. I don’t know what he would sing or whose songs he would sing, but I believe he would do it in a way that would surprise and probably shock us” (“What Would Jesus Sing?” from an interview with Stuart Townend, TV series Principles of Praise, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCW0oAAna7c).
So, according to Townend, instead of singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, Jesus would be singing thrash metal and hip hop and trying to shock us with His musical choices. That is not the thrice holy Jesus described in Scripture. It is true that Jesus shocked the religious crowd of His day, but that was not because He was performing worldly musical numbers, gyrating to rap, and screaming out thrash! It was because the religious crowd had rejected God’s Word and He was God’s Word incarnate, so they did not recognize, understand, or appreciate Him. He came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the holy Law of God (Matthew 5:17-19). Jesus was a friend of sinners, but He did not sin with sinners and He was no sort of a party dude. He frequently preached on hell and demanded repentance, and that would put the brakes on any party!

Since the Christian rock crowd loves to shock people, they think Jesus is like them. Christian rockers lose no sleep at the fact that many of the saints are upset and discouraged with their music because they consider it worldly and inappropriate for the service of Christ. Christian rockers have taken over countless once-traditional churches even to the extreme of pushing aside and running over anyone who got in the way of their musical “choices.” Instead of sympathizing with the saints who oppose their music, they slander them as Pharisees and legalists and mindless traditionalists.

This is not the spirit of Jesus. He solemnly warned about offending those who believe on Him (Matthew 18:2-10). Paul, too, issued this warning. “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. … Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Romans 14:1319).
The Gettys are a bridge to the Roman Catholic Church.
In July 2012, the Gettys joined Townend and Roman Catholic Matt Maher on NewsongCafe on WorshipTogether.com. They played and discussed “The Power of the Cross,” which was co-written by Getty-Townend. The 10-minute program promoted ecumenical unity, with Maher/Townend/Getty entirely one in the spirit through the music. Fundamental doctrinal differences are so meaningless that they are not even mentioned. Spiritual abominations such as the papacy, the mass, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and Mariolatry were ignored. Jude 3 was despised and Romans 16:17 completely disobeyed for the sake of building the one-world church through contemporary Christian music.

Keith Getty collaborated with Catholic Margaret Becker in the song “Jesus Draw Me Ever Nearer.” In an interview, Becker said, “One of my missions has been to say, let’s not label ourselves, let’s not put up walls between each other. I may go to a Catholic church, that does not mean I’m Catholic, in that I cannot (disagree with) any Catholic rhetoric or Catholic belief” (“US singer to make an appearance at Cross Rhythms ’95,” 
CR Magazine, June 1, 1995). 

Getty also collaborated with Roman Catholic Máire [pronounced Moya] Brennan in writing “With the Early Morning.” Brennan says, “Christians fighting Christians, Catholics and Protestants! It breaks my heart because we’re all stemming from the same rock. We should look at that and not at what we’ve become. I discovered an awful lot, being from a Catholic background and getting married to a Protestant” (“Back to the Rock of Ages: Maire Brennan Talks to Christina Rodden,” rootsworld.com).
The Gettys are a bridge to other heretics.
In October 2012, the Gettys joined hands with emerging heretic Leonard Sweet at the National Worship Leader Conference in San Diego. Sweet calls his universalist-tinged doctrine New Light and “quantum spirituality” and “the Christ consciousness” and describes it in terms of “the union of the human with the divine” which is the “center feature of all the world’s religions” (
Quantum Spirituality, p. 235). He defines the New Light as “a structure of human becoming, a channeling of Christ energies through mind-body experience” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 70). Sweet says that “New Light pastors” hold the doctrine of “embodiment of God in the very substance of creation” (p. 124). In Carpe Mañana, Sweet says that the earth is as much a part of the body of Christ as humans and that humanity and the earth constitutes “a cosmic body of Christ” (p. 124). Sweet lists some of the “New Light leaders” that have influenced his thinking as Matthew Fox, M. Scott Peck, Willis Harman, and Ken Wilber. These are prominent New Agers who believe in the divinity of man, as we have documented in the book The New Age Tower of Babel. Sweet has endorsed The Shack with its non-judgmental father-mother god, and he promotes Roman Catholic contemplative mysticism and dangerous mystics such as the Catholic-Buddhist Thomas Merton. (For documentation see the book Contemplative Mysticism, which is available in print and eBook editions from Way of Life Literature — www.wayoflife.org.)

At their 
Sing! 2019 worship conference, the Gettys featured flutist Pedro Eustache. He claims to be a “Christ-follower” (not a Christian) and talks about Jesus and the cross, but his Christianity is not Bible-based. It is doctrine-less, indefinable, and mystical. His gospel is so vague as to be meaningless. There is no mention of sin, the blood atonement, repentance, or saving faith. He claims that everything is “spiritual” and that nothing is “secular.” (“Pedro Estache,” interview, July 28, 2016, isharehope.com). Thus, he has no problem in playing background music for the World of Warcraft video game and a wide assortment of wicked movies. He has recorded with New Age musician Paul McCartney of the Beatles, Persian “diva Googoosh,” and many others of like spiritual caliber. He performed prominently for the soundtrack to Mel Gilbson’s The Passion of Christ, which is filled with Roman Catholic myths about Mary. 

This is the ecumenical Christianity of the Gettys. They are fairly conservative in their own theology and lives, but they have no boundaries. They don’t believe in biblical separation. 

Therefore, any bridge that Bible-believing churches build to the Gettys is a bridge beyond the Gettys to heretics such as C.S. Lewis and Bono, to the Roman Catholic Church, to the charismatic movement, to theistic evolution that denies the literal account of Genesis 1-2, to the filthy world of secular rock, to emergents and New Agers like Leonard Sweet, and to every element of the end-time one-world “church.”