Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism Eric Barger · Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism...

44
What Happened to the Church? Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism Eric Barger

Transcript of Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism Eric Barger · Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism...

What Happened to the Church?

Understanding and Resisting Postmodernism

Eric Barger

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

1

PART 1

Moving the Church into the 21st Century – and Away From the Bible

A common theme I address in my seminars, preaching, Q&A times, and personal correspondence is the importance of examining the place the Bible occupies in the priorities of modern Christians. Is it supreme over all things? Does it lead and guide every belief and practice? Does it contain all of the information needed to know God, to be saved eternally? And is it the only infallible, inerrant revelation from the Creator to His creation? To the shock of many, increasing numbers of today's most popular voices in the Church have either spoken out demoting the Bible's authority and relevance or have simply said as much by their teachings, alliances, and actions.

When investigating whether a ministry, leader, local church, fellowship, or denomination is heading the wrong direction, one of the most important and also difficult issues we face is that the shift away from the Bible usually happens incrementally. In fact, I cannot think of a single situation that I've read of in over 25 years of researching past (or present) apostasies when error came all at once like a landslide. That is, unless one

Take A Stand! Ministries

2

argues that a single landslide can last for a year, or five, or ten, or more.

No matter how it's accomplished or how quickly, the fact remains that many of the old trustworthy sources have slipped, cracked, compromised, and become voices for "different gospels" instead of the authentic presentation from God's pure Word. Perhaps the most pertinent issue facing believers today is the criteria for decision making about what should and should not be accepted concerning beliefs and experience. After all, many of those who have strayed away from the Bible continually claim that they are "evangelicals." They contend that those who disagree with them just don't understand, are themselves lost in misconceptions about the Faith, or are simply narrow, bigoted legalists. The result is that true Bible believers are not just marginalized but stripped of credibility in any and every way possible. And why? Because we refuse to abandon the Scripture, historic Christian doctrine, and the old rugged cross.

For those in the process of shifting to the "new" evangelicalism, it's usually a slow, almost undetectable journey away from carefully following and applying biblical truth. Programs, methods, plans, life application themes, entertainment and the like have incrementally replaced the sound presentation of the Gospel. Generally absent are teaching of solid doctrine, a focus on standing against evil, and evangelism of the lost. In short, the "here and now" has trumped eternity as life on earth and meeting felt needs has replaced preaching and teaching about eternity, absolute truth, spiritual warfare, and the Church's main mission of evangelism to the status of little more than misguided Dark Ages philosophy.

Messengers Instead of Message

Often guided by the simple fact of whether we like the messenger, the Church today seems to be in a broadening precarious phase as allegiance to a teacher/pastor/author

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

3

has taken precedence over truth. Favoring particular leaders isn't in itself necessarily evil but persuasive, charismatic personalities often have a unique ability to sweep theological truths aside if they get in the way of the intended outcome of the facilitator. Glaring examples of this phenomenon would be the teachings of cult leaders from the 2nd century's Marcion to Joseph Smith, Jr. The history of the Church is replete with those who may have started out on target but who eventually led many astray. Now Bible believers are faced with discerning the teaching of men such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and Joel Osteen. No doubt these three and others are counted as "evangelical Christians." They have adopted many Christian ideas in their teaching but these men and many others have developed followers more than willing to ignore (or at least not explore) the glaring flaws scattered through the teachings of those they are endeared to. If I refer to it a "cult of personality," please understand that liking someone and their preaching or writing surely isn't wrong, but blind affection to any teacher or church is inviting disaster. If this trend is prevalent for some seasoned Saints, how much more is it then for young or biblically unknowledgeable people who have never been taught the locked-in-stone edict of testing everything (I Thes. 5:21-22)?

The Media's Power to Shape

These days it's just not an affection for the local preacher on Sundays. YouTube, daily radio/TV, Facebook and Twitter are but a few ways that teachers connect with their audience. All of that may be fine unless the teacher goes sideways and the listeners keep on receiving what has now become contaminated milk. It is at these times that ministries such as Take A Stand! come along and throw the light of truth on what has happened. When we do, those defending their "favorite" teacher often answer with a chorus of "judge not lest ye be judged" or "no one's perfect" and the skirmish is on - all because of a lack of willingness by the both the teacher in question and those being taught to keep bringing everything

Take A Stand! Ministries

4

that claims to be "Christian" to the failsafe standards of the Bible. If we'd do that, people could stop being uptight with me and other apologists for simply doing discernment (even though some of my apologetics brethren are just antsy to pick a fight with anybody on any miniscule issue that tweaks them).

Our next email update will contain a quick checklist of a few things to look out for concerning the "New, Truly Confused Evangelicals." In the meanwhile, have a terrific week and remember, keep your Bible open!

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

5

Part 2

What to Watch For

Though the list below is far from exhaustive, here are some points to consider about the new Postmodern/Emergent "Evangelicals." Points to look out for are: 1) The downplaying of the ultimate authority and importance of the Bible.

Most heretical teachers won't come right out and flatly deny the Bible, but countless liberals, Emergents, and those of the Postmodern mindset use differing techniques to redefine the Bible.

Some merely bemoan biblical inerrancy, accepting only part of the Bible as accurate and teaching a limited soteriology. To them I ask: How do we know the Bible is accurate on salvation if it's not on creation or history? Others use the popular tag "Let's not argue about the Bible. After all, it's all about Jesus, right?" Really? How does one accept what Jesus said and what the Bible teaches about Him and then try to deny portions of Scripture? According to John 1:1 and 1:14, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate! They are inseparable.

Take A Stand! Ministries

6

Then others simply want to fashion Christianity into an unrecognizable religion yet call it Christianity.

Popular author, Phyllis Tickle, states: "Now, some five hundred years later (after Luther), even many of the most die-hard Protestants among us have grown suspicious of 'Scripture and Scripture only.' We question what the words mean - literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even question which words do and do not belong in Scripture..." (The Great Emergence, p.46).

Along with his affinity against Israel, his opposition to biblical eschatology, his pro-gay marriage position, and his belief that there is no Hell, Brian McLaren contends that being orthodox is "how we search for a kind of truth" (i.e., it's all about "the journey," where nothing is absolute, and not actually the truth itself. He believes that right behavior trumps right beliefs (see A Generous Orthodoxy, p.28).

Emergent/Postmodern so-called theologian Tony Jones says, "The emerging church is a place of conversation and movement. Where that's going to go, we don't know. We're figuring this out together. We don't have an agenda of what it looks like at the end of the road. We just want to gather up people who are on this road, who want to go together on it" (PBS Special, July 15, 2005).

Perhaps as disturbing is McLaren's contention that "Missional Christian faith asserts that Jesus did not come to make some people saved and others condemned. Jesus did not come to help some people be right while leaving everyone else to be wrong. Jesus did not come to create another exclusive religion (based on beliefs)" (A Generous Orthodoxy, p.120).

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

7

2) Redefinition of previously Orthodox terms

When my friend Pastor Chris Bayer and I attended Brian McLaren's "Everything Must Change" tour stop at Nampa, Idaho, February 7-9, 2008, he stated that:

a.) Jesus' use of the term "Kingdom of God" was political and not spiritual. Calling it a "peace network," "eco-system of God," or God's "global love economy," he said that it is up to us to bring it to pass.

b.) The word salvation means us saving the planet!

c.) McLaren intimated that when passages like John 3:16 refer to the word "world," it really means physical Earth and not the lost humans on it!

McLaren confirms this outlandish idea in his book A Generous Orthodoxy, stating, "For the first time, through the EASTERN JESUS, I began to have a glimpse of how Jesus could indeed be the Savior of not just a few individual humans but of the whole world" (A Generous Orthodoxy, p.65).

He further confirms this notion in a footnote relating to this statement on page 66, stating, "By the 'whole world,' I do not necessarily mean every individual in it, but rather, I mean the cosmos, creation, the earth in history...."

3) Abandonment of orthodox doctrines

This is usually selectively and, again, with redefinitions. I caution particularly that you not look just for errors in what is being taught but carefully watch for essentials of the Faith that are being ignored and left out of the overall teaching of those who claim to be evangelicals. Omission - to ignore what one doesn't like - is part of our fallen Adamic nature

Take A Stand! Ministries

8

and is an important key to understanding what is happening in evangelicalism today.

4) Redefine the Mission and Purpose of the Church

The term "evangelical" previously meant bringing individuals into a personal relationship with Christ. Now, at least to some, it's defined as bringing people into a setting that claims to be the Church in order to experience the journey of their earthly lives, including the notion that by their participation they are thus extended salvation. We could expect this from outright liberal heretics such as Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who began her tenure by announcing to the 2009 General Convention that the teaching of personal salvation is "the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God" (Associated Press, OneNewsNow, July 9, 2009).

Tragically, numerous "new evangelicals" ascertain that the Church has never previously had it right and now teach this idea of collective, corporate salvation. Perhaps you have never encountered this heresy, but it is now circulating through once truly evangelical circles; the Scriptures soundly refute it concerning repentance (Mark 1:15, 6:12; Luke 5:32, 13:3-7; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 8:22; II Peter 3:9; Rev 3:3), and belief, confession, and acceptance of Jesus' redemptive sacrifice for our own sins (I John 4:15, 5:1-5, 5:10-13; Romans 10:9-10, 13; Acts 4:12; John 3:3-7, 3:16, etc.).

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

9

The Results

a) Corrupted Theology b) Corrupted Christology c) Corrupted Pneumatology d) Corrupted Ecclesiology e) Degraded standard for behavior, conduct, and practice f) Blurring of the lines between religions (i.e. ecumenism,

universalism) g) Perverted view of or no interest in Bible Prophecy

The entire problem facing the Church today boils down to our willingness to accept the supremacy and ultimate authority of the Bible. Unless we and our leaders are wholly submitted to its teaching we are surely headed for shipwreck.

Evangelicalism is experiencing nothing less than a "Satanic Redo" mirroring the liberal destruction and apostasies of 100-150 years ago. Just as a century ago, the battle is over the Word of God. But that's really no surprise when one considers Lucifer's first communication to mankind: "Hath God Said?"

Resources:

Understanding The Times Radio, "The 'New' Confused Evangelicals" June 22, 2013 edition. Listen at: http://www.olivetreeviews.org/radio/complete-archives

"The Errors of the Emergent Church" http://www.ericbarger.com/errors.emergent.htm

"How to Spot Emergent Church in YOUR Church" (article and downloadable pamphlet): http://www.ericbarger.com/How_to_Spot_Emergent_Church.pdf

Take A Stand! Ministries

10

Since first becoming aware of the “Seeker Sensitive” phenomenon back in the 1990s I have considered it a flawed concept. In an effort to attract unchurched people, the “Seeker Sensitive” movement suggested that churches should cater to the comforts of the “seeker” and should update both style and presentation so as to make the experience – and the Gospel - less offensive. By eliminating the alleged “negative” elements deemed a “turn off” to the world, such as talk of sin and repentance, “Seeker” advocates assured us we’d fill the seats on Sunday morning. But since the Holy Spirit is the most seeker sensitive being in the Universe, who are we to monkey around with the message He has already given the Church to present? Do we think we can do better? Besides, who is more sensitive and better equipped to save a seeker than the Holy Spirit? Isn’t it a fact that unless we present the unadulterated Gospel we indeed hinder the Spirit from doing His convicting work in the hearts of men? The “Seeker” idea lacked anointing and appeared perilously misguided and now, after all of the books, seminars, conferences and surveys the brain trust who popularized “Seeker Sensitive” is admitting they’ve been wrong all along. Duh.

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

11

Chicago’s Willow Creek Community Church has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. A new book, Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Willow Creek insiders, Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, states that the so-called “Seeker model,” popularized by Bill Hybels, is a “failure.” Hybels himself called the findings “earth shaking,” “ground breaking” and “mind blowing.”

Hybels states: “We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.”

Incredibly, the guru of church growth now tells us that people need to be reading their bibles and taking responsibility for their own spiritual growth!

Ohio Christian radio talk show host and commentator, Bob Burney, reiterated the crux of why so many of us haven’t been fans of Hybels approach to ministry. He said, “The new report reveals that most of what they (Willow Creek) have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples.”

Burney continues, “The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry was, in large part, a ‘mistake.’ The extent of this error defies measurement.”

Take A Stand! Ministries

12

On a quest for the newest “thing” and enamored by the sheer numbers flocking to services at mega-churches like Willow Creek and Saddleback, countless shepherds began tweaking with the untweakable. To varying extents, they traded in the New Testament Book of Acts model of preaching and discipleship for what amounts to religious folly. Who can calculate the damage done by leaders who persuaded leaders to change the Church to suit the fancy of the world?

Though marginalized as relics from an unenlightened era, concerned Bible believers have been crying out for a summary rejection of the “Seeker” nonsense for some time. Now, “Seeker” proponents are suddenly dismayed by the hard fact that great numbers of their “converts” have dried up like skim milk on a hot Texas afternoon. But it doesn’t appear they are ready to come all the way out of their quagmire just yet.

Perhaps the most amazing thing I have seen concerning the Willow Creek admission is that these leaders, whose ministry philosophy changed the practice and thinking of thousands of churches over the last 20+ years, are still looking for whatever it was they thought they had found when they first told us that “Seeker Sensitive” was the answer! Read the next statement carefully.

Greg Hawkins stated, “Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet.”

This is what the “Seeker Sensitive” leaders have been saying from day one! And now they want to “replace it (the

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

13

original Seeker model)with new insights…informed by research...” (i.e. more market surveys)? Hold on just a minute. Wasn’t it the assumption that the Church was a failure and that we needed to study the culture to find a fix exactly what brought us this mess in the first place? So let me get this straight. As sincere as they may be and as much as the claim what they’re up to is “rooted in Scripture,” the “Seeker” advocates have sowed what amounts to spiritual poison into countless lives and convinced thousands of churches to abandon truly biblical plans and now Hawkins, Hybels and the rest want another chance at getting it right? I’m all for second chances but in this case, no thanks.

The Church Growth gurus may have started with good intentions but in reality have sold us a false bill of goods. Following the fads, schemes and flowery “positive” messages of men, many have become deeply entrenched in the here-and-now “feel good” philosophies. Frankly, the lack of authority given to the Scriptures in so many church circles has paved the way for the postmodern attitudes that have shown biblical righteousness and holy standards the door. Doctrine and standards are viewed as hindrances and salvation, it appears, is secured by simply thinking nice thoughts about Jesus. The result is that many of yesterday's Evangelicals either haven't quite finished becoming liberals yet - or haven’t realized they are in the process of becoming apostate.

Thankfully, the chorus of voices now challenging the deception is growing. Some people are going to take heed. Many will not. Let’s pray that Bill Hybels not merely look for a new model to endorse but that he and others from the “Seeker” vein will seek God and not their own understanding.

Take A Stand! Ministries

14

Remember: our mission in these disturbing times is to (1) keep standing calmly against what is nothing short of a revolt against absolute truth from inside the Church and (2) pray for the anointing and courage to help turn those who will listen back to truth, one at a time.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. – Acts 2:42

Bring Eric Barger to YOUR Church or Conference!

Visit www.ericbarger.com or call 214-289-5244 for details.

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

15

By Eric Barger

There is no doubt that we live in the age of ever increasing apostasy. The authentic Church, or “remnant,” spoken of in the Book of Revelation appears to be shrinking, at least in our western culture. And growing numbers of those who remain steadfast and faithful to the Word of God are becoming acutely aware of false teaching and false teachers dotting the Christian landscape.

As many now display a “form of godliness” but “deny the power thereof," it is becoming evident that these surely are the “perilous times” the Apostle Paul warned Timothy of in II Timothy 3:1. As we watch the end-times unfold, I praise God for each and every real believer who employs discernment and is doing their best to watch for and warn about that which is counterfeit. But as one examines doctrine, practice, and those who teach throughout Christendom, one question is constantly voiced: where does a discerning Christian draw the line in

Take A Stand! Ministries

16

determining what is false teaching and who is a false teacher? This is perhaps one of the most difficult and divisive parts of apologetics.

Where is the Dividing Line?

Recently I was part of a panel discussion on national radio that spent an hour discussing this topic. On the June 16, 2012, “Understanding The Times” program,[1]I co-hosted along with ministry founder, Jan Markell, Jill Martin Rische (daughter of the late Dr. Walter Martin), and Executive Producer Larry Kutzler. The program was titled “When Contending Becomes Cantankerous” and the questions we posed were: When it comes to differences in doctrine and practice, at what point do we sever fellowship with another Christian? What legitimately constitutes someone being called a “false teacher?” And, at what point is error sufficient or egregious enough to deserve the tag of “false teaching” or “heresy?”

The program was born out of numerous discussions I have had over the past year with my friend, Jan Markell. Both Jan and I have become increasingly uncomfortable, even disturbed, with the tone and lack of civility being portrayed by some within the apologetics and discernment community of speakers, writers, and commentators. We’ve watched, listened, and have tried to intervene as assorted discernment ministries have fired shots at others inside Christianity over issues that fall miserably short of what has always been considered heresy. A troubling precedent has been spawned by some, lending validation to the idea that it’s perfectly acceptable to publicly rake anyone over the coals for nearly any theological reason. Jan and I are not alone in our dismay with what is happening. Other leaders have voiced the same concern to us in recent days and mind you, the issue is not concerning any rejection of the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ. Nor is it related to the pseudo-Christian yet cultic Emergent heresy or the seducing web with which spiritual liberalism ensnares so

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

17

many. The type of “discernment” that I’m referring to here doesn’t involve someone’s denial of the essential doctrines of the faith. Instead, what these squabbles really amount to are nothing more than disagreements on secondary doctrines, styles of worship, and peripheral practices.

I think it’s needful for each Christian to be able to express positions or hold beliefs on the so-called secondary issues, but is biblical apologetics about denigrating others and in effect besmirching entire ministries based on disagreements about side issues? For some, this is what it’s become, and worse. The field of discernment has, at least in part, become a hotbed of separatism that seems to far exceed biblical standards.

Secondary Separation?

Many may not be familiar with the phrase “secondary separation” and though others may use the term differently, this is my phrasing of how we defined it during the June 16 “Understanding the Times” radio broadcast. “Secondary separation” is the breaking of fellowship with another Christian over issues not primary butsecondary to one’s salvation. Such separation is often accompanied by the public renunciation of the other party. Often, secondary separation becomes a divisive issue which exerts pressure on other individuals to have nothing to do with a party deemed “unclean” or “heretical” by a particular influential writer or speaker.

The Bible certainly speaks of ostracizing individuals for a variety of reasons. To disfellowship someone who is living in sin and refuses to repent or who has denied the Gospel is indeed the proper course to take. I have no problem with biblically-based separation and I believe the radio panel would all concur. However, the brand of secondary separation being promoted by some in the discernment world today appears to be nothing more than an unseemly type of religious bigotry

Take A Stand! Ministries

18

having precious little to do with offenses against the essential doctrines of biblical Christianity.

Nowadays secondary separation is often endorsed when a writer or teacher is, at least in the estimation of some apologists’, in error even though the issue at hand may only be concerning a minor, non-essential doctrine or practice. Perhaps worse, we’ve watched as one writer sadly blasts another in an apparent effort to forward his or her own peripheral viewpoints – all at the other’s expense. From what is sometimes only one pen or keyboard, judgment is meted out against the suspected offender as newsletters are printed, blogs are published, seminars are given, and whole ministries and reputations are possibly done irreversible harm. All this takes place no matter how flimsy the evidence presented may be, and often over non-essential theologies! This should disgust the Christian community and I fear for the next generation of apologists (and those they’ll likely influence) who are being schooled by this example.

Before anyone misinterprets my statement about "non-essential theologies" to say that I think some doctrines don't matter, let me set the record straight. There are doctrines that each and every person who correctly calls himself or herself a Christian must align with. These are clearly and simply outlined in the two great creeds of the Church: The Apostles Creed and the larger Nicene Creed. However,there are many issues that are not "heaven and hell" or essential doctrines that are not mentioned in the Creeds.

Are these other doctrines important? Yes. Should we study and develop our own positions on these secondary issues? Without question. Should we passionately defend our positions and also occasionally disagree with others inside the Body of Christ concerning non-essentials? Of course, as long as it is done in a right spirit and presented for the ultimate unification of believers.

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

19

Should a disagreement about any individual secondary doctrine by itself lead to the termination of calling someone else a brother or sister in Christ, possibly followed by a public expose' against them? Absolutely not, and if someone is doing this and calling it "discernment," I suggest it be flatly rejected! Until the Church rejects the venomous battering of Christians by other Christians merely pushing their pet theologies, we will continue to exist in various "us and them" camps where some are simply intent on impugning others for the sake of making points with their followers and proving themselves "right."

With that said, let me add this important caveat. While the Apostles Creed embodies the non-negotiable beliefs of the faith, it should be noted that an over emphasis on, or an abandonment of, any number of the non-essential beliefs and practices can lead to corrupted -- even cultic theology. I'm not intimating that non-essential beliefs and practices should be ignored by discerners. But as I've stated here and elsewhere, how we conduct ourselves in disagreement with other Christians must be governed by a genuine spirit of love. The point in citing the Apostles Creed here is that it provides a good starting point when examining one's beliefs and in determining if teachers, churches, or even entire denominations or fellowships are orthodox or aberrant.

So-called “secondary separation” has spread throughout the apologetics world like a brush fire in dry timber. Its flames have licked at the heels of almost everyone who speaks or writes on discernment issues. The fear of reprisal and rejection by their peers has probably silenced some who are uncomfortable with what might be called “discernment separatism.” I’ve watched as this has nearly become expected of apologists because of the unfettered promotion by some of the other teachers. Obviously, I didn’t get the memo. I don’t believe it’s of God for me to live out the conviction of others about whom they think is fit for me to associate with, be interviewed by, share a speaking platform with, or befriend. If I succumb to shunning others over disagreements of peripheral doctrine or practice (so as to gain

Take A Stand! Ministries

20

acceptance or avoid the ire of my peers), am I then no better than a double-minded politician who’s willing to ignore his conscience for a vote?

Frankly, this kind of sniping directed at others inside the Body of Christ sets off alarm bells in me. As passionate as I am for sound doctrine, I wonder if it could be that we are watching an actual fulfillment of what Jesus spoke about concerning some of the perils of life in the end of days?

“And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Mathew 24:10-12, emphasis added)

Betrayal in the Body is running reckless and some of it stems from the very ones who we have looked to for discerning truth from error. In an effort to expose actual false teachers some of my discernment brethren have constructed a criterion that extends dangerously outside of the essential doctrines of the faith. Once again, let me repeat: In effect, they have changed the rules of discernment based on their own non-essential beliefs – and seem intent on vilifying anyone whom they determine doesn’t fit their mold. As evil rises, the same “take no prisoners” approach that our society now exhibits has been adopted by some once-respected discernment and apologetics teachers. While it may be debatable as to whether or not all of those who’ve adopted this approach understand what has happened, I certainly don’t see much love being displayed when it comes to those they’ve determined need to be “exposed.”

False Teachers?

Considering the criteria some use to ascertain who is a “false teacher” or “false prophet” and how flippantly those devastating titles are ascribed today, I strongly suggest that when we hear

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

21

such statements we stop and carefully evaluate if, in fact, those words have any biblical basis for being used. Not everyone has all understanding on every doctrine or at any given point in time. I’m reminded of the story of the young evangelist, Apollos, in Acts 18. He didn’t have the complete theological picture but instead of finding himself publicly excoriated, he was encouraged and nurtured in his faith by two more mature saints. Instead of doing a public expose’ on Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla reflected true Christian love and took him aside to help him. Rather than just prove to the Christian world how right they were and how ignorant and incorrect Apollos was, they built him up when it appears by the standards of some today they could have torn him apart. I shudder to think how many like Apollos have been crushed by some discerner bent on being right more than acting in love.

Scripture indicates that the early Church leaders experienced sharp disagreements but were able to work through their differences without maligning each other. The second chapter of Galatians reveals that Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch because Peter had operated hypocritically and his actions had caused even Barnabas to backslide. Interestingly, this episode involved separatism and Peter’s fear of reprisal if he didn’t conform. Note that Paul’s rebuke of Peter was done in a private setting and not in public. Notice too that, even though it involved issues critical to salvation, Paul didn’t go out and publicly ridicule and harangue Peter and those with him.

In Acts 15 there arose “dissention” and “much disputing” (v. 3 and 7) over circumcision as a prerequisite for salvation. The council at Jerusalem resulted, and the means of salvation by faith alone for all who believed was affirmed. Later in the very same chapter, Paul and Barnabas, who had stood in solidarity against imposing elements of the Law upon new converts, were at complete odds over whether to include John Mark in their next missionary journey. Their division on this was so serious that they completely split from one another. But did they try to destroy each other by constructing long diatribes about

Take A Stand! Ministries

22

the other’s alleged faults, or by criticizing the supposed poor choices in the other’s companions, or by trying to generally undermine the other’s ministry? No! Now think about our day. Perhaps having a website, a sizeable mailing list, or a radio program aren’t always such good things if we use them as the means for undermining and perhaps destroying other authentic, blood-bought Christians. How can God be pleased with that?

Understand that I am not saying we shouldn’t write on and point out things we disagree about, but, frankly, it is disgusting to see how those who hold to the extremes on these three - and other assorted issues - treat one another. Those who claim that the gifts and working of the Holy Spirit have ceased (cessationists) claim the charismatics are only into experiences and conversely the charismatics look down their somewhat superspiritual noses at the cessationists as if they are lacking something. Believers in a pre-trib rapture often act as though people who see the catching away of the Church as a post-trib event are nearly cultists and vice versa. And if you don’t see eternal security, predestination, and election in the specific way that either hard-core Calvinists or their antithesis, the Wesleyans, do, then they question your salvation!

Enough! Yes, teach your viewpoints with vigor, but refrain from character assassination. Unless someone disavows or adds to items listed in the Apostles Creed, they are our brother or sister in Christ and should be treated with respect, compassion, and love. How much clearer could the early Church Fathers have made it? Some doctrines are non-negotiable and some are not. Why are we trying to tack our particular peripheral beliefs onto the essentials, creating division instead of unity in the process? How refreshing it would be to witness ministers and groups that align on the essentials and learn to disagree agreeably on the peripheral issues.

Obviously, if I didn’t think that we desperately need a reset of our attitude within the apologetics community today, then I

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

23

wouldn’t effectively pin a target on my back by writing this. Please pray that those who have a voice in these matters will return to majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.

In response to a person who contacted me after reading one of my recent email updates, I wrote, “As for me, I’m going to conduct our ministry with a hard line on heresy concerning the central/essential doctrines. I’m going to expose cultic beliefs and I’m going to name names when wolves masquerade inside the Church. But before I set out to ‘expose’ another, the general rule of thumb will be to ask myself the following question: Is the perceived error in question an addition to or a subtraction from the central, essential, non-negotiable doctrinal themes found in the Apostles Creed? If not, I’m going to proceed with great care, caution, and prayer before I dare drag what ever is in question out into the public arena on secondary issues alone. Additionally, if there is going to be any exception to that rule, I am going to go out of my way to make contact and have genuine dialog with the party involved before any such public expose’ is undertaken.”

As I told the individual who emailed me, I’m not advocating a less virulent approach when it comes to real error and apostasy. But let’s not confuse what error is and who the enemy is. I’m still going to do as my ministry name suggests – “Take A Stand!” I just don’t want us to become known as “Take A Shot!” or “Take A Stab!”

Take A Stand! Ministries

24

Using the guise of "discernment," some individuals have been using their platform in the apologetics community as a means to promulgate a brand of sad, critical Christianity. While predicated upon little more than an attempt to elevate their own narrow views concerning peripheral doctrines, these so-called "super discerners" operate with a grating, holier-than-thou brashness. Painting those who dare disagree on virtually any point as ignorant or foolish, these few brothers (?) spare little in an effort to bully others into conformity. This "scorched earth" methodology is an evil, divisive plan that only Satan could concoct. And who has fallen into it? Apologists who should know better! And why? Perhaps pride and perhaps greed have blinded some to break fellowship over non-essential issues that should otherwise be off limits. Besides the actual issues themselves, the environment created is, frankly, a twisted form of religious bigotry that has created enemies among third parties who have been and should still be allies - and all of this inside the Body of Christ! The "us and them" atmosphere that has resulted from pretentious, created controversies pertaining to peripheral doctrines and practices is poisonous - and unbiblical. Considering this, is it any wonder that some in the Church now reject anyone or anything pertaining to apologetics? As tragic as that fact may be, the biggest victim is likely the very ministry of apologetics itself. What if the next generation of apologists mistakenly takes its cue from those who are currently more interested in promoting their own personal brand

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

25

of sterilized Christianity than they are in truly defending biblical faith?

Truth must be the motivator of discernment. But biblical apologetics isn't about proving how correct one is and how heretical another may be - especially on secondary issues. Though discernment is often about exposing darkness and warning the Church concerning aberrant theology and practice, we should always evaluate what spirit discernment is being carried out in. Do we dare treat others in the Body of Christ with public disdain, even refusing to communicate with them concerning points that have never before been classified as "central" or "essential" doctrine? Discernment at any level must be conducted in an authentic spirit of correction with grace as the barometer for our words and actions. Otherwise we become little more than a "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (I Cor. 13:1).

Discernment's Dirty Little Secret

While these few "super discerners" long to call the rest of us ignorant fools, there is an underlying motive at work here that needs to be uncovered. The dirty little secret is that the driving force behind these narrow discerners is to prove that God no longer heals or speaks to His children in any way. This unspoken elephant in the discernment room is that God either can't or doesn't do what He has always done. This is the undercurrent that literally guides the ministries of the narrow discerners. This stringent cessationism (i.e., the belief that God has ceased healing or speaking to His people, etc.) now taints their every move like a gangster running the mafia from the shadows and dictates that, when convenient, these blinded discerners impugn any believer who disagrees. The only problems for them are Church history and the pages of the very Bible itself. Yes, excesses abound among Charismatics and counterfeits are surely in abundance. Of this we agree. But regardless, God continues the miraculous no matter who may disagree. One would certainly think that the narrow discerners

Take A Stand! Ministries

26

would become weary of constantly claiming the contrary - all due to their dominate cessationist mindset. In spite of any arguments against such, God thankfully still heals, speaks to the hearts of His children, and delivers emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and, yes, physically for He has not changed. Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). Praise God! To paint every Pentecostal believer with the broad brush of error or, worse yet, as somehow embracing the demonic should be renounced by biblical Christians of every stripe. How tragic that the few narrow discerners have made cessationism their rally cry at the expense of other brothers in Christ.

It is one thing when the Bible is ignored or when central doctrine is dashed and abandoned. Issues like that must be exposed and dealt with. However, this is not what I am addressing, nor is this really the basis of much of the "discernment" going on today. Besides building their own narrow band of followers (and padding the resulting mailing lists) what are the results from these holier-than-thou discernment leaders? Just as hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Arminianism have left a trail of confused, destroyed lives in their wake, hyper-cessationism is perhaps the single most destructive force at work among authentic believers today as it divides authentically saved people into two camps that do little more than ridicule and resent the other. Astoundingly, it is this underlying bigotry - being misrepresented as "sound apologetics" - that is also being used to pass judgment on any blood-bought believer who disagrees as well.

Though I am again resisting the temptation to name them, I am calling on truly discernment-minded Christians to beware of those who use the mere shell of apologetics but who come in the wrong spirit and who actually push their own peripheral agendas in the name of "discernment." True Christians can have a difference of opinion on many issues without trying to play "gotcha" in order to discredit those we disagree with. We need each other in the Body of Christ and those set on tearing down or even destroying another believer - over purely

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

27

secondary ideas and beliefs - are only helping Satan accomplish his vile mission.

One final word. Those who fit the description I've warned of in this piece (and in an accompanying video clip on my YouTube channel) need to simply repent if for no other reason because they have one thing in common: a haughty spirit. Let's not forget what the Bible says about that.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).

Take A Stand! Ministries

28

Clearing up the Misconceptions about The Apostles Creed

As a writer and speaker I am always amazed at how fairly insignificant points made in print or in a message are occasionally picked up on and, for various reasons, become crucial points to some who are reading or listening. In fact, often these side points become as important as anything the one communicating is trying to convey in the message or article. Sometimes, because of the background of the person in reception of them, particular things said or read just stick out. One such case occurred over the past few days as a result of a passing comment I made in my article "When Discernment Turns Ugly."

A few people wrote wondering why I mentioned the Apostles Creed favorably. Some were perplexed, particularly former Roman Catholics, because they've come to believe that the Apostles Creed was a Catholic invention. Some from denominational backgrounds bristled because the Creed was something merely repeated in church services past and it likely dredged up old and unpleasant memories of religion based on form and not on a relationship with Jesus.

So, as a point of instruction here, I felt that including one of the notes I received concerning this and my reply would be helpful to many. In fact, when I sent what you are about to read to my editor, she immediately chimed back that she and one of her close friends had been discussing this very thing yesterday as a result of Jan Markell's (olivetreeviews.org) forwarding the abridged version of my article to her subscribers a few days ago.

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

29

Let me say up front that I am not what some would call "creedal." I have never been a part of a church that employed the Apostles Creed (or any of the various other creeds from the past). Nor have I ever been a Roman Catholic or in any way friendly to the RCC. Anyone who knows me understands how opposed I am to both the Roman papal system and the extra-biblical religious trap that is Catholicism. It is pretty shocking to me that one pastor, who I thought I knew and who I thought knew me, has accused me of being a closet Catholic of some sort! How silly yet scary at the same time that any other Christian would resort to making these kind of wild claims - yet hasn't even bothered to call or even email me concerning it. I suspect that such a statement is but an attack on me because I dared to rock the boat of some with "When Discernment Turns Ugly."

Regardless, rest assured that I am not a Catholic. (It seems ridiculous to me to even have to say that.) I'm kind of in shock at such an accusation but such is life in the world of apologetics, especially in an age of extremes. After 30 years in this ministry, I'm resolved that I can't please everyone, and the same article may cause people to hurl opposite insults at you, one claiming you're a liberal and another crowing that you are a legalist instead.

With all of that said, I challenge any true Bible-believer to just erase the title "Apostles Creed" from the top and then carefully go through each of the twelve points in it. As you do, ask yourself, "Is there any offense or error in any of these points?" At first glance some might think there are and, as proven by the reaction I received from a few folks after reading my article, some might never understand or receive what's in the Creed if it's, well, "in the Creed." Nevertheless, what it embodies is simply the nuts and bolts of essential Christianity, something I learned to embrace above all

Take A Stand! Ministries

30

peripheral issues long ago from my mentor, the late Dr. Walter Martin. The Apostles Creed, as I point out in the following piece, contains the non-negotiable doctrines that glue us together as believers and, more importantly, that cement us to the Savior, Jesus Christ.

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

31

Some History on the Apostles Creed

Could it be "Catholic" ??? (A response to a question from a reader)

Hi Rita,

I appreciate your writing and I think I have some help for you. First, I am so glad that you are free from the bondage of Roman Catholicism. Praise God. Now, to answer your points.

If you read my article carefully then you know it was about the tone and culture of the discernment community. However, the trigger provided by the words "Apostles Creed" was troubling to you as a former Catholic. I understand and I assume you would agree with that.

More than an endorsement of the Apostles Creed with no questions asked, my hope was to give readers a starting point on determining essential doctrines when thinking about and carrying out discernment. However, in an article like "When Discernment Turns Ugly," which I grant is running against the grain of the way many folks think or operate, I can understand how mentioning anything like the Creed can cause a sidetrack. I readily agree that there are a couple of passages in the creed that can be troubling, especially without complete understanding, and more so if one comes from a Catholic background and is now free of its chains. Anyway, here goes. I hope what I'll write here helps you and proves to answer your questions.

First, we know historically that the Apostles Creed (A.C.) is the oldest such creed of the Church and has been around long

Take A Stand! Ministries

32

before the advent of Romanism. I know that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has claimed it as their own but that doesn't necessarily make it theirs, at least not without a proper Protestant protest anyway. Following are some facts.

Like many of the teachings in the early Church, the Apostles Creed was passed down from one generation to another and contained what the majority of Protestant scholars through the ages simply believe to be the teaching of the Apostles. Though the early Church leaders dealt with many other doctrines and practices outside those spoken of in the A.C., the Creed's original form enumerated the non-negotiable doctrines and truths upon which our faith rests. I am confident that the A.C. is not a Roman Catholic invention steeped in RCC edicts. Instead, it is a Christian creed, a tract from the early Church, if you will, that served to represent to an uninformed world the core beliefs of our faith.

Historically, the earliest trace of the Apostle’s Creed goes back to Ignatius, who lived in the late first and early second centuries AD - long before the roots of Romanism began to abscond with and pervert the faith. Though the RCC claims ownership of the A.C., it is believed that the early church father Hippolytus may have influenced the formation of the Creed as well.

The Creed was crafted to:

1) Be a statement of faith to the world of exactly what this new sect known as “Christians” believed.

2) Though we have no incontrovertible hard evidence of such, I do think there are good grounds to believe that the theological specifics of the A.C. appear to have been originally formulated as a refutation of Gnosticism, an early heresy. This can be seen in almost every phrase. A major focus by Church leaders in the second century (known in Church history as "the Age of the Apologists") was to rebuke, refute, and correct cultic heresies (such as Marcionism and Docetism). Note that

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

33

Marcion or Sinope lived in the mid-second century, dying in AD 160, well before the rise of Romanism.

The Apostles Creed reinforced and affirmed the Trinity. It clearly enunciated the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. It reinforced the equality of Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. The Creed dealt with sin, judgment, and the resurrection of each and every human being.

And as you have pointed out in your email, the Apostles Creed, which most of us in the Church today are familiar with, left two lingering questions that a former Catholic would naturally be sensitive to. The first of these, of course, is the beginning of part five of the Creed - "He descended into hell." This statement relates to a passage in I Peter 3.

The Scriptures do not indicate that Christ went anywhere to suffer after His death on the Cross. When He uttered on Golgotha "It is finished," He meant it and it was! So those who think or teach that He languished for many hours in some sort of tortured state must go outside of the Bible to get Him there!

Pastor Ray Prichard of Keep Believing Ministries points out that the meat of I Peter 3:18-21 boils down to these four items concerning Jesus:

He died (v. 18). He preached (v. 19). He rose from the dead (v. 21). He sits at God’s right hand (v. 22).

The questions of to whom and where Jesus preached have troubled many theologians for more than the past 1900 years but we can be certain that (1) He indeed preached to someone in the spirit world and (2) they were prisoners.

Prichard asks the question and then concludes the following, "Now where does that leave us with regard to 1 Peter 3:19? I

Take A Stand! Ministries

34

personally believe that Jesus preached to those demonic spirits and proclaimed his ultimate victory over them. To say that he “preached” to them does not mean that he offered salvation to them. Salvation is for humans, not for angels or demons. The verb “preached” means to make a public announcement. It’s what a herald would do when he went from city to city announcing the king’s decrees. I believe that Jesus, either between his death and resurrection or after his resurrection, proclaimed his victory to those demon spirits that rebelled so greatly against the Lord in Noah’s day."

Rita, I think we had best not be dogmatic here concerning to whom and exactly where Jesus preached, but Prichard makes the best case I know of, which is found in his article "The Triumphant Christ" at http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2005-03-13-The-Triumphant-Christ.

All of this lines up with the idea that Jesus entered "Hades," or the holding place of the dead, as a messenger personally delivering word of His eternal victory over Satan, his forces, evil, and the grave. The Greek word for both death and Hades is thanatos. Hades is haides in Greek or the place (or state) of departed souls. This is translated "grave" or "hell" in the King James Version. So, if we really understand what the phrase "He descended into hell" means, it shouldn't present a deal breaker for us. But there is more.

The Apostles’ Creed was not constructed or voted on by a single church or council at one specific time. But it began to emerge as a statement of faith in about A.D. 200. Interestingly, the phrase in question - "he descended into hell" - is not found in any of the early versions of the Apostles Creed (i.e., Rome, Italy and Africa).

Dr. Douglas Mar points out that "Without older versions to trace the historical development of the Creed, to determine whether there was an error of transmission or translation, the addition of

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

35

this phrase to the Creed will continue to be a mystery." Mar also states that at least some of the early Church Fathers, such as apologists Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) and Tertullian (A.D. 160-225), did not include the phrase "he descended into hell" in their writings that passed on the A.C., either. (http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/2JesusChrist/Crucifixion ConfusionApostlesCreed.aspx)

Just for the sake of history, let me add that the earliest RCC version of the AC, known as "The Old Roman Form," (associated with Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, about the year 337 or 338), also lacks the phrase "he descended into hell"

By A.D. 750, the Roman church officially included the phrase "he descended into hell" in the A.C., but again, suffice to say it was around long before Romanism became an issue.

The other point you mentioned won't take me quite as many words to address. That is "the holy catholic church."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states: “Catholic”

Main Entry: cath·o·lic Pronunciation: 'kath-lik, 'ka-th &-Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole.

1) of, relating to, or forming the church universal b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it.

As indicated here, the word "catholic" means "universal." If we are born again then we're a part of that Church, the "catholic" or universal Church around the world. However, we are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Take A Stand! Ministries

36

The last point I want to address is the reference you made to the Nicene Creed.

Your quote about baptism concerns me as well. Faith and repentance lead us to forgiveness - not baptism. However, the Creed you are citing is not the original Nicene Creed (which was produced at the first council of Nicea in 325, a meeting of 318 leaders). The phrase about baptism first appeared in "The Constantinopolitan Creed of 381." Though I couldn't find any solid history on how, why, or who actually inserted it into the Creed commonly called the Nicene Creed today, the idea is obviously derived from Acts 2:38 and was a product of the meeting of about 150 bishops in A.D. 381 - not the A.D. 325 meeting at Nicea. We know that participants of the meeting in 381 were particularly interested in strengthening their stand against the heresy of Arianism but in doing so, the "Enlarged Nicene Creed of 381," as it is now called, did indeed include a statement that appears to teach baptismal regeneration, at least at first glance. Again, my mention of the Nicene Creed in the "Discernment" article was meant only as a side point and was in no way meant to be a main topic. If you'd like to study these points more, here are two in-depth resources on both the Creeds and how they developed and also on the question of baptism for salvation.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.iii.html

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm

I hope this information has helped you.

Again, God bless you and thanks for writing!

The Truly Confused Evangelicals

37

The Apostles Creed "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;

who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;

the holy catholic Church; (i.e. "universal" see below)

the communion of saints;

the forgiveness of sins;

the resurrection of the body;

and the life everlasting. AMEN."

Eric's Comments:

The Apostles Creed embodies the central or essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Absent is any discussion of forms of baptism, spiritual gifts, eschatology, church membership, and other peripheral issues. As important as these and other

Take A Stand! Ministries

38

secondary issues and doctrines are, adherence to any particular position or teaching on them is not essential for eternal salvation. Likewise, the Creed does not address repentance as a prerequisite for salvation or the role that good works play in the life of a believer. (Just to be clear, our salvation is dependent on Jesus Christ and His sacrifice alone. I often say "Christians don't work to get saved, we work because we're saved.")

While the Apostles Creed embodies the non-negotiable beliefs of the faith, it should be noted that an over emphasis on or an abandonment of any number of the non-essential beliefs and practices can lead to corrupted even cultic theology. However, the Apostles Creed provides a good starting point when examining doctrinal beliefs that are crucial in examining if teachers, churches, or even entire denominations or fellowships are orthodox or aberrant.

NOTE on the use of "catholic" in The Apostles Creed: This NOT referring to the Roman Catholic/papal system.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary "Catholic" means

Main Entry: cath·o·lic Pronunciation: 'kath-lik' Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole.

1) of, relating to, or forming the church universal (b) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it.

39

“Discerning the Times in the Light of the Word”

Presenting Eric Barger & Take A Stand! Ministries

“We exist to see the Lost Saved and the Church Changed by the Power of Jesus Christ!”

After spending two decades immersed in the world as a record producer, rock musician, drug addict, and New Ager, Eric Barger (pronounced Bar-jer) is now widely recognized in the area of Christian Apologetics and Discernment Ministry. Eric’s Take A Stand! Ministries confronts both the culture and the Church, focusing on the Cults, World Religions, the Occult, Spiritual Warfare, Bible prophecy, and the troubling unbiblical trends and doctrinal issues facing Christians in these end days. He is the author of numerous books, including the best-seller From Rock to Rock, Entertaining Spirits Unaware: The End-Time Occult Invasion (with co-author David Benoit) and Disarming the Powers of Darkness. Eric has written for USA Today and has been interviewed by hundreds of print and electronic media outlets, including Time Magazine and Fox News. His articles are now syndicated on dozens of biblically-based prophetic and apologetics websites and blogs.

40

Eric has been a featured guest on many Christian and secular programs, such as Southwest Radio Ministries, Christ in Prophecy with Dr. David Reagan, Understanding the Times with Jan Markell, Point of View with the late Marlin Maddoux, Unraveling the New World Order with Dr Larry Bates, TCT Network's Rejoice, and Canada’s 100 Huntley Street. Eric Barger is also now the co-host of the weekly radio broadcast Understanding The Times with Jan Markell. October, 2013, marked the beginning of Eric Barger’s 31st year of full-time apologetics and discernment ministry. Each year he travels extensively across the US and Canada presenting his multi-media "Take A Stand!" Seminars in conferences, churches, and Christian schools. With Evangelicals continuing to steadily slide into doctrinal chaos, Eric Barger is a voice of biblically-based reason -- and warning. Refuting unscriptural ecumenism, universalism, the normalization of Mormonism, Islam, and other religious systems, such as the New Age Movement, has been the longtime focus of Take A Stand! For several years, Eric has now been shining the light of truth on the heretical encroachment of Postmodernism in the Church through the Emergent Church movement. The Take A Stand! seminar messages on this topic have become the most requested live seminars and video teachings he has ever produced. Eric Barger is an ordained minister with United Evangelical Churches. He serves on the executive and advisory boards of ministries such as Jan Markell’s Olive Tree Ministries, Columbia River Fellowship, and the apologetics group, Saints Alive in Jesus. Eric and his wife, Melanie, have two grown daughters and four grandchildren. To schedule Eric Barger’s seminars for your church or community,

for media interviews, or for more information, please visit us at www.ericbarger.com or call 214-289-5244.

Take A Stand! Ministries - POB 279 - Spanaway, WA 98387 - 214-289-5244

Website – www.ericbarger.com Email – [email protected]

41

42