1. The definition, examples and agenda of Political Correctness
    2. The definition and agenda of Religious Correctness
    3. Examples & Dangers of Religious Correctness
    4. Defeating Religious Correctness

DEFINITION, Examples & Agenda of Political Correctness:

In order to understand Religious Correctness, as I am using the term, we must also understand Political Correctness.
Political Correctness is a group of both written and unwritten ideas, definitions of words and redefinitions of words that
are used to establish a code of conduct and a way of thinking that all people in the culture must adhere to or suffer
painful penalties. However, if one does adhere to Political Correctness, the culture is quick to grant liberal rewards and
great opportunity for advancement either politically or practically. In politics and culture Political Correctness came to
replace the term “party line” that was popular in radical American politics up to the 1980’s. The party referred to was the
Communist Party. An important aspect of the “party line” was the proper use of words. Even then it was important to vilify
“capitalists and the rich.” Even today the liberals encourage us to use appropriate left wing terminology and discourage
us from using “inappropriate” outdated and offensive language.

When I became a Christian in the Berkeley, California area in 1969 I was quite surprised that the views that I had
previously held were almost totally against the Scriptures. This was because the left wing organizations that I was
involved with taught us unscriptural and anti-scriptural principles.

The party line taught hatred for the law of God. Two principles that I heard many times were: 1) the ultimate goal of
communism was anarchy or lawlessness and 2) religion was the opiate of the people. Their cultural and political views
were almost COMPLETELY against God’s Word and Christianity. The party line that I had learned seemed to support
EVERYTHING that was against Scripture and HATE everything that was in Scripture.

Later in the 1980’s or 90’s the term “party line” began to go out of fashion. The term “Politically Correct” supplanted the
older term. Over the decades following I came to learn that what was true of the term party line was also true of the term
Political Correctness. At its heart both concepts are essentially Anti-Christ. Both phrases come from
Marxism/Communism which is essentially Anti-Christ. As most of us know, Communism is dead set against Christianity
and the Scriptures.

Most of us have a fairly good idea of what is Politically Correct and politically incorrect. For example, it is Politically
Correct to call people of the Negroid race African Americans or People of Color. It is now incorrect to call them Negroes.
It is politically incorrect to name your sports team anything to do with Native American people. For example names such
as the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves or Florida State Seminoles are now politically incorrect. It is Politically
Correct to look at criminals as victims of society or even more Politically Correct to recognize criminals as victims of
capitalism or the rich. There is a Politically Correct way to respond to Christians. There is a Politically Correct way to
treat or to view women. Because of the influence of feminism in the media and on the college campus, we no longer refer
to the head of a committee as “chairman” rather the head is to be called “chairperson.” Political Correctness even has a
handicap system to level the playing field. From an employer’s standpoint, it is economically advantageous to hire
women and people of color. However, it must be noted that if a woman of any color exhibits a Christian, conservative, or
capitalist view, she is essentially disqualified from receiving preferential treatment.

Another aspect of Political Correctness, as was earlier alluded to is the twisting and redefinition of terms and the removal
of words that represented the “old” order. It is also important if one is to be Politically Correct to use new words or use
different words, which speak of different concepts to replace the words of the old order. The impact of certain terms has
been changed significantly by Political Correctness. As was earlier mentioned, we cringe when someone is referred to as
a Negro. Terms such as the “rich” and “capitalist” have come to have a negative connotation in America. Both the rich
and capitalists are people that we cannot trust. Much of Political Correctness has as its goal the over sensitization of
people, and the creation of dissatisfaction with the present old fashioned male dominated puritanical capitalistic rulership
that needs to be overthrown. Women in general and many racial and national groups have become extremely sensitive
about what they are called by other people and how they are to be treated.

Women are particularly sensitive regarding their role as abused servants in the marriage relationship and how
motherhood has become just another shackle so they can be kept down. To be fair, in the last few years, many left wing
Hollywood movie actresses have made it clear that Motherhood is good. For a while in America the term Ms. had
supplanted the terms “Miss or Mrs.” by some in our culture. At that same time many women chose to either cast off the
last names they had been given by their husbands and use their maiden names or use a hyphenated name that included
both their last name and their husband’s last name. Some women expected their husbands to also use the hyphenated

The reason feminism is such an important issue in Political Correctness is because the Scriptures, especially the New
Testament, have such a unique view regarding the place of women in the marriage relationship. Heathen religions
typically have not protected women in the marriage relationship. Often they are just slaves of their husbands. In some
heathen religions, however, women are inordinately elevated as objects of reverence. In the Bible we see Baal worship
which denigrates women and Ashtorah worship which both elevates and perverts women. The Christian view of women
in the marriage relationship is that they are to be subject to their husbands, but the husband is commanded by God to
love his wife as Christ loves the Church.

Satan’s perversion of the Christian view of the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship has greatly harmed
the American family and especially the Church of Jesus Christ in America. The politically correct among us have called
for the wife to reject the Scriptures which say that she is submit herself to her husband as her head. The Scriptures
teach that the husband is to be the head of the wife has been mocked and vilified by them because these notions were
said to be old fashioned and the products of a male dominated culture. Satan has successfully used these views to
pervert the Scriptural view of marriage and family.

Political Correctness also has popularized terms to describe perverse sexual behavior in a positive light. Homosexuals
are called “Gay.” Criminals are not sinners but victims. Drunkenness is not a sin; it is relabeled “alcoholism” and is
referred to as a disease. Homosexuality is not a sin; it is an alternative lifestyle. This twisting and redefinition of terms
has done great damage to our culture. Much of what I have mentioned here tends towards a lawless attitude. The dictum
and teachings of God’s law in the Scriptures are essentially politically incorrect. Much of Political Correctness is also
against the Person of Jesus Christ.

Satan has used Political Correctness to partially eliminate the Name of Jesus Christ from our buildings, our language and
our thinking. Political correctness dictates that we give more than equal attention to all other religions. Multiculturalism
has been used as a platform to sympathetically introduce children to religions such as Hinduism, Mohammedism,
Animism and Wicca. Multiculturalism is really ultimately about giving attention to all religions except Christianity.

Multiculturalism says that it is unfair to only worship Jesus Christ. We must respect and honor all other religions and their
gods. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the overwhelmingly predominant religion of the United States for
hundreds of years has been the Christianity of the Protestant Reformation. These other religions have been used in the
government schools supposedly to help explain culture. However, these same government schools will not even allow
the majority religion (Christianity) to be represented. Even terms like “Merry Christmas” are deemed unacceptable. As we
all know, “Happy Holidays” is the appropriate Politically Correct term to use. This term too may eventually be discarded
when they discover that the original meaning of HOLIDAYS was Holy-Days.

If the Person of Jesus Christ is to be discussed on most television programs, He is discussed in terms that challenge the
Scriptures and greatly weaken or destroy His divinity. Satan has used the government schools, the educational system,
the culture and the media to pervert the Person and the ministry of Jesus Christ as it is revealed and expounded in the
New Testament. By doing so, he has even created doubt in the minds of church attendees as to who He is and what He
has called us to do. If looked at closely, it is very evident that Satan is the innovator and initiator of Political Correctness
in the culture of America.

Satan’s ultimate agenda of Political Correctness is not merely to weaken the culture. His true goal is the weakening of
the Church of Jesus Christ. When the Church becomes weak and worldly, it is powerless to fight off the will of the enemy
and the establishment of his kingdom in America and on this earth. First he must break down the culture and its Christian
foundation through the courts, the political process, the educational systems and the media. In the media, while it is
Politically Correct to depict witches and warlocks as being enemies of evil and friends of mankind; it is also Politically
Correct to depict Christians who believe in the Scriptures as being either very stupid or very evil and by implication their
God, Jesus Christ, is essentially depicted as either a false god, an evil influence or merely a weak person.
After Satan has polluted and permeated the culture with attitudes and actions that break down God’s law and sully the
reputation and Name of Jesus Christ, he then is ready to further subvert and weaken the Church as well. He can only do
this if the Church has close ties with and desires to be acceptable to the culture and the world in which it lives. The world
is already in Satan’s hands but he will use the world to neutralize the power of God’s people. He can do this the same
way he has done in other countries: by the subtle altering of the Church’s doctrine and practices. In the Old Testament
Satan knew that God’s people could only be defeated if they became a spiritually compromised people. He knew that
then God would judge them for their sins. Because of this knowledge, he attempted to compromise them by the
importation to Israel of heathen women who practiced idolatry. He knew if the Israelites fell to this temptation, married
them and subsequently worshiped the gods of their wives along with worshipping Jehovah, then God would have to
judge them. So today, Satan is tempting the Church with adulterous and idolatrous imagery and verbiage through the
media and educational system. It is the Church’s duty to separate herself from these evil practices. However, in fact, we
have succumbed to these temptations and committed spiritual adultery.

Israel was eventually destroyed as a nation because she became idolatrous. Satan has used the tolerance and
acceptance of other religions to tempt religiously correct Christians. He is tempting them to become tolerant of such cults
as the Roman Catholic Church and Mormanism, two of our staunchest allies in the culture wars. If the Church does not
fall on its face and repent of its failure to stand strong against the temptations of our culture, America will eventually be
destroyed as a country. If America falls, it will be primarily because the Church has become so weak that it will not be
able to stave off the attacks of Satan any longer. The God approved Church is the only organization that can
successfully fend off and defeat the Enemy that wants to destroy America. As early as the 1940’s and 50’s, two great
men of God, Leonard Ravenhill and A. W. Tozer warned the Church in America regarding how deeply she had fallen into
compromise. Why Revival Tarries by Leonard Ravenhill is MUST reading for our generation! Many books, including The
Root of the Righteous and The Pursuit of God by A. W. Tozer are equally recommended.

If Satan can twist and pervert the roles of men and women in the culture, the family or the Church he will successfully
weakened the culture, the family and the Church. We must understand that even as the people of God in the Old
Testament were weakened and punished severely, so the Church in America will be weakened and punished severely if
it does not stand against the arguments and temptations of the enemy. Political Correctness and Religious Correctness
are Satan’s two most successful ways to weaken and destroy the United States of America and weaken and damage
greatly the Church of Jesus Christ in America.


Some liberals use the term “Religious Correctness” to describe beliefs and activities of Christian Conservatives that are
against the agenda of the Left. I am NOT using the term in this way. The Religious Correctness that I am referring to is
an outgrowth of the Political Correctness of the Left, but is practiced by people who would identify themselves as
Evangelicals and/or Charismatics. This Religious Correctness however, is not spiritual and not scriptural.
In the religious culture of Evangelicals and Charismatics Religious Correctness is ultimately a more damaging influence
than Political Correctness. As Political Correctness has a political and cultural agenda in mind, so Religious Correctness
has a spiritual agenda in mind. Inadvertently many in the Saul Church today have fallen into the same blind obedience
that has affected the adherents of Political Correctness.

Religious Correctness is often a group of written or unwritten ideas, words, or thoughts that are used to establish a code
of conduct, or party line, that all must adhere to or suffer painful penalties. However, if one does adhere to Religious
Correctness, the Church is quick to grant liberal rewards and great opportunity for advancement. As in Political
Correctness there is an attempt to change conduct and ways of thinking in the body of Christ by, among other things,
redefining, renaming and using terms or words in ways not used before.

The agenda of the Religiously Correct Church is much like that of Israel during the time of Samuel and Saul. The
Israelites sincerely believed and felt it was necessary that they should have rulership that would help them to be like the
nations. They felt it was necessary to be like the nations so that they could defeat the nations. Eventually they had their
prayers answered, and God sent them a man after their own heart who did everything he could to be everything they
wanted him to be. He chose the best things of the world for the purposes of worship and for the purposes of warfare.
The Religiously Correct Church is doing the same thing. They are choosing the best of Political Correctness so they can
have huge Churches with lots of people. They compromise doctrines so that they can add to their numbers, because
they are afraid that if they don’t, then people will never attend their church to hear their gospel preached or the people
will leave. The Religiously Correct Church is the modern day counterpart of Israel under Saul. This Saul Church, like its
namesake, WILL be defeated by the modern day Philistines that they looked to for new ideas and new methodology.


The following are examples of words that have been introduced into the Christian vocabulary or have been redefined by
those who adhere to the Religiously Correct viewpoint.


This term has fallen into disrepute by the Religiously Correct. Particularly in the Charismatic Movement we have
associated the term doctrine with tedious interpretations of the Word of God that are either unclear or unimportant
because they are not basic to salvation. I have heard men say, “I don’t teach doctrine, I just teach the Scriptures” as if
doctrine was the faulty or overly complex interpretation of Scripture. The teaching of sound doctrine is considered
extremely important by the Scriptures. Doctrine essentially means “teaching.” I have heard other preachers or pastors
say, "I don’t believe doctrine is important; I teach relationship rather than religion." Today most Christians don’t know
what Scripture says about justification, sanctification, redemption or election. In fact, these words are fast falling out of
use with most preachers and church goers alike. Most church goers are not familiar with biblical repentance, biblical
discipleship, God’s grace or even proper use of the law. What they have been taught is the need for unity with all
religions that identify themselves as Christian, the importance of balance, how to get in touch with your feminine side, the
need for a healthy and high sense of self-esteem, the need to have a covering, the importance of not “touching the Lord’
s anointed”, warnings of being divisive and the importance of not judging others or even others judging them. To a large
extent we have integrated the doctrines of Scripture with the philosophies of men. Of course, there are some great
Churches that cover fundamental doctrines and teach appropriate application. I believe however, that for every Church
that teaches solid doctrine there are at least twenty that do not do so. Most churches feel that the teaching of doctrine
should be minimal. They are concerned that teaching too much doctrine might have a divisive effect on the congregation.


Judgment is a touchy subject with the Religiously Correct. First of all, they have all heard about the preacher who beats
his sheep up with threats of fire and brimstone. These messages are deemed inappropriate in the enlightened 21st
century Church atmosphere. It is much more civilized to draw people to God with His love in a positive manner. I have
even heard preachers refer to the Old Testament God of wrath and the New Testament God of love—as if God changed
or grew or evolved.

The term judgment now is a negative term that is used only when dealing with people outside the Church. Final judgment
and hell are usually referred to in passing but not as the major topic in a speaker’s message. Everyone assumes that
when someone preaches that America will be judged, it is only because of the damage done by the liberals, the
Hollywood Left and the media elite.

The Church in America according to these people may “suffer for righteousness sake” but is in no real danger of being
judged or punished by God for their sin or poor doctrine. The evangelical and charismatic Churches in America have a
VERY high sense of self-esteem. When a prophetic message comes forth that warns the Church that it will be judged by
God if it does not repent of its sin, that message is typically thought to be a manifestation of “the spirit of condemnation.”
There is a frightening confidence and a blind braggadocio that is content to talk about the millions of converts, the HUGE
churches, impressive outreach movements and the tremendous “growth” of charismatic and evangelical churches in
America. The Church views itself as quite wealthy. One denomination almost casually discussed the quarter billion dollar
sale they made of their radio station. The churches in America have indeed become very wealthy and confident that it is
preaching the true gospel because of the great financial blessings they have received. In one sense, many believe that
God is “confirming their message or word” by blessing them with large numbers of people and/or lots of money.
However, the Scriptures say, “I know your deeds, that you neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were either cold or hot. So
because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and
have become wealthy and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor
and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments
so that you may clothe yourself, and the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your
eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” Rev 3:15-19.


This term applies to anyone who disagrees with the leadership regarding conduct or doctrine. Even if the concerned
person merely wants to discuss the issues in private, often it is considered inappropriate to do so. The suggestion of
leadership often takes the form of “if you don’t agree with us, perhaps you should think about joining another Church.”
There seems to be no room for discussing the issues from a biblical viewpoint in the Religiously Correct Church. Gone
are days when men would feel comfortable listening to a divergent viewpoint, and considering it from the standpoint of
Scripture. The Scripture that is quoted is “mark them that cause division.” This new application of the word is a
tremendous tool of Satan to keep anyone from repenting or moving into greater light. Every revival or reformation in the
last 500 years has been marked by men who questioned the conduct or the doctrine of current leadership. Martin Luther
never wanted to leave the Catholic Church. He wanted the Catholic Church to leave the foul practices and doctrines of
the Dark Ages. George Whitfield and John Wesley never wanted to leave the Church of England in the eighteenth
century. They wanted the Anglican Church to embrace scriptural concepts such as “you must be born again.” This view
that identifies as divisive any man who disagrees with the conduct or doctrine of a Church, will most certainly keep that
Church from experiencing great revival or reformation.


The Religiously Correct will apply this term to anyone in authority who raises their voice to someone under them.
Particularly in reference to family matters. If a mother or father raises their voice in correcting their child, this is
considered harsh and the prevailing attitude is that this will cause the child to be injured psychologically or spiritually. If a
preacher raises his voice in criticism to activities that his hearers have committed, he will be judged as harsh. Jesus, of
course, was harsh in His vocabulary and likely His tone, when He pronounced the seven Woes against the Scribes and
the Pharisees. It is never appropriate to harangue or berate people especially our spouses or children, but there is a time
for more volume and to speak in a tone of urgency or deep disfavor. The Religiously Correct are highly sensitive
regarding the reception of criticism and will find a way of invalidating that criticism by referring to that criticism as harsh.


This term is often used of men by Religiously Correct women as grounds for divorce. The Religiously Correct have
added abuse, either verbal or physical, as grounds for divorce. The victim of verbal abuse, either real or imaginary, tends
to define any negative comment as verbal abuse. Worse, they can stir up the potential abuse with soft spoken insults so
that he or she will respond in a loud or inappropriate fashion. The needling of a person to illicit a sinful verbal or physical
response should be taken into account when evaluating the respective guilt or innocence of either party. This has
become one of Satan’s greatest tools in the dissolution of marriages and the attendant suffering of children. It is worth
noting that Scripture does not condone divorce on the grounds of such abuse.


Covering is a relatively latter day concept. This term although used earlier probably became popular in the early 1970’s
when it was taught that every sheep needed a shepherd, and every shepherd needed a covering ministry to whom he
was accountable. This “covering” doctrine typically meant that one could not be ministering in obedience to the Lord
except he be submitted or under another man of God or ministry. By doing so, he was protected from the enemy and the
world by this covering of authority.

This doctrine of “covering ministry” has now reached the status of being Religiously Correct. In practically all of the
Charismatic movement and in many Evangelical churches, this concept is accepted as Biblical.

The term covering, as it relates to our discussion, is only used once in the New Testament-- 1Cor 11:15 says, “…her hair
is given to her for a covering.” (NAS) This Scripture may possibly have some symbolic reference to the husband’s
authority over the wife, but there is no Scripture in the Bible that would defend the term “covering” to indicate that every
legitimate ministry must be established under a man or a Church’s authority. Neither are there any Scriptures that
indicate that a man or a Church’s authority will protect another ministry. 1 Cor 11:3 says, “Christ is the head of every
man…” It does not suggest that every man needs a denomination or another minister to be his head or his covering if he
is a man of God or a minister for the Lord. The Religiously Correct feel very uncomfortable with ministries that are not
supervised or ministries that are not “accountable” to someone (accountability will be discussed in the next section). If
the Religiously Correct are using this term to indicate Scriptural authority, accountability or protection, then that authority,
accountability or protection would be in one way supplanting Christ as the Head of every man.
Historically speaking, the Roman Catholic Church taught that all Christians should be under their authority or covering.
Even in 18th century, the Church of England believed that the circuit riders and preachers under both Whitfield and
Wesley, because they were not authorized by the Church of England (under their covering and authority), were not really
authorized by God.

In the Scriptures, Jesus and His disciples were vilified and even murdered because they would not directly submit to the
authority of the rulers of Israel.

The covering doctrine is another example of elevating men and denigrating the authority of Jesus Christ in a man’s life.
Men in general and ministering men in particular, must learn to establish a personal relationship with Jesus Christ without
ANY mediator or covering. They must also learn to depend upon the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit on their own. This
does not go against any idea of learning from or listening to another man or ministry, but there are times when a man
must go to Jesus without ANY mediator or assistance. By establishing covering as a necessity, we insert a Mediator, and
there is no other Mediator between God and man except Jesus Christ. Covering in this sense does not sanction
ANYTHING that a man does. Jesus Christ, His Holy Spirit and the Word of God MUST sanction EVERYTHING that a
man does, whether he is a husband or a minister of the Word. This doctrine of covering is not dissimilar to the Roman
Catholic doctrine which indicates that every man must be under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Jesus made it
clear regarding covering. When His disciples indicated that others were ministering using the name of Jesus Christ, He
did not discourage them from doing so: rather Mark 9:38-40 says, “John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting
out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us (he did not have our covering)
but Jesus said, ‘do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward
to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.’’’ This makes it abundantly clear that we do not need a group
or an individual to be over us so that we can function in obedience to our Lord. It is true that Paul went to Jerusalem to
meet with the pillar apostles. That, however, was not so that he could get covering. That was so he could learn from
them, fellowship with them and show them what God was doing in his ministry. Many men like Martin Luther, George
Whitfield, John Calvin and Charles Finney functioned without covering and still succeeded to bless God, His people and
the world.

The covering of any man, whether he is a pastor, prophet or husband is always and only the Lord Jesus Christ. He must
be the one that directs him in his activities. He must do what the Father says and the Son confirms by the Holy Spirit.
When he enters ministry, when he changes ministry and when he quits ministry. Jesus Christ is the Head of every man.
As the man rules his family and ministers to his wife and children, Jesus is his Head. No pastor, divisional
superintendent, elder, board member or bishop can instruct him apart from what the Lord tells him. He must be extremely
careful not to obey any unscriptural directive that he receives from any of these people. He is responsible to God and
NOT to them to interpret, teach and obey the letter and the spirit of Scripture.


The accountability doctrine has some very good points and can be useful in developing and maintaining character. Like
the covering doctrine, however, it has some problems that we need to mention. As was said in the previous section, men
must learn to be accountable to the Scriptures and to God in a highly personal way. They must learn to look for all the
answers to all their questions in the Scriptures, regarding their family, their job and every other facet of life. They must
come to know the Person of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and our heavenly Father by soaking up the Word of God and
praying that God would open their eyes and asking Him through Jesus Christ to give them guidance through His
Scriptures. When they need a directive concerning a path they should take or a choice they need to make, they should
always go to the Lord first. Accountability doctrine can become a way of either lessening a man’s relationship with the
Lord or expanding his relationship with the Lord. If he learns to go to the Lord and the Scriptures first for help with any
temptation or with any decision or with any need to understand His Word, then that is good. If his first choice is usually
going to his accountability partner or mentor for help, then that is bad. A good accountability partner or mentor will always
guide him to go to the Scriptures and to the Lord Himself first. Prayer partners can be good and accountability
relationships can be good, but the other individual must himself be steeped in the Scriptures and not in the wisdom of
men. He must be a man that always encourages greater relationship and greater understanding from the Scriptures and
God Himself. In the Scriptures God makes it clear that we are always ultimately accountable to Him and Him alone, but
He also tells us our need for counselors, ministers and men to come along side us in our struggles with the world, the
flesh and the devil. Scripture also directs us to submit to those in the church that have authority over us, but NEVER if
their directives or teachings go against the teachings of Scripture.


The mutual submission doctrine was popularized in the Charismatic Movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This doctrine in
some of the Charismatic Churches has been around for a long time, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s this doctrine became
widespread. In simple terms, the doctrine says that even as the wife is to be subject to her husband, so the husband is to
be subject to his wife. The two Scriptures that supposedly support this argument are found first in Eph 5:21, “…and be
subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” The other scriptural reference is in Gal 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This interpretation of Scripture was likely helped along by the popularity of the women’s movement in America. Early on,
women had been fighting for, among other things, equal rights in the voting booth, and won a significant victory with the
establishment of the 19th Amendment which allowed them to vote. There also was strong pressure by society to allow
women to have a much greater voice in the household regarding family matters. Margaret Sanger, an early advocate of
abortion and birth control, published a newspaper called “The Woman Rebel.” The masthead of this publication said it

By the 1970’s movies and television made it clear that men were typically both abusive and ignorant as they led their
families. There were still popular images of men as good leaders in such television shows as Little House on the Prairie.
But there were an equal number of demeaning male images in such television shows as All in the Family. By the late
1970’s the authority of the husband in the family and the marriage relationship was greatly damaged. It was Politically
Correct for a woman to be depicted as intellectually and morally superior to her husband. The culture accepted the fact
that the husband was NOT to be the head of the wife as Christ is also the Head of the Church, as Eph 5:23 states. The
Scripture that says, “as the Church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything”
(Eph 5:24) was also ignored.

From the 1980’s on most fathers and husbands, in both television and the movies, were viewed as weak at best, and
often the cause of the family’s worst problems. Since then, men have generally been shown to be as immature, having
no understanding of the marriage relationship. Typically they are not to be respected because they are not worthy of
respect. They are always interested in sex, but never interested in love. The children are held in greater esteem than
they are. The wife is much more likely to ask counsel, not from husband, but from her son or daughter regarding an
important decision. Men are often depicted as merely little boys in grown up bodies. Even on Christian radio, one
advertisement for Mother’s Day had the woman saying about her husband, “He is really just one of my children.”
The Church remained comparatively unscathed by these views until the 1970’s. It was at that time that the Church began
to draw more and more of its teaching from secular psychology. As was mentioned before, secular psychology for
decades had held a view that marriage was a partnership, and that it was puritanical, old fashioned and harmful to the
raising of children to allow the man to have such power over his wife and family. It was at that time that the mutual
submission doctrine became popular in the Charismatic Movement. The Church chose to use the Scriptures mentioned
earlier to validate the equality of the sexes with regard to authority one over the other (“be subject one to another” and
“there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus”). Looked at in their context, these two Scriptures have nothing to do
with mutual submission.

The Scripture in Ephesians which says, “be subject to one another” does not indicate mutual submission but respective
submission: children subject to parents, slaves subject to masters, and wives subject to husbands. Slaves according to
Eph 6:5 are to be obedient to their masters (not masters being obedient to slaves) and children are to obey their parents
according to Eph 6:1 (parents are not supposed to obey their children). So too, the wife is to be subject to her husband
(not the husband to be subject to his wife). The husband’s role is tough enough. He is to love his wife like Christ loves
the Church.

Gal 3:26-29 says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither
male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendents,
heirs according to promise.” Spiritually, being a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free man, a male or a female does not
exclude you from His kingdom: we are all heirs of Christ and Abraham’s descendents according to God’s promise. This
does not mean that there are no Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free men, or males or females in the Church. Paul clearly
indicates that there are roles in the relationship between masters and slaves and husbands and wives that must be
obeyed in Scripture. As a master and a slave obey their respective scriptural directives and as a husband and a wife
obey their respective scriptural directives concerning their conduct, they will be equally rewarded in the eternal realm.
The Religiously Correct, however, have completely taken away the authority of the husband as the head of the wife. I
have heard it preached that Christ is the Head of both the husband and the wife and the husband had better recognize
that, if he wants to have a good relationship with his wife, the implication being that the husband was somehow usurping
the authority of Jesus Christ. Typically when reading and teaching the Scriptures in Ephesians most Charismatic pastors
and speakers will make sure to mention that the husband should not take advantage of the Scriptures regarding his wife’
s submission to him. Men are always warned not to make her a “door mat.” She too, is exhorted not to let her husband
make her a door mat. When the subject of a husband loving his wife like Christ loves the Church is preached, it is usually
pointed out that Christ was a servant-leader whose main role was to be a servant to the Church, and consequently, the
main role of the husband was to be a servant for his wife. When discussing the husband’s responsibility to love his wife
like Christ loves the Church, it is NEVER mentioned that a wife should not take advantage of her husband’s love for her
and service that he is to give her. It is always assumed that it is only the husband that would ever abuse these
Scriptures; it is tacitly assumed that the wife would never abuse her husband in that way.

The Scriptures, on the other hand, indicate that the man is the stronger vessel. Actually 1 Peter 3:7 says to husbands
“…live with your wives in an understand way as with a WEAKER VESSEL since she is a woman; and grant her honor as
a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” It is important to note that this setting does
not dictate that women should be berated for their weakness; rather they are, among other things, to be treated more
delicately because of their weakness. Paul, when discussing ministry in 1 Timothy indicates that one aspect of that
weakness is that they are more likely to be deceived than their husbands. He says in I Timothy 2:14, “and it was not
Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived fell into transgression.” Because of this Paul according to
I Tim 2:12 did not “…allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (I Timothy 2:13
indicates that another reason for this is that Adam was first created and then Eve). God created men to lead and be the
head of their wives, not the reverse. Our culture and the Religiously Correct teachers of the Church make it clear that
they consider the woman to be at least equal with the man and in some ways even superior. A prominent conservative
Bible teacher on the radio when preaching on prayer said “that there are no stronger prayers than those of a mother for
her children.” He then went on to expound at great length that a mother was actually emotionally and spiritually more
equipped to pray for her children than her husband. He discussed how difficult life was for him after his mother died and
he no longer was the recipient of her prayers. Scripturally we see very few if any examples of a woman’s prayer for her
children, but we see Jacob praying for his sons. Scripture in no way indicates that a mother’s prayers are superior or
inferior to her husband’s.

Often the scriptural descriptions of a woman’s comparative weakness, and the scriptural directive to submit to her
husband are dismissed as the result of the culture that the apostles lived in and would not apply today. This is a direct
attack on the reliability of the Scriptures. Any Christian generation that goes against these clear teachings in Scripture
will be terribly weakened and eventually easily defeated.


In the Religiously Correct Church of today women are reputed to have more intuition than men. This is a cultural myth
that many people accept, but the word intuition is kind of a vague word at best. In this context does it mean more spiritual
sensitivity? If that were so, then the preponderance of those who prophecy in the Scriptures would be women, but at
least 90% of those who prophesy in the Scriptures are men. Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, and all those mentioned in the minor prophets, Jesus, Agabus, John the Revelator and many other men in
Scripture were all counted as prophets. Deborah was a prophetess in the Old Testament, Anna was a prophetess at the
time of Jesus’ birth and before, and Philip had daughters who also were prophetesses. This is not to discount the fact
that women were included in the exhortation to prophesy in I Cor 14:1, “pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts,
but especially that you may prophesy.” More compelling is Acts 2:17, “…your SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall
prophesy…” However, there is NO INDICATION in ANY area of Scripture that women are either naturally or
supernaturally superior to men in their ability to know the voice of God and speak it forth. In fact there is evidence in
Scripture to indicate that even before the fall women were more likely than men to not hear correctly and to be deceived.
As was mentioned in the last section, 1 Tim 2:14 says, “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
quite deceived, fell into transgression.” In fact this apparent lack of ability to distinguish the truth from a lie is the
fundamental reason why Paul did not “allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over the man…” A woman’s
“intuition” is nothing more than a fiction of the enemy to elevate the woman’s authority above that of the man and turn
God’s order of authority upside down. As was mentioned earlier however, a woman has the authority of Jesus Christ,
Himself, to prophesy a direct Word from God in the Church.


Concerning greatness in the kingdom, Matt 20:25-27 says, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘you know that
the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you,
but whosoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you
shall be your slave.'''

In the Scriptures Jesus taught His disciples a great object lesson here. Jesus first said that the Gentile rulers, “lord it
over," those under them. He also said that “He who will be servant among you will be the greatest among you.” He did
this to illustrate that being a good leader, whether you are a husband, a parent, a pastor or a boss, requires that you take
good care of those that you lead or have authority over. He did not say this so that those under Him could order Him
around or make pointed suggestions as to what He should do or somehow reverse roles with the master or leader. Once
again, He did this to show them that a good leader takes good care of those under Him. He did not do this in any way to
compromise His own authority or suggest the compromise of the authority of any leader. A husband leads his wife and
children by loving her like Christ loves the Church, and loving them as the Father loves us. We must understand that at
times this love is manifested in terms of correction or punishment. A good leader never sacrifices his God given authority
as head of his wife and father of his children. Instead, he sacrifices his own desires and his own will as he is directed
through prayerful reading of the Scriptures and his personal communication with the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, he is
never to “lord it over” those whom he leads. The religiously correct Saul Church implies that leadership involves a kind of
servile submission to those whom you lead. Husbands and fathers are never to cast off their God given authority by
being pressured to be servants by meeting the perceived needs of a wife or child. He is NEVER to submit to a wife or
child because they whine or nag him to do something that he believes is against God’s will for them. Their views certainly
should be taken into consideration before God, but he is responsible to function on the basis of the authority of the Word
of God. On judgment day He will not be able to excuse any action that is not pleasing to God by telling Him that he was
only doing what his wife asked or told him to do. Unfortunately the servant-leader teaching has given some Christian
women the false assumption that they should expect their husbands to be more responsive to their perceived needs.
This in no way means that a husband should neglect treating his wife in a very special way and always do what is
necessary to meet her REAL needs.

We must keep in mind that both the husband and the wife are fallen creatures, and at times, will take advantage of one
another to serve their own desires. This is not limited to the husband “using his wife as a doormat.” The wife, because
she too is a fallen creature, can just as easily take advantage of her husband’s role as a servant. It is not pleasing to the
Lord when the wife takes upon herself the headship of the family and does not reverence and honor her husband as her
head. An equally dangerous decision of the husband is to give her headship in the family and expect her to take care of
him as Christ takes care of His Church.

The husband is to serve her needs and the needs of his children as the Lord directs him and not necessarily as they
desire or even as the pastor or the “Christian” counselor directs him. This is to be done even if his wife and the children
out vote him regarding his decision. Scripture does not define the marriage relationship, the family situation or the church
as a democracy.


In the 17th chapter of The Gospel According to John, shortly before Jesus and His disciples went to the Garden of
Gethsemane, Jesus prayed a prayer to His Father in the hearing of His disciples. Among other things, He prayed about
unity. In verse 11 Jesus prays, “…Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they
may be one even as We are.” Verses 19-22 say, “For their sake I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be
sanctified in the truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those who also believe in Me through their word; that
they may all be one; even as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may
believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We
are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and
loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

It’s important to note that the unity that Jesus is praying for is accomplished solely by the Father. Verse 17-21 says,
“Sanctify them in the truth…that they may all be one…” Before they are to be one they must be sanctified in the TRUTH
by the Father, and the purpose of this sanctification in the truth is so they may be all one. When they become one, then
the result will be that the world may believe that the Father sent Jesus (vs. 21). In verse 22 Jesus says, “The glory which
you have given Me, I have given to them that they may be one, just as We are one.” Jesus states there clearly, that He
gave His own glory to them that the Father gave Him so that His people may be one. He goes on to say in verse 23 that
the purpose of them becoming one was so that they would be perfected in unity. And the purpose from the viewpoint of
the world was so that the world would know that the Father sent Jesus and loved His disciples even as the Father has
loved Jesus.

This oneness is something that is not accomplished by men, but is solely accomplished by our heavenly Father and His
Son, Jesus Christ. Men are not able to orchestrate the glory of God. This prayer of our Lord’s will most definitely be
answered in His time, in His way. This is not a unity or a oneness that will come into being by the machinations of men.
We cannot organize or excite ourselves into this unity. We are not even sure who is really His and who is not really His.
First we must be sanctified in THE TRUTH and then experience His glory. THEN we will become one, even as He and
the Father are one.

The oneness that the Saul Church has attempted to accomplish in the Body of Christ is a false unity or oneness that is
not of the Father but is of the flesh. TRUTH has become an unimportant commodity with the Saul Church. There is little
concern regarding the truth of Scripture. The Saul Church values unity much more than truth. Calling conferences for the
purpose of unifying the Body of Christ is basically of the flesh. Getting tens of thousands of men to meet together in a
show of unity at a demonstration or event is of the flesh. Establishing organizations that unite Evangelicals and Roman
Catholics is particularly sad. Five hundred years ago the Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church
because of their false gospel of faith plus works, their dependence upon penance as a way to deal with sin, their
indulgences which released their loved ones from thousands of years of purgatory, their reliance upon Mary as a co-
mediatrix, their support of the Pope as the Vicar or earthy representative of Jesus Christ and many other contradictions
with Scripture. The Catholic Church still believes and practices and demands the same things that she did five hundred
years ago. The Catholic Church is not a group of people with which we should want to be unified. The people of the
Catholic Church should be people that we share the true gospel with and do everything that we can to see them come to
the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in His shed blood alone. Catholics and Evangelicals Together is not an organization that
was founded by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, rather it was an attempt to further an unscriptural unity that will not
merely produce no fruit, but in fact will produce very bad fruit. When members of the Catholic Church are sanctified in the
truth and when members of the Religiously Correct Evangelicals and Charismatics are sanctified in truth, then we will be
on our way to becoming one in Christ.

Another Scripture that many quote as they call for unity in the Body of Christ is from the Book of Acts. Acts 1:14 says,
“These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of
Jesus, and with His brothers.”

It is EXTREMELY important to note that they were “ALL OF ONE MIND.” Most, if not all of them, had sat under the
teaching of Jesus Christ, Himself, for three years. It is likely that they all believed that He was the Messiah sent from
God. It is also important to notice that there were only 120 of them in the Upper Room. Most of the 7,000 who had seen
Him miraculously feed them were not there. Of the 500 who watched Him leave in a cloud, less than 25% of them were
there. There was no solicitation by the disciples to have a unity conference. There was no cry for the multitudes to come
and join in. This was a sovereignly chosen group of people that were in attendance. This group was chosen by our
heavenly Father and not one person was missing, and not one too many was present. Once again, this meeting was
totally and solely arranged by God, so that these men and women would experience His glory and His sanctification in
the truth.

The Saul Church is not unlike the world which rejects and denigrates true Christians who will not recognize the gods of
the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. The Saul Church does not want to appear narrow minded to other Christian faiths
so they do not reject Roman Catholics and in some cases Mormons who preach another Jesus and another Gospel.
They no longer agree with Paul who said in Galatians 1:6-12, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who
called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are
disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a
gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if
any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the
favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant
of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
The pathetic attempt of men to create unity by solicitation that is not approved by God has accomplished nothing except
false hope and failure. The unity they have striven for has not been accomplished and will not be accomplished until God’
s perfect timing. Not only that, NOTHING in this world will keep that unity from occurring. It is enough for us to preach the
pure and total Word of God and to do all that He requires of us and has taught us.

The attempt of the Saul Church to artificially create unity is strikingly similar to the same attempt of The World Council of
Churches in the mid 20th century. This organization also is not very concerned about doctrine and wants to unite in spite
of our differences, so we can bless the earth with our unity. At one time Charismatics and Evangelicals recognized that
this group was not of God. I don’t know how they view the World Council of Churches today.


“Balanced” at one time meant that a man was able to preach judgment and blessing, eternal punishment and eternal
rewards, and the ravages of sin and the blessings of holiness. Like other Religiously Correct words the meaning of this
word has also changed radically.

Perhaps at one point in Church history, balance meant “balance your total hatred of sin with a total love for God”, or
“balance your understanding of the use of the law in Scripture with your understanding of the use of grace.” But that is
not what many proponents of the teaching of balance are teaching us today.

A “balanced man” has come to mean a man who understands and depends upon both the Scriptures and understands
and uses the BEST ways of the world. The proponents of this view do not suggest that the Bible is not the answer to
man’s problems. They firmly believe that it is the answer to our problems. It is just that they say we also need to
recognize the importance of the wisdom that the world has to offer. They justify this viewpoint with the phrase, “All truth is
God’s truth.” They take the “best” that psychology and psychiatry have to offer, and then along with the Bible, present
balanced Christian counseling. In my undergraduate Christian psychology course my teacher who was a licensed
psychiatrist said that Jay Adams, the writer of our class text book, was out of balance and behind the times because he
did not incorporate modern psychology and psychiatry into his teachings. As was mentioned earlier, he even said that if
Paul the Apostle knew as much as we do about modern psychology, he would have had an even greater ministry.
Later, when I pursued my Master’s Degree in seminary, I was chided for my views regarding the writings of Sigmund
Freud and Carl Jung. I suggested that their views were confusing, often contradictory to one another and their general
theories regarding human behavior were worse than useless. I felt these views were satanic. My teacher felt that I was
quite out of balance and did not understand the importance of the teachings of these men and other intellectual giants in
the world of psychiatry and psychology. The problem is that what they consider to be the best often contradicts or falls
short of Scripture. Balancing secular psychology with biblical counseling often removes the fear of the Lord and
promotes a desire to esteem self more highly than others. In fact, securing a high sense of self esteem can replace or
discourage meekness, humility and self denial.

The "balanced" man recognizes that one must have understanding of the world to balance his understanding of things
spiritual. I have heard dozens of pastors refer to an individual as being “so heavenly minded that he is of no earthly
good.” This individual is apparently so consumed by his passion for heaven and being with our Lord Jesus Christ that he
has become out of touch with day to day living and cannot relate well with the general population. They believe that this
type of asceticism would make him an ineffectual witness for the Lord. In the Saul Church, Old Testament prophets, John
the Baptist and even Jesus would be considered out of balance.

The "balanced" Christian is supposed to balance his political life with his spiritual life. Many believe and teach that
Christians are to blame for the demise of morality, justice and clear political thinking in America because they have not
been politically active. They believe that this demise has come about because Christians have not voted enough and
have not supported conservative candidates properly. They believe we need to balance our spiritual life with a healthy
political life. I firmly believe that many individuals, both Christian and non-Christian, are called to participate in the
political and cultural wars that are now being waged. But the Church as an entity is not to commit her energy to politics
and the cultural war. We need to do our job, which is to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and to make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all
that Jesus commanded. We are never to ignore ANY perversion of the Scriptures and we must speak out as Christians
against the murder of unborn children and the redefinition of sodomy as an alternative lifestyle. He DID NOT, however,
command us to be politically involved. We should not feel guilty for majoring on the Word, the whole Word and nothing
but the Word.

The balanced man rationalization makes it seem that we are second class if we do not involve ourselves in some way in
the political and cultural wars.

The reason we have failed is not because we have failed to support conservative candidates or failed to vote. The
reason we have failed is because we have become double-minded like Saul and the people of Israel during his time.
Because of our lack of single hearted commitment to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, we have left a
void for Satan to fill and as always, he has done so. We need to focus on our own failure as a representative of Jesus
Christ on this earth. Unfortunately, anyone who “sighs and groans over the abominations which are being committed in
the midst of Jerusalem (the Church)” (Ezekiel 9:4) is considered radical and way out of balance.
Balance is NOT the issue in Scripture. The issue is COMPLETENESS! Col. 2:10 says, “And in HIM you have been
made COMPLETE.” Also in Tim 3:16 it says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness and IS SUFFICIENT.”


The defeat of Religious Correctness will most certainly be difficult and painful. It will cost us as much today as it cost the
Protestant reformers in the 16th century. Many were persecuted for righteousness sake, some were killed and ALL were
considered ANATHAMA by the Roman Catholic Church.

Until Jesus comes, there will always remain elements of Religious Correctness. There will always be churches that will
please men by using the teachings of men that they get from the World and the religions of the World. Even after the
Great Reformation of the 16th century was accomplished, the most religiously correct institutions of that time STILL
flourished. The Roman Catholic Church lost some ground in northern Europe, but still retained great power in the world
system. The Roman Catholic Church was essentially shelved by God as being any kind of vessel for Revival and never
dominated Christendom again. Even to this day however, it is considered by some to be the largest denomination in the
world. Others, more correctly judge it as being the largest “Christian” cult in the world. So too, the Saul Church is no
longer a vessel for real Revival as she has been in the past. The time will come when the David Church will be God’s
vessel for Revival and a manifestation of His great power and love. This in no way should discourage us from exposing
and defeating Religious Correctness in these last generations.

In order to defeat Religious Correctness we must know first of all that it is a weapon of Satan and not merely a cultural
aberration. The second thing we must do is start to look for Religious Correctness in our own lives, our own churches
and our own denominations. We must NOT assume the attitude that we must not judge ministries as to what they say or
what they do. We MUST judge righteous judgment. We must judge false doctrine and false teachers. Third, we must
recognize just how dangerous Religious Correctness is and how much it has damaged God’s people and our
effectiveness against the enemy. Fourth, we must be aware of the fact that Religious Correctness is merely an outgrowth
of our desire to please people. All of us want to please people. We all want to fit in, whether we are in high school or
whether we are in the ministry. We want our words and our actions to be approved of men because we live in perhaps
the most self-conscious and man pleasing of all generations. Our self-consciousness has to do with how we look, how
we sound and how we act. If we live a Religiously Correct life we will be most praised by men and least ridiculed by
them. In order to defeat Religious Correctness, we must have an entirely different agenda than the Religiously Correct
have. For at least the last 200 years of Church history the focus slowly has been shifting from an emphasis on God’s
desire, God’s power, God’s sovereignty and His glory to an emphasis on man’s desires, man’s power and man’s needs.
We have been taught that if we adhere to a strict regimen of prayer and fasting, and if we gather around us many others,
regardless of doctrine and then unite, we will see great culture changing revival. We firmly believe that it is up to us. We
have taken the responsibility away from the Lord and we have taken it upon ourselves to save mankind. We have
advertised extensively our revivals, we have collected billions of dollars to see the world changed for Jesus Christ and
we have changed our clothing, so as not to offend seekers; we have done surveys to determine what they really want,
we have toned down our message so as not to offend them, we have drastically altered our doctrine to include many of
the beliefs of the world, and if we open our eyes honestly and widely, we can clearly see that the culture in America is
further away from Jesus Christ than it has ever been! Accommodating men has NOT worked and NEVER will!
I Chron 7:14 say, “If my people who are called by my name will repent of their sins and cry out to me, then I will heal their
land.” We have been incorrectly taught that “our land” is the country in which we live (United States of America). WE
CHRISTIANS are a HOLY NATION. WE are the PEOPLE OF GOD (I Peter 2:9-10). Our land is the kingdom of God,
spiritual Israel, the Church of Jesus Christ. THE CHURCH NEEDS TO BE HEALED of its divided heart; then we will see
God move dramatically in our country. We must repent of the grievous sin of pleasing men and not pleasing God. We
must re-focus ourselves to understand that even evangelism is not essentially for men and the unsaved; rather
evangelism should be for the glory of God; we should witness to people and pray they get saved primarily for God’s glory
and God’s pleasure. We build a church for God’s glory and God’s pleasure. We hold fellowship dinners for God’s glory
and God’s pleasure. We preach messages for God’s glory and God’s pleasure. We pray for the sick not just so people
will be healed but so God will be glorified. We preach the gospel not just so that people will be saved and not have to go
to hell, but for God’s glory and God’s pleasure. The focus of the Church must once again be upon Jesus Christ. He must
be the issue of our salvation, our sanctification, our glorification in heaven and any gift or power that He gives us. We
must be a spiritually and scripturally correct people who recognize that the Word of God is sufficient and that God’s
grace is sufficient, and that the faith that God gives us is sufficient: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fida. Everything we
have is of God and for God. OF COURSE, we are magnificently blessed and others are magnificently blessed, but we
don’t get the full joy or even the full power of our salvation until we understand it is primarily for Jesus Christ, the Holy
Spirit and our Heavenly Father. We are NOT primarily the issue, HE IS, and Scripture declares this clearly from Genesis
to Revelation. When we stop esteeming ourselves, our church or our denomination highly and start esteeming Jesus
Christ highly, then we will have taken the first step towards defeating Religious Correctness and Satan himself.


Satan has no opponents in the world. All in the world are his children and under his rule. Even the most moral are his. He
is the god of this world. His only enemy on this earth is Jesus Christ and His true Church. His true Church is made up of
those who are born again by the Spirit of God into a new life. If Satan is able to keep this Church compromised and
neutralized in America, he will destroy this country.
Satan’s strategy has always been to weaken or destroy the effectiveness of God’s people, and he uses the culture in
which they live to those ends. In the last generation he has been extra-ordinarily successful. We must recognize this
strategy so we can be a part of the powerful remnant in this world that will most assuredly ultimately defeat Satan and all
that are his. In order to do so, we must abandon and defeat Religious Correctness.
All information found on "Cry from the Wall" or "" is copyright protected.