Those Nasty Liberals

April 16, 2004

Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men. 2Co 9:13

There is a difference between so-called liberals and true liberals. The biggest problems that we have in this dialogue is a confusion of terms, prejudging people because of the sins of others and in hanging labels on people. From my point of view, the church needs not only to conserve the faith we have, we need to increase that faith. If full restoration is to come, and I believe it will, we must kiss a lot of the dead weight conservatism goodbye and move forward in spiritual power. Restoration involves embracing the faith of our fathers, not the traditions and ideologies of men.

Historically, something went wrong in the church when we lost our first love. As we make the right choices in this restoration, we have the spirit and power to set things right. Call me conservative if you like but I mean restoring good old fashioned apostolic doctrine, distribution to all according to their need, deliverance, liberation, saying the same thing, being a positive force in society instead of a regressive, tired out, more interested in our own family one. That takes positive action. These are liberal acts however and there is truth here, to see that truth as evil, you have to believe a lie.

Truth can be elusive in coming or it can come in an instant. The church has been hesitant to speak the whole truth so another problem I see is the fear of speaking out. Illiberal Christians have become so inundated with right wing politics that to come out in favor of apostolic truths is considered an assault against the fundamental truths of the church. Liberals are considered reactionary, sinful infidels and unpatriotic. Illiberal Christians have sought the approval of the church rather than the approval of God even when these truths and proper definitions are known. I think that some seem to be afraid to speak out against social injustice simply because these are the last days and we know from our Bible that some Christians not part of the New World Order that our present day Caesars have put together will be killed. On the other hand, the Christian church for the most part supports the conservative governments that have brought it, so delusion is involved. The god of that order is worshipped as the true God and the worshipers don't have a clue as to the magnitude of the delusion.

God knows us however and whether our hearts are liberal or illiberal. Misplaced dominionism has swayed Christians and must be understood and overcome for the veil of delusion to be lifted. The conservative church seems too comfortable in their bourgeoise mediocrity and the system that protects it.

I see a lot of good things in the discussion responses but still some prejudice and misunderstanding, that's OK, we're still learning. There are good and bad in conservatives and liberals but these are only labels. Some think that conservatives preach the gospel a lot but it is liberality that lives it out.

Getting long already but I must keep going. Merely because democrats have to tolerate immoral behavior and protect individual rights in a permissive society, it would be foolish to think they are immoral themselves. Part of liberality is giving equal rights to minority groups which includes ideological pluralism and tolerance of others. A live and let live attitude is necessary where the righteous and unrighteous must live together. It is not perfect but it is the best we have right now, each fully persuaded.

The ACLU is mentioned but I love the American Civil liberties Union, they helped me out twice in the sixties. The ACLU may take up causes that you and I do not agree with but at the same time should be a great ally in preserving our religious liberties. Working with the conservative christian right however, is impossible.

Homosexuality is also mentioned this time as being a part of a liberal agenda. In an true liberal democracy, minorities are included and by definition, liberal includes being tolerant and open-minded. Just because you can tolerate a group or behavior that you do not approve of does not put you in their camp. I am not a homosexual and never have been but being labeled immoral because I am liberal is a lie and delusion follows, it can only come from an illiberal mind. I see homosexuals trying to join the church without repentance and even welcomed in some churches, that is very troubling but has nothing to do with liberality; it is licentious behavior; it is flesh, not spirit.

Pray for wisdom, we need to grow in our understanding. People that equate liberality to homosexuals have done so because they have it drilled into them by liberal bashers speaking in the flesh. Closed minded people have decried liberals in the church as if liberality is our enemy. We are here to call sinners to repentance, not to do away with liberality. I hear the spirit saying and so do others on this forum, that the Bible's view of liberals is a positive and noble one, not what a compromising church would have you believe. If the Bible is taken at it's word, it should be perfectly clear but ask yourself, is it?

We must have a certain degree of tolerance for deviate behavior in the world but not in the church. Unfortunately, that is the way that it is right now, satan has come in as a flood but speaking out for what is right is our Christian responsibility and it should come with strong denunciation. We must also speak out against intolerance, can you see the prejudice and hatred that a conservative Christian church has inflicted on even the Biblical use of the word liberal? The sons of God are those led by the spirit of God and they will not be illiberal. See the spirit, and a dictionary if you need it. The church truly is in Babylon and riding upon the beast but if we as the remnant are to accept godly wisdom and understanding, we must cast out licentiousness and restore liberality. To do that, we must understand the terms and stop labeling each other falsely.

Points are brought up well with the responses this time, but I think that others are afraid what their conservative friends might think. Good dialogue and all was done in reconciliation and love, that takes humility and courage. For the next time and I don't want you to be afraid that you are sticking your neck out but let's make it personal. No questions this time. If you are fully persuaded that what I am saying is right, say so. Those that do not agree, what can you bring to the discussion to counter this belief that the present illiberal brand of conservatism in the church and government is a drag and a determent to the body of Christ. As far as I am concerned, the conservative right-wing Christian has collaborated with the enemy. Where does godly liberality come in?

Yours in Jesus, Jay

In Essentials, UNITY; In Non-Essentials, LIBERTY; In All Things, CHARITY

Hi Jay,
I've not responded in a long time But being a moderate/conservative I decided to respond to your brand of liberalism..Would that all liberals would subscribe to your philosophy which is very good and we need to see more involved in the likes of your efforts...BUT these 'rabid' democrats who are spewing hatred are not anyway remotely subscribing to what you call 'liberal'...If I were you I'd not proclaim to be a liberal for fear people would put me in the same category as them...

In Christ Jesus, I am acceptable and so is every human being..Jesus said when we love one another as one with Him the whole world will know 'they are acceptable and are loved and that He was all human beings for now and for eternity..(Jn. 17) Now if THAT is a liberal then I AM a liberal.. I give you honor as one deserving of honor..Stay with the Word and the Spirit for you bless us no end..................

...You are close to this, aren't you ??

(fwd: "Black Theology Revisited"

Supplying my part same as you,

Hi Venida,

True, true and true.

Thanks for the article, sorry so long in getting back but let it pile up to sort it all out.

Yes, liberation theology is very close to me. I teach a lot on love, unity and holiness and walking in the spirit but when it comes to removing the veil from deluded Christians ushering in the Anti-christ, it is very hard to convince them. It's all about oppression and a luke-warm church blind to the truth of what is really going on in the world. I know that truth will win out in the end but love and compassion has cooled for most Christians, I am afraid that they will wake up too late. It is a sign of the end times.

I would like to take the "ism" out of liberal as an ideology and put liberal back where it belongs and that is in the heart. Either we show liberality to others or we don't, the seal of God is there or the mark of the beast is there, the choice is ours to make.


I am disappointed in you..... Liberals believe in Abortion, Gay marriages, they have gone so far to the left they are liberal on everything. they have no morals at all. NOne!!! Zilch!!!! I was a Democrat all my life,,but not any more, I would never for a democrat again, I believe that I would be spitting in the face of God if I were to do that. If I vote for themn Then I am votng for Abortions, Gay marriages, all the sins that they believe. I am A chiristian and In my heart of Hearts I cannot do that. I have my Christian Morals to stand on, and I believe if the Christian people, I mean born again, Blood Bought.. Really Really Saved, not just uttered the sinners prayer!!!!. Got on thier face before God , He would show them just how far off track the Liberals Democrat Party Of America has Gone.
IN God Service.
Sister iN Christ Jeus
Born Again

Hi Ada,

I appreciate your remark but I generally use the word liberal as a verb or an adjective, not a noun. Putting a liberal tag on people just because so-called liberals have associated themselves with licentious behavior is not the fault of true liberals but the fault of people that have proved themselves to be illiberal and abandoned the heavier Christian values that Jesus taught. By rejecting liberal actions, conservative Christians went the way of mammon and anti-social behavior and spawned the luke-warm church. The Pharisees were condemned for the same attitude. Dying for us in selfless love makes Jesus the greatest liberal in history. I am not a homosexual, have never advocated the practice of homosexuality and believe it to be aberrant and deviate behavior. It is not a liberal act but sin, pure and simple. I also believe illiberality to be sinful.

You need to ask yourself if you are illiberal by your assessment that I have no morals or if it is just a confusion of terms.

Thanks Ada, you always have pertinent things to say.


Thanks for replying Jay
I was really worried about you....lollol... for sure I was. I thought to myself Lord if Jay is liberal. As in Liberal Democrat party this is horrible. I was so upset. You are so right about the Jesus dying for us in Selfless Love. I am glad you straightened that our in my mind, as I was so bothered. I hate to think my Brothers/Sisters in Christ are going Liberal on me. I am A Christian and I love Everyone, Liberal too, I have to if I want to go to Heaven, But they have to change the attitude they have. I am so worried and stressed over our country and Lord we do not need John Kerry as President, He has said he does not believe in God like President Bush does. I really believe we have a President that Loves the Lord. I feel like the chuches and the christians of this country need to get behind him with thier prayers and Support.
Thanks again Jay.
God Bless

Hi Ada,

Thanks for that. We still have some work to do to show that true democracy is different than the current Democratic or Republican Party. As to Mr. Kerry saying that, I didn't hear it. I don't believe in God like President Bush does either, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in God. I agree with you though, we should all pray for George Bush. As far as attitudes changing? We are all guilty and need to repent but bottom line is that true liberal action involves distribution "unto every man according as he had need" and the conservative church has called that evil, Republicans have anyway. Loving each other beyond our own involves much more.


Dear Latter Rain,..I just felt like submitting my two-bits on a contentious
Gays and "MARRIAGE" ....I admire the way many Men, and Women, enthusiastically greet one-another with a big hug or a peck on each cheek.. But,"Marriage" between two men or two women is baffling, it's an aberration.

I do believe and accept that Gays cannot help being that way, and personally would not think of harming them, as I gather that they're born to that direction.::: ....The Structure, particularly, shape, voice, thinking, and emotion, of Man and Woman is so different, that I find it sad that some men prefer to be rear admirals, in excretory channels.. It is a serious aberration, as even Animals and Birds seek their Opposite Gender. In our wired Electrical world there is Positive and Negative and attempting to put two Positives or two Negatives together could be injurious even disdisastrous.

..It means that, some time in the future, the meaning of marriage-partners will be extended to include Animals, that give unconditional love and emotional comfort in homes to many people, therefore, in time they may be qualified to the benefits of human comfort-Partners, but even that would be more acceptable

Since that same-sex way of association isn't stoppable.. I suggest that instead of abusing the word, "Marriage", use "Civil Agreement" or "Civil Partnership" or "Civil Bond" or even "Gay-bond", would be more appropriate; . I think it would be Sacrilege to change the Christian long-standing Male-Female Sacrament of Marriage of Man and Woman into buggeridge, sodomy, for civil or Political advantage....St.Paul BLASTED that aberration.:: Many non-Christian Eastern Creeds are horrified at how they are trying to push Canada and the U.S. into excrement by altering the meaning of the word MARRIAGE. [snip]

I'm an Octogenarian, four-score and four, twice married, so I sometimes get loads off my chest by occasionally submitting my opinion ....Cheerio!

Rupert H.D.Westmaas.

Yo Jay!!

Your a genius!! Plain and simple!! You are a total living Genius!! Screw IQ, you should just join Mensa out of principle. You make me happy Jay!! It warms my heart to know that you exist and are doing what you do. I am going to be matriculating to Divinity School in the fall. You inspire me. You fill me with hopeful expectation of the things that I will be studying. In a word, I agree with everything that you wrote!! Every damn thing!! I wouldn't want to get you into any sort of bondage. Or encourage you into a situation that would be harmful. But I really believe that you would make one heck of a church pastor and one heck of a spokesperson.

God Bless and Stay Up!!

Woody Lucas

Did not realize you would be "political", and this piece on liberation theology is ironic right now. I have taken a lot of crap of US based Christians who do not like my lack of "prayerful and political support of GW Bush, and his war of aggression into Afghanistan and Iraq". I called on Bush to be tried as a war criminal and crimes against humanity. If you know a Christian by their love and the fruit of the Spirit, what does that tell us of Mr. Bush? I am so disgusted with the simplistic thinking of Christians in North America.



In Isaiah 32:8, the word 'liberal' means noble or better yet generous...generosity being a character quality that Jesus said was to be a lifestyle for those who followed Him...along with compassion, forgiveness and repentance. Jesus' commands for the lifestyle to be lived by His followers are found throughout the Gospel books.

Luke records that the believers in Berea were 'more noble' because they checked out what they heard
Paul preach with God's Holy Scriptures, being as Jesus taught: wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

Paul also said that believers were to think noble thoughts, in Phil. 4:8.

It is impossible for believers to be political since we are commanded to pray for all peoples, believers and unbelievers, and government officials. By becoming politically minded our thoughts have become earth centered, in disobedience to God's command that our thoughts be heavenly minded -- living for heaven while
being aliens on earth -- just passing through, and commanded to bring as many souls with us as possible.

We can't win souls if we are bogged down by 'the cares of the world', what Jesus said was a deterrent
to following Him.

Not to mention that politics are anything BUT Godly. How many politicians are honoring to their opponents? No, they are mud slinging hateful libelous and slanderous. Christians who get involved in politics quite often
lose their moral Godly compass in the process, and their witness of LOVE - that God loves us and we therefore love others, without regard (as does God) to gender, race etc.

Yes we as Americans have rights however Jesus taught His followers to give up their rights. Americans sue for their rights; Jesus sacrificed His, even to death on that cross. He taught that His followers were to do the same - be servants and sacrifice.

Sacrificing is equivalent to generosity. And there we are - back to 'liberal' again. Christians ought
to be liberal, in every sense of the word that God spoke.

in Him,
Gretchen Offord
SaltShakers Ministries

Hi Gretchen,

As I am putting all this together, I find it quite refreshing to find a few in the prophetic community that can hear the Lord and become more like the prophets of old who had the courage to cry justice. Jesus is of course the greatest liberal that ever lived and we should be more like Him. As far as being "political," you are right, there is generally no liberality on either side when ideologies are so polarized. Unity involves getting together, defering to one another and of course loving each other regardless of any affiliations. Anxiously awaiting to see how this topic goes.


Dear All

The question of being Liberal is an old question. This matter is the same as the discussion between St Paul and St Peter regarding the Law of Moses and the teaching of Jesus Christ.

We christians have a new convenant(Jeremiah)a new law that is written in our hearts and not on stone. However this is not a passport to commit sin. We must still observe the Ten commandments.

As St Paul states we must be patient with others, and treat others as we would like to be treated - Love one another as yourself.


Carlyle Daley

Why social democrat and not Christian Socialist? I consider myself the latter......conservative on moral issues, (I prefer to think my views are Scripture based) and supporting a redistribution of wealth....'to each according to their needs.'

And I think that it is contrary for 'Christians' to be so firmly attached to capitalism and consumerism, particularly since engorging onself in the accumulation of money and things tends to result in nothing more than feeble token support for those in need. Check out the parking lot of any large congregation, and see how many shiny and big new vehicles are sitting there; then go to any 'gospel mission' in the area and see how much in need they are. Do countless 'Christian' families really need 3000+ square foot homes, each with 3 car garages? Or Land Rovers and Ford Excursions to take the kids to school or go shopping at the outlet center?

Dan Keram

Hi Dan,

This is a good outlook that you have, much more modeled after New Testament Christianity than the churches of conservative tradition that we have today. I am a democrat because it is the best that we have short of theocracy, which is better but we must be persuaded in our own minds to that, the perfect has not yet come.

We have discussed capitalism a little and found it an obvious contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Capitalism is worshipped as a christian god now by those under the delusion. Countries devoted to the poor are overthrown and replaced by those more "acceptable" to Washington. Many christians consider it heresy to speak out against economic injustice. Sad state of affairs for sure. Thanks.


liberal and conservative tend to speak to political connotations, and then have been absorbed by politicized Christian groups to distinguish between right and left wing belief systems. right wing (conservative) is generally understood to be a fundamental, real Christian, approach while left wing (liberal) tends to be everything else, especially in that it assumes that liberals don't believe in Christ or the church. unfortunately, Christ shied away from such labels because they tend to divide rather than unite. I know liberals who are very immersed in their faith and conservatives who are not. i believe it is about Christ and not labels. even the label Christian has been abused and misunderstood. those who have a heart for Christ are, in my mind, true believers. that is good enough for me. as we know, Christ only referred to his following as "the Way." which was sufficient until about 60 A.D., probably around Antioch, when the label "

--- Sean Lawrence

The church would need to be delivered from mammonism in order to understand what deliverances the poor require, and to bless them. Someone whose Christian life revolves around money and worldly goods will resist any liberation doctrine because they fear they will be robbed of what they possess.

Someone who is delivered from mammonism might be rich but use their wealth to bless the poor. In my small experience a poor person is most often insulted if you simply throw money at him and expect him to "elevate" himself to your proud standard. He would rather your love, your compassion, your understanding, your mercy, - on occasions he may need your cash but in the main he needs and wants your brotherhood.

The conservative church wants no brotherhood with the poor and the outcast too often, and I find that evil. Somehow it is not seen as disobedience, but it is: I would not think it necessary to list all the Biblical references.

An unwillingness to relinquish mammonism is the same thing to me as taking the mark of the beast. The conservative church resists attacks on mammonism because it thinks that deliverance from it would mean losing its money, its power, its prestige.

It does need to be said though that it is possible to be poor and not delivered from mammonism. That is just the saddest thing to see: A person with no peace and seeking it through things that will not give it to him. Lord Jesus send more labourers, some of the lowly ones have bought an enemy lie and they need the peace that only You can give.

For the rest of us, where is our trust, our hope, our power, our peace, our "prosperity" invested, in worldly things or in God? Are we storing up treasures in Heaven? Or conserving the corrupted ones "down here"?

Love, Mary

I agree with all you say. However, laissez-faire and domination is an OXYMORON! They are the opposite of each other. Those who believe in true laissez-faire believe in FREEDOM and oppose domination. Laissez-faire means to leave things alone! THAT is it's definition. Freedom and non-intervention.

It is those who oppose laissez-faire, that believe in domination. It is the socialists that oppose laissez-faire, who are always trying to dominate, control, and regulate everything. Just because some big-corporations and rich people support domination, does not mean they also support laissez-faire. The rich and big-business have given us big-government, trade protectionism, the Federal Reserve System and on, because domination benefits them and keeps competition at bay. It also keeps the little people down.

Because I am for laissez-faire, I too am anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist, anti-government, a libertarian, and an anarchist.

The term you should be using, in it's CONTEXT is, STATE MONOPOLY economic domination and oppression. Laissez-faire, in it's true definition, has nothing to do with it.

There is more than two-sides to many issues. There is more than just liberal or conservative. I am neither. I'm a libertarian. We never have progressive liberty under either liberals or conservatives. Their biases toward regulation and control in their different areas, always win out over the few areas where they purport to support liberty. You cannot have "social democracy" and liberty. The over-riding policy of social engineering, inherent in social democracy, will always trump liberty, in almost every area. To restrict economic liberty (not the same as domination, again), you must restrict personal liberty, also. Also, conservatism is not liberty either. It regulates business to favor the big. It gives special favors to the rich. That is NOT laissez-faire by any means. They also want to regulate personal behavior. I guess they think God was wrong in giving man the liberty to sin and even reject God.



Hi Tao,

Thanks for the response, and for putting libertarian and anarchy in the same sentence, we can sure agree with that. You are right, libertarians are not liberal. I believe that love for each other will bring spiritual responses and that the significant part of Christian freedom is deliverance from sin, the freedom to sin is licentiousness.


Because someone has freedom to do something, doesn't mean they should do it. However, a person is not really being moral, unless they have the freedom to be immoral, yet freely, chooses to be moral.
Being liberal, in the modern usage of that abused term, is not being loving. It is using force to get others to do what YOU think they should do. Instead of persuading people, you can FORCE them, including KILLING them to follow your ideas. You know, the ends justifies the means. The so-called "greater good". Hitler and Stalin believed that bunk too.
True love and charity comes from people giving VOLUNTARILY, not at the barrel of a gun.
Libertarianism is usually min-archism, not anarchism. In all fairness to libertarians, I am an anarchist, not so much a libertarian. Minimal government vs no government. Libertarianism is a philosophy of government, NOT a philosophy of how we should live our lives. Don't confuse the two. Libertarianism is about the proper role of government and the relationship of government to the people, nothing more. The people should be master and the government, the servant, not the other way around. The proper role of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property from force, fraud, and aggression, not to social engineer our lives, or make us "moral".
Morality and a better society comes from us, acting in the private sphere, using persuation, not force. That is love!
Now I don't care for statism or forced socialism in any form. Liberalism and Conservatism are two forms of statism or coerced association. They are two ways to mold the people according to the wishes of whoever is in control at the time. I'm tempted to say I prefer liberalism over conservatism, yet I might be asking for a worse kind of slavery. I prefer not to find out! Laissez-faire!

Good talking to ya!


By the way. Putting two words in the same sentence does not make them equal!!
Smart people are not that stupid. Are you going to equate smart and stupid?
Libertarianism is about rights, Anarchism is about government, or no government. You can believe in libertarian rights, without being an anarchist.
Also, I use the term "liberal" according to its modern day usage, as being equated with big-government socialism. I am, in fact, a classical liberal, as is libertarianism. Libertarianism is liberalism, in the true sense of the word. I'd prefer the term liberal. It's such a beautiful word, corrupted by those who believe in force, over liberty. Thus, some of us have to use the term libertarian. Even that is being corrupted some, unfortuanately.
Using government force, to do things, does not prove ones love. When one voluntarily steps out, to do things for people, that is love.
We still sin, in this life. Or, are you saying sinless perfection, is possible? I guess it is, if government forces people not to sin!
Freedom to sin is NOT licentiousness. The ACTUAL sinning, is licentiousness! If you don't have the freedom to sin, then, when you are not sinning, you are not really being virtuous, are you? I bet you believe you are saved by faith in Christ, PLUS not sinning, don't you? Otherwise, why do you have such a sin conscienceness?

Have a good one,



Good to hear from you. You bring up an important issue.

What God has been revealing to me over the past year is that this movie, "The Passion Of The Christ", is addressing is our hearts. Many believers in the US (for example) have lost their first love, having had it replaced with head knowledge. See Rev 3, Ephesus. The reasons for this tragedy of heartlessness are varied, many having come
from the emphasis on knowledge in the secular realm. Note that many of our finest colleges were founded by
Christians, yet became more involved with the pursuit of knowledge rather than wisdom (what God calls us
to seek, and it comes by surrender to Him).

This movie is one of many things that God is going to do to call believers in the US back to their first love: Him, and Jesus. John 17:3

There are many other issues related to this movie that are important as well however the key issue is our hearts - do we love as He first loved us?

in Him,

For the church in any country to retreat from politics is nothing short of heresy. Christianity is political or it is not Christianity.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

(submitted by I forget who)

Hi all,

"A liberal education leads to knowledge and a conservative one to ignorance."

Had to think about this Jay. I expect it caused a few raised eyebrows to say the least.

The fear of the Lord, so says Proverbs 1 verse 7, is the beginning of knowledge. I read that chapter in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, realizing that the teaching is right on with your newsletter, and our current discussion.

Verses 10-19 are as follows:

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

How many warnings do we need before we will take notice that greed for gain in the church is not acceptable to God? In this passage we are warned not to be enticed by those whose life's rule is one of entrapment and exploitation - not to be tempted to join in with the schemes that are designed, by overt or covert methods, to seize ownership of a man's livelihood and worldly resources, and conserve it for personal gain.

"Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird"

Any bird is fair game for those ones whose life is one of exploitation. Whether it is a "proselyte" of prosperity doctrine, an unwitting benefactor, the spoils of war or wealth itself - there are many slain, and the blood shed will be among that number. It will end in death, not for those who know God, but for those who prove by their own actions, their own greed, that they have neither harkened to Him, nor once hearing retained their knowledge of Him.

It is not possible to know God, in the sense of having experiential knowledge, and miss this message of trust in Him as provider, taking the option of self-denial and preferance to the poor. The character of God is generous, loving, liberal. Who has ever come up close to Him and not been overwhelmed by the depth and power of His love. Our self-centred lives become God-centred in possession of this experiential knowledge, and begin to overflow in service to those in need.

Vs.24 Because I have called, and you refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

The greedy man is indiscriminate in his seeking for gain, but the God we serve is likewise indiscriminate in His blessing - grace and mercy, health and happiness and joy to those who harken and receive Him. To all He has stretched forth His hand. To all He offers abundant life. To all He promises blessing if we will heed. He stretches forth His hand and sends rain on both righteous and unrighteous alike. Woe to us if we will not receive His rebuke in this matter as blessing, for such blessing comes as it were from the bottom of the barrel, preceding judgment. His hand is tirelessly and freely extended to us in all good things, that we might learn of His goodness and do likewise.

vs 25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof.

What then is the judgment pronounced on those who do turn away from the knowledge of God?

"I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. "

It is a conservative ethic to heap up and amass wealth against the day of calamity. We do it personally, corporately, nationally, in the church and out of her, and the direction of gain is inward: God provides, and we conserve what He gives. This is surely ignorance of the magnitude of God, and the lavishness of His generosity towards us in return for such small efforts of worship and faithfulness.

But to take knowledge of God is to find in Him all our needs supplied, and more abundantly as we serve our brethren, that the full blessings of God might be made available to all those who love Him and hear Him. He waits to open heaven to us who trust Him, and the direction of gain is outward: God provides, and we distribute. The barrel is not empty here, but ever-full.

The days of God's abundance to the greedy and disobedient are coming to a close, and in due course all will change: judgment and everlasting punishment to the adversaries, but freedom, abundance, security and life ever more to the faithful, those who hear, who therefore know, and who go and do as God commands.

Verse 33 But whoso harkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Love from Mary

Praying for you Jay this morning, every way I know how. What we are discussing is bound to provoke hostility and spiritual attack. Keep your chin up, compassionate hearts already have the victory.

Basically, Jay, I have reviewed the responses. I find nothing "outrageous" but there are a few points to consider.

To denote the word "heritage" and contrast it with conservatism (treasure the heritage) and libertarianism (jeopardize the heritage) is an interesting concept. Paul says that we are neither Jew, nor Greek (or for that matter neither male or female). I would imagine that means that our true "heritage" our Spiritual heritage. A heritage of Christ, who only asks that we pass down, "love" for God and our fellow man but not worldly ways. Mark 7:8 is a good place to be on that issue, Jay: "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." That being the case, neither conservatism nor libertarianism fits the bill.

Jay, do you remember the discussions we had some time ago on the issues of "Sola Scriptura" and by comparison, those who would treat the bible as a "historical document?" Doesn't this issue about Liberals looking to be more accepting to change and conservatives not be so accepting of change remind you of those days? (smile) Based on some of the comments below, I shudder to think that conservatism means a reluctance to change (Sola Scriptura) and liberalism (historical documentation) an inclination toward change. Isn't that the reason why the Anglican Church has a gay Bishop? Jay - the spiritual answer is in Romans, chapter 1 - Righteousness. A more concrete worldly example is an organization like the Civil Liberties Union. True, it sounds like a good idea when they say we should have freedom of speech, right? But what of those who preach "hatred" - are they also entitled to free speech? Not if we're living according to the mandate of Jesus - love.

What turns me off about the whole matter (politics/liberal/conservatives/democratic) is that worldly politicians are so shallow. They will support an issue like opposition to gay marriages, but how about all of the other things that they support that we are not in favor of? If the church supports or espouses a doctrine of conservatism, how can it be led by Christ, Who blew away the establishment with the truth? The same with a doctrine of libertarianism. If the church supports or espouses a liberal doctrine, how can it be led by Christ, who blew off rebellion and change with peace, love and deeper insight of the truth?

Well, I guess that leaves me with the belief that these concepts of politics, and the conservative vs. liberal doctrines are far below what God intends for us. Many people I know say that it is important that we vote and that we must choose the lesser of the two evils. Yet, when I think of the suffering of Jesus, I wonder, why should we even consider evil. Christ's sufferings were too deep for me to even want anything other than a spiritual government.

Jay, thanks for the opportunity to respond. I know it is too late, please accept my apologies. I hope that this can help you in your endeavors!

Bill Caraway

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the great response. The points that we agree are many but I wanted to say a little about a couple of things, sola scriptura and libertarianism.

Sola Scriptura isn't to me a conservative notion as it is a legalistic one in that it generalizes and leaves no room for the free operation of the spirit in interpreting the Bible. The bible is true whether we recognize it as truth or not but at the same time, there are present truths that are not mentioned in the Bible. It is our perception of truth that is the variable and too many people misinterpret the Bible. The constant here is the Holy Ghost, truth needs more in these cases than the Bible, it takes the free operation of the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the proper way to believe. That does not contradict the Bible nor does it limit it. The letter kills without the spirit. We need both the Bible and the Holy Spirit to receive the word and not just the Bible alone.

On the libertarians, that is not the same thing as liberals. While I do not like what so-called liberals teach, or conservatives opposed to liberality, I think that the libertarians are in an idealistic wonderland, not the real world. I had to deal with this some time ago but just had a little discussion with a libertarian recently and confess to admitting that he had some good points. In government, the liberals and libertarians are on opposite poles. Where a liberal democrat is often accused of being big government, libertarians would be happiest with no government at all. When a liberal in government wants to do the most for the people, the libertarian doesn't want anything from the government, abolish taxes, leave us alone. I believe in elevating people in need, not leaving them alone. When a liberal wants tax dollars spent on the poor, libertarians would rather let them take care of themselves or die, no social programs or social security at all. The point is in my mind though that it might be better to have no government at all than one bent on a religious and political conquest of the world for economic gain (causing craft to prosper in his hand).

Again, thanks Bill.


Hi Jay,

My apologies for my ignorance. Thanks for your great response. That is a powerful gift the Lord has bestowed on you, Jay - not so much discerning the truth (which you do VERY well) but of breaking out light to the blind in love. (SMILE) I admit I learned something. It was very enlightening for me to learn the difference between liberals and libertarians. I will be very careful in noting the difference between the two. I have no excuses for me not knowing the difference - or at least taking the time to get it straight on my own political line of continuum before blurting it out.

I agree with you in part concerning the sola scriptura doctrine - I believe it is a more constricting and confining practice of belief than what you express.

Thanks for the response, Jay. There is much that I agree with - but let me ask you...based on your concluding sentence,

" might be better to have no government at all than one bent on a religious and political conquest of the world for economic gain (causing craft to prosper in his hand)."

is your search (original question) one that actually goes beyond the fact that there is no need for a political or religion system, but rather one that seeks a higher form of "guidance" than capitalism? Just a thought...

I believe that their should be civil government but today, we are becoming more totalitarian every day. As far as capitalism goes, it obviously goes against what Jesus taught, a great indictment on the "democratic" world of today. Government according to Jesus and the one set up for mammon are very different, He said that we cannot serve both but is exactly what many Christians try to do today.



A very valid discussion for our times...

I'm sorry this response is a bit late regarding the latter rain discussion of liberality and the Gospel; but i was looking at my old Email and noticed a site someone sent me. It seems there are some similar observatons at the following site

As they used to say on TV: "the truth is out there"


Hi George,

Thanks for that link, they make the same point. Another that I found by going there is so good, I wanted to take the advantage to print a part of it from:


According to the Bible...


You: Huh?

Me: You heard me. The Bible says a liberal is
generous and noble!

You: Oh, really? I keep hearing that liberals are:

  • Atheists
  • Agnostics
  • Heretics
  • Socialists
  • Communists
  • Bleeding hearts
  • Big spenders of government money.

Me: Okay, I’ll give you those last two. Generous people usually spend big. Noble people often feel compassion for others—that’s what “bleeding heart” means, doesn’t it?

You: Well, where in the Bible does it say that liberals are…wow…noble and generous?

Me: Look at these words:

Proverbs 11:25: The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. (KJV)

Isaiah 32:5: The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (KJV)

Isaiah 32:8: But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand. (KJV)

“Liberal” in the King James is, in the New King James Version and the New International Version, translated as “noble” or “generous”. In the KJV we even have Isaiah saying that a liberal by liberal things will stand! Therefore, according to the Bible, a liberal is generous and noble!

You: Oh, come on! Aren’t you just playing with words? Doesn’t “liberal” mean different things in different times and settings?

Me: Sure it does. But I’ve done some hunting on the Internet (at, and I haven’t found yet a single Bible passage in modern translation using “liberal” in a derogatory way! Oh, the American Standard Version and the Amplified Bible say that “many will entreat the favor of a liberal man” (Proverbs 19:6). The Darby translation warns the rich of the “present age” to be “liberal in distributing” (1Timothy 6:17-18)!

Think of the word “Christian”. These days, you’d think “Christian”— especially “born-again Christian”—means “right-wing Republican”.

You: Doesn’t it?

Me: No. “Christian” means “follower of Jesus Christ”.

You: Hold it! Are you telling me that all those liberal-bashing conservatives—they’re not really Christians?

Me: That’s not for me to say.

Romans 14:4: Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (NIV)

James 4:12: There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? (NIV)

And they can’t judge me either. Only God knows for sure who’s a real Christian and who isn’t.

You: So, is Jesus a liberal or a conservative?

Me: Well, Jesus does have a “bleeding heart” of compassion for the masses. (See Matthew 9:36, Mark 6:34.) (He also had a bleeding head, hands, side, and feet!) He did say to a woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

You: But that doesn’t answer my question.

Me: Jesus is not a Democrat nor Republican, nor an American, nor European. He’s a Jew from Israel in Western Asia, the Middle East. Born to a first-century working-class family (Joseph was a carpenter), Jesus said he was the Messiah, the Son of God. He came not to call the self-righteous, but sinners (Matthew 9:13). Really, we all need a Savior: liberal or conservative, rich or poor, male or female, black, white, brown, yellow, or red.

You: Isn’t the Bible against abortion and homosexuality?

Me: Yes. But the Bible is for justice for the oppressed, healing for the brokenhearted, freedom for the captives, caring for the poor and hungry, protecting the earth, treating animals well, and welcoming foreigners and immigrants. The Bible sees the worth of all people of every ethnicity, gender, and class.* The Bible condemns favoring the rich (James 2)! Don’t forget the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Also, the Bible supports restoration for outcasts and forgiveness for sinners.

Hi all,

Still thinking on the Latter-Rain discussion, big subject.

Jay said:

"Being liberal to the poor is a means to sanctity."

Sanctity is purity or holiness.

I am thinking that holiness is "God-centredness", and because God is so compassionate and full of love in nature, to be "God-centred" is also to be "others-centred".

Sin is self-centredness.

Being liberal is being others-centred, so giving to the poor must be a means to sanctity.


Who are the poor?

There are poor in a worldly sense who need our liberality to meet their ordinary needs. But these poor are "rich in faith", which means that they have a spiritual abundance to bless others. There are also though, those who are poor spiritually who are the rich ones in a worldly sense. If we are rich in faith, our spiritual surplus must be used to bless them so that they may become poor in the world, and thus rich in God. That is what you are doing by getting this subject into the open.

The "poor in spirit" of the beatitudes may be taken in 2 ways: It could apply to those whose lives are simple and unworldly, who are content with what little they have and who do not lust after worldly things. Theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. It could also apply though to those who recognize that they are in possession of worldly abundance and yet are spiritually poor: they know the vanity of the wealth they have before God and would give it all to be poor for His sake. Theirs also is the Kingdom of Heaven.

It emphatically does not apply to those who have worldly goods in abundance and who feel that they are rich because they are favoured by God; who have no intention of parting with anything that they have to meet anyone's needs besides their own and their families; who so believe in the spirituality of wealth that they see fit to conserve what they have and expand it at another's expense if necessary. They have taken the mark of the beast.

The spirit of "other-centredness", which is holiness, is a life spent in service to the poor in whatever way they are poor. The one thing that there is no shortage of, spiritually or otherwise, is need. But our God shall supply ALL our need, and may He use us to do so in whatever capacity of usefulness He has gifted us. There is a balance, a holy orderliness of want supplied by willing saints in the love of God, such that every need may be met. The rich and poor alike may rejoice, as each gives of his abundance. And whatever we give, materially or spiritually, may we give with simplicity (liberality) and with joy, willingly and with a heart of love.

Love from Mary

Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia; how that in much proof of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For according to their power, I bear witness, yea and beyond their power, they gave of their own accord, beseeching us with much entreaty in regard of this grace and the fellowship in the ministering to the saints: and this, not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves to the Lord, and to us through the will of God.

Insomuch that we exhorted Titus, that as he made a beginning before, so he would also complete in you this grace also. But as ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all earnestness, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also. I speak not by way of commandment, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity also of your love. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich.

And herein I give my judgment: for this is expedient for you, who were the first to make a beginning a year ago, not only to do, but also to will. But now complete the doing also; that as there was the readiness to will, so there may be the completion also out of your ability. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not. For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality: your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality: as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack. 2Cor. 8, 1-15

Hi everybody,

I guess what Mary says here is really bottom line. When I decided to take up the lib/cons issue, it was to make a point at a time that I thought it should be made in relationship to the poor. Now this liberation theology part that I had already had a part in is coming at me like a flood because of current events and a decision I made to put together Aristide.Org. The whole point of liberation theology is taking care of the poor, something that the Bible puts great emphasis on but something that rich Christians or the wannabe rich have not been able to deal with. I remember a quote, something like when you go out and give food to the poor, they call you a saint but when you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.

I am also seeing a lot of fear in Christians to stand up for the truth these days. Of course, worldly Christians have been out there, while they may be considered cold in the spirit, they are hot in the love and works department and shine a lot brighter than the pew warmers and stay at home Christians that many of us are used to. They may not preach the gospel but they live the gospel, I am sometimes more comfortable with these than in the churches. Once enough Christians get together to bring the relevancy of the gospel to the world, the world will come into revival. I have said it many times that the church is held captive in Babylon. They are not the collective voice of Jesus until they get out and into the restoration of the new temple.


Hi all,

It can't be any secret that I am with Jay on what he says here.

Crucially our way forward is in our solidarity with the poor: as Christians it is our only option. I believe this is what God wants from us. But too much in Christian circles, poverty is looked down upon: instead of being seen as the blessed state that it is, we look down our noses at the brother of low degree, ostracise him, punish him, and are generally happier the fewer poor people we have sitting along the pew.

I joined the Haiti support group a while back to learn a little more about liberation theology as practised by Aristide, and how this is seen by the Christian and non-Christian public. One of my first fears was that it would be seen as synonymous with necklacing, you know how these things go....the dirt will be dug up and marketed and that will be the end of that. If the R.wing gets its way. But I want to make a point that liberation theology for the Christian needs to identify who the poor are before they can be liberated. I think this can only be done in the Spirit. Yes the one who is poor in worldly terms ought to be able to hope for some redistribution of material provision to meet his needs.

But what about the poor Spiritually? Do they not have the right to expect to benefit in some way, or does the blessing flow only one way? The rich have a material resource which should be used to liberate the poor. But so the poor have true riches, a Spiritual resource of faith that is the only thing that could liberate the rich from their unbelief. Liberation theology, to be spiritual and acceptable to God, must have no respect of persons. Jesus loves all men the same.

The answer as I see it, is in that word solidarity. Poverty is an attitude of heart, and as the Bible says, a blessed state. Recognition of personal poverty before God is what liberates His wealth into Holy action, that all needs might be met. Unless we are all ready to give what we have for the benefit of others in the love of God, we have missed the whole point of the Gospel.

Love, Mary

Hi Mary,

I guess the scripture that you are referring to is this one from the sermon on the mount found in Matthew 5: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." If this is spiritually poor, this is not the poor that liberation theology means with the preferential option for the poor for you could be spiritually poor and have an abundance of worldly goods. However being poor in spirit may not mean the same thing as spiritually poor. I think this is what you are getting at.

There have been theologians that have tried to interpret this verse in various ways because it pretty much does not make sense without some interpretation to explain it. Being spiritually poor should not be a qualification of entrance into heaven unless it is thought of in a different way beyond the simple meaning of the words poor in spirit.

Luke 6:20 also records the sermon with these words: "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." Obviously this is more descriptive of physical poverty than a spiritual one. I have heard it explained that it is those that recognize their spiritual poverty that have the heavenly calling but that does not explain the discrepancy in the two verses. One is clear and the other is debated. I prefer to think like you that even a rich person can be poor in spirit if their spirit reaches out to those in need, the "attitude of heart" that you mention. Makes perfect sense to me.


Hi Jay,

I was just reading this scripture, Luke 16, 19-26:

" There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."

If anything I am in the position at present that needs to lovingly consider the plight of the rich man in hell, and the many who will follow him to the same destination having chosen to love the world and conserve its resources to themselves.

What on earth can we say that will not be misinterpreted, or at least viewed with the utmost suspicion? How are we going to prevent them from rushing headlong towards the hell and eternal torment that awaits them? It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...but the things that are impossible with men are possible with God.

The comfort of riches and material abundance is a choice with eternal consequences, as this passage shows. The only option for the rich in spiritual terms NOW is to find ways of becoming poorer, i.e., begin giving to those who need.

We have angered God by bringing materialism into the church and saying that it is our right to be rich in this world. Prosperity doctrine, as an example, appeals to the rich as well as the would-be rich because it perverts the Gospel by suggesting that if we give, we will get. So people give, in order to get. They do not give in order to bless or to help others or to relieve suffering, they give in order to get.

I suggest that is where the evil lies, and where it may be dealt with by bringing it to the cross. How long will God suffer the rich to use Him, the Lord God Almighty, as an exploitable resource in this way? It is this attitude, and you are right it is a conservative attitude, that needs to be put to death in the people of God.

By conserving wealth, and mindsets that predispose us to worldly increase, we have caused the discomfort of others: the beggar Lazarus reminds me of many I meet up and down the streets of the local city, covered in sores, dogs beside them, waiting for the crumbs to fall from a rich man's hand as he passes.

But our brother Lazarus out there will be comforted eternally, whose discomfort and suffering is a passing thing belonging to this world. On that basis our mourning for the ones who die on the street can be turned to joy, that they will be received quickly into the bosom of the Father.

Not so the one who has chosen the rich man's way. No word is too strong for the one who believes he may take his ease, his comfort, his abundance with him into the next world. Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. (James 5, 1-3)

Regarding the heaping of treasure, we have done this personally, corporately in the church, and also politically among the Christian nations. We have despised the poor. Unless we start to reverse this trend, it will be to our eternal shame.

It starts with us, because the church locally, corporately and nationally is composed of people like you and me, of individuals who have a responsibility to live godly and work diligently before Him for the rest of our days. Lord help us, in this matter, to look upon our own profound spiritual need and falling-short.

There is not much time left to put things right.

Love, Mary

liberal and conservative tend to speak to political connotations, and then have been absorbed by politicized Christian groups to distinguish between right and left wing belief systems. right wing (conservative) is generally understood to be a fundamental, real Christian, approach while left wing (liberal) tends to be everything else, especially in that it assumes that liberals don't believe in Christ or the church. unfortunately, Christ shied away from such labels because they tend to divide rather than unite. I know liberals who are very immersed in their faith and conservatives who are not. i believe it is about Christ and not labels. even the label Christian has been abused and misunderstood. those who have a heart for Christ are, in my mind, true believers. that is good enough for me. as we know, Christ only referred to his following as "the Way." which was sufficient until about 60 A.D., probably around Antioch, when the label "

--- Sean Lawrence

Jay, so glad I found your website. There's lots of meat in it. Thank you very much. My two cents' worth on the conservative vs. liberal issue: God has set standards and yes, He is merciful. As political system the question is how does the individual philosophy or idiology compare to the word of God. In the US most of the so called liberals are pro-abortion, pro homosexual marriage, pro higher taxes to finance all kinds of social programs, many if not most of which are give-aways to people who could very well fend for themselves (and, I may add, God expects them to, as we see in the parable of the talents). I consider myself a conservative, who favors programs to assist the truly needy, i. e. disabled, orphans and widows, and others only for a limited time, until they can get back on their feet. I realize we are living in an imperfect world and happen to think that the conservative platform, if properly applied, comes closer to the ideal as laid out in the Word of God.

Keep up the good work!

P.S. What do you mean, when you say you are a social democrat? Do you mean that you are democratic with a social agenda, based on the Word of God, or do you mean that you subscribe to the social democratic political systems as practiced in Europe? The latter is totally humanistic and you would have a hard time explaining to me how you could be at the same time be a social democrat in that sense and a christian.

I agree Jay.

I believe the Bible says that if a man has this world's goods and sees His
brother in need, but does not have compassion on Him, how can the love of
God be in Him? St. Francis of Assissi once said something like: "As you go,
preach the Gospel. When necessary, use words." Zig Ziglar put it this way:
"people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care
about them."

We need to get this word out to the church world


Seeking Jesus

2 Corinthians 8:14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

Sometimes we just want to be at church and soak in the presence of God. I know that we know Jesus through the Father and His creation and know that He is everywhere and vitally interested in all of us but I seek Jesus among the congregation, experiencing Him in a personal and vital way among others. There is a move of God in a few assemblies that can see the true shekinah glory.

A sanctified congregation takes repentance but pride keeps us from going to a certain church sometimes. They don't measure up to our standards, our way of doing things, our interpretation. Pride every time. I was out of churches for years, studying and writing but I should have been under a faithful pastor that can see all the falseness and weakness about me. You think He doesn't? You think that you are part of an evangelical movement or five-fold or whatever and that is all there is?

We must get together where we work together in His spirit. Listen to what Jesus taught us. We are His representatives, where we are, there He is. Jesus is part of us body, soul and spirit. We need to look into the eyes of a congregation that are called by His name and see Jesus with all our pride put away.

The Jesus that I would seek today is the same Jesus that empowered the early church with such an earnest and urgent expectancy of His soon return that they produced a church right side up. I have visions of being among the number that brings the next great work of God to the masses and I see many of you there. I see that Elijah move and the work of the two witnesses; the name of Jesus is on our lips and we act and speak with His power and authority. I see a Pentecost move that reveals Jesus in us as the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I see a Jesus that insists on love, humility and compassion as the qualifications for leadership. This is the Jesus I seek in all of us.

Spirit and grace upon us all, we would see that Jesus as we would be that Jesus. The spiritual body works in harmony and the hour is come for the sons of God to be manifested. The world wants to see Jesus but instead sees a body that has been fragmented. Amid the strife, we have seen the holy Jesus, the one that has been handed down from our fathers as an example to us. The old time religion? Perhaps, but rather a new holiness movement, not by the rules of man but with a Jesus that brings equality. For this to happen it must be in the power of the real Jesus and I mean the really, really real Jesus attached to a perfect bride that is fed by the One Shepherd. Not the Jesus that the a divided world offers but the one of love, compassion and mercy.

I have a vision of many in the world rising out of poverty as the world's wealth is finally redistributed to them and I see a Jesus that rises as the Queen of the South to condemn this generation. Jesus come quickly. People get ready. The world will believe if a united church lifted their hands together as only a united force can do. I see a Jesus that will do all these things and more. I see Him coming soon.

Jay Atkinson

Latter Rain Discussion Archives

The Lord has given us the grace to reconcile the children to their Fathers

As One Body

  • We prepare for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb
  • Harvest the Fruit of the Latter Rain
  • Follow Him as the Army of the Lord into His Kingdom.

A Holy Bride Says Come!

Issue Oriented Discussion Newsletter

Index | Search This Site | Aristide.Org | The Latter Rain | Babylon the Great | The Kingdom | The Nicolaitans | Jezebel
The Baptism With the Holy Ghost | The Grand Delusion | World Trade Org | Liberation Theology | Jay Atkinson | Alphabetical Index