Once Christian Marriage Means Nothing
(Part 2 of 2)
by James Jacob Prasch
In some cases one would be hardly surprised at marital infidelity in the church. That King James Only fanatic Peter Ruckman is on his third marriage is no surprise and when it was revealed that former Elim president Ian Bilby was having affairs in Elim all the while he was cheerleading The Laughing Revival as a move of God , no one should have been surprised. Although he could make no attempt to justify it, neither was I surprised when in a letter to a Pentecostal leader in The USA we have a copy of, Elim's Wynn Lewis attempted to mitigate the seriousness of an Elim minister having been imprisoned for having sex in the church nursery with a minor because the girl was 15 years of age. Indeed, I would rather be surprised if such open filth did not take place in a backslidden cult like Elim. Above all, the multiple divorces and remarriages of money preacher Robert Tildton should be expected as should divorce and remarriage by men like Richard Roberts, Peter Horrobin, or Ray Bevin. But when Arthur Blessit abandoned his wife and took off with a woman from London's Westminister Chapel, or when my dear friend Dr. Walter Riggins went into an adulterous relationship, or when Hal Lindsey divorces and remarries yet again, people like myself are left feeling shocked, hurt, and confused. As much as I once respected these men, we cannot 'Blink The Eye".
Thomas Moore is not the best example of someone who refused to compromise over illicit divorce in order to please man and paid with his life, because Moore's real problem was not the divorce of Henry VIII, but merely that for political considerations the Pope would not give Henry a papal dispensation to do it. Moore was as much the victim of his own misplaced loyalties as he was of the axe of King Henry. Yet the divorce and remarriage were improper, Thomas Moore did oppose it, and he was consequently decapitated at The Tower of London.
A better example would be John The Baptist who would not approve the improper remarriage of a woman to Herod and was likewise beheaded. These men refused to 'Wink The Eye' and lost their heads. Men like Derek Prince, Eliahu Ben Hayim, Johannas Facius, and Lance Lambert, in a manner of speaking, appear to have lost their heads and then Winked The Eye. The thought that others faced the chopping block rather than compromise with what Lance Lambert and Derek Prince have no trouble casually aligning themselves with is a sad indictment of the current state of the church and those who pose as its leaders. When those led astray by the wrong example and flawed leadership of such Eye Winkers participate, financially or otherwise, in something with which Mr. Horrobin is involved, on the basis of 2 John; 9-11, they too partake in the sin. But why should an adulterous church be expected to care about adultery?
We have often noted that wrong doctrine invariably begets wrong conduct. As we note on our 'Sons of Zadok' tape and video, the Hebrew term for being right and for being righteous is identical (Tsodek), and one scripturally in God's sight cannot be a righteous person (tsadek) if what they believe is not correct (tsodek). The idiotic notion that one can be in serious doctrinal error and still be regarded as 'a good brother' is simply a nonsensical and contra biblical invention of carnal Christianity. Being right in one's doctrine may not always guarantee that one is righteous, but being wrong in one's doctrine certainly guarantees that one is not.
This is why the New Testament contains twice as much exhortation to right doctrine as it does right conduct; without right doctrine, we cannot know what true right conduct is. This is also why in Paul's listing of the armour in Ephesians 6, he places Truth before the Breast Plate of righteousness in the chronological order of how the armour was to be put on. A legionnaire could not put on his breastplate without first girding his loins. So too, we cannot spiritually put on the righteousness of Jesus without first having right essential doctrine.
I recently had an encounter with what I can only describe as a pseudo spiritual woman involved with Ebenezer Trust in London. Her comment was 'Let God Judge', but she concretely refused to deal with the doctrinal or moral issues involved. Her words were the foolish babbling of an eye winker who is party to wickedness. God already has judged in His Word. He has directly told us what to do when there is unrepentant sin, and He has already given us His judgment about divorce and remarriage, and He commands us to act upon His judgment. She is in rebellion against The Lord and has rejected His Word. Her only saving grace may be that she does so under the influence of the example of Derek Prince and Lance Lambert; after all she reckons 'if such deeply spiritual men ignore the Word of God, it must be all right, with no reference in her thinking to what the Word of God says, nor with any regard for the victim - the abandoned wife.
As Isaiah said, Mr. Facius, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Prince may have their festival while accommodating what God calls open sin, and such leaders may ignore God's standards found in the bible and persuade naive and undiscerning Christians to believe it is all right. But, as Isaiah also blasted, God hates the festivals, (Isaiah 1:14-15) and such leaders, misguiding people and failing to uphold God's standards, are in The Lord's eyes but rebels (Isaiah 1:23). Giving platform and position to a man who gets rid of his wife and marries one younger may have a lot to do with Ebenezer Fund, but it has nothing to do with the actual purposes of God for his people Israel, and nothing to do with God's plan for His church.
Biblically, wrong doctrine inevitably brings wrong practice. Examining the wrong doctrines of those associated with Ebenezer Fund demonstrates the inevitable slide from wrong doctrine into wrong practice. Once the doctrinal standards go, the moral standards follow.
The Ebenezer Fund rejected warnings of scripture that God would require the blood of eternally lost Jewish not warned to repent and accept the gospel (Acts 20:26-27, also Ezekiel 3: 20). Biblically, a love for the Jews (or for anyone else) that intentionally withholds the gospel of Jesus and allows them to continue on their way into eternal hell without their Messiah Jesus, cannot be the love of Jesus.
Yet Ebenezer actually signed an agreement with the Jewish authorities not to present Jesus to the Jews they repatriate to Israel. Some other organizations bringing Jews to Israel do give them the gospel, but unlike Ebenezer, they are low key and do not try to make a 'look at us' big fuss of it, they just get on with it without the fanfare and do not seek the cooperation of the Jewish Agency at the expense of the gospel. As David Brickner, International Director of Jews For Jesus wrote: "Genuine Christian Zionists are unrepentant evangelists to the Jews, these others are frauds and phonies".
There are doctrinal errors underlying Ebenezer, including that made by the late Gustav Schiller in a letter we have from him, where he denied the bible's teaching about The Great Tribulation and The Time of Jacob's Trouble. For a Judeo Christian perspective of this Moriel recommends the work of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. Also the UK Autumn Moriel Conference will be examining this subject at Swanwick in November. The bible teaches that in this End Times calamity coming upon Israel, in an eschatological recapitulation of the horrific events of 70 AD predicted by Daniel and Jesus (and recorded by Josephus and Eusebius) that Jesus will return after 2/3 of them are wiped out (Zechariah 12-13, Luke 21:23-31), Jews are not being re-gathered for a Blessing, but for The Great Tribulation. The Blessing depends on coming to their rejected Messiah who has never rejected them (Matthew 23:39).
Ebenezer appears to have been less than forthright about its having signed this anti Jewish Evangelism agreement in its fund raising. Indeed, in the promotional literature for the July conference Mr. Facius says the purpose will be to fulfill Romans Chapters 9-11 and The Great Commission.
Romans 9 - 11 itself however states that Paul's desire is that the Jews will be saved (Romans 10:1), but with no preacher, how shall they hear the gospel (Romans 10:14)? As Israeli Evangelist Yacov Damkani points out on his tape, (just as the late Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones pointed out on his Romans 9-11 tape series), the theme and focus of these entire three chapters regarding Israel's prophetic destiny relative to the church, read in context, is Israel being evangelized and the future of the Church being prophetically bound up with and eschatologically dependent upon it.
Among other examples, Old Testament predictions of Gentiles bringing Jews back to Israel were fulfilled by the UN re-establishment of Israel, the philo-Semitic benevolence of certain Turkish Pashas during the First Aliyeh, and Operation Moses funded by The US Government - all with no help from Ebenezer. The Jewish Agency today will return any Jew to Israel (unless of course they believe Yeshua is The Messiah) without help from Christians. At the same time as Ebenezer Trust tries to bring Russian Jews to Israel without giving them the gospel, Natoly Sharansky is trying to push a law through the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to have Jewish believers in Jesus in Israel deported back to Russia! In this light, the entire scenario surrounding Ebenezer Trust is not only unbiblical, but ridiculous. Biblical prophecy is a sign to be recognized when it happens, biblical command is a directive to be implemented by the church. Prediction is prediction and command is command.
We are not even commanded in The Old Testament to repatriate The Jews at the cost of not preaching the gospel. On the contrary, in the literary prologue of the poetic exhortation of the Servant Songs of Isaiah commencing in chapter 40 to 'Comfort Ye My People', the text plainly says we are to comfort them with the gospel (Hebrew term besor - Isaiah 40:9 & 52:7). Neither are we ever commanded in The New Testament to fulfill these prophecies, but rather to give the Jews the gospel. Some organizations (with whom we have no quarrel) do both. The ludicrous notion that some are called to a social Zionist agenda void of the gospel while others to the gospel is stupid nonsense without any biblical exegetical foundation. So too is the abject claim that some witness by their words while others with their deeds. This is not biblical. We are not all evangelists, but we are all witnesses called to verbally bear witness one on one. This is the meaning of both the Greek term martyrios and Hebrew term L ha Ade. Biblically, we witness with our words and our deeds.
The very passage Mr. Facius sites in his promotional literature states directly that 'Faith Cometh by Hearing The Word of Christ', but without a preacher how shall they (in the context, Israel) hear it'? (Romans 10:14 7 17). His own literature indicts him and condemns his actions.
It was Christian anti Semites who twisted the bible this way substituting prediction for command. They read the predictions of Jews being slaughtered by gentiles in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 and made it their business to go out and be sure the prophecy was fulfilled! Ebenezer has the same distorted hermeneutic approach to the bible. Anti Semites murder Jews. By sending them to hell without the gospel, Ebenezer murders them spiritually. But in both cases, unless there is a genuine repentance, God will surely require their blood!
Thus Romans 9-11, the supposed purpose of the conference, is about the absolute opposite of what the conference was about, namely evangelizing Jews, not refusing to.
The 'Great Commission' also mentioned in the advert by Mr. Facius as the focus of the conference moreover, is precisely to preach the gospel. How can Mr. Facius and Ebenezer hold a conference with Derek Prince, Peter Horrobin, Eliahu Ben Hayim, and Lance Lambert and raise funds to fulfill the Great Commission and Romans 9 - 11 after signing an agreement promising not to do so? To say this in unethical is an understatement. If a secular charity was perceived to be raising funds under false pretenses for something they will not do The Serious Fraud Office and Charities Commission would investigate and the Trustees would face the definite possibility of a successful prosecution. As with Islam and Cults not ordaining homosexuals, once more the world seems to have higher ethical and moral standards than the church! With this kind of misleading fundraising going on, what is a little marital infidelity to such men?
Mr. Facius is not the only participant whose wrong doctrine has now led him into moral compromise however. Mr. Lambert joined forces with Mahesh Chavada who proclaims Christians not following the laughing and being drunk experience are 'Wicked Witches'. Ironically, this group included many of Mr. Lambert's own followers, most of whom were non Toronto Charismatic moderates, now branded witches by his colleague. Is it therefore in any sense astounding that he has no reservations about teaming up with a preacher who dumps his Christian wife and marries another woman? Once a man like Mr. Lambert betrays his own followers, teaming up with someone who denounces them as 'witches' for not buying into a demonically inspired counterfeit revival, who can be perplexed that he betrays upholding the sanctity of Christian marriage by teaming up with a man like Peter Horrobin? Once the bible goes, morals go.
Mr. Lambert's joint venture with Mahesh Chavada represented a shift in his ministry and marked something of a departure from a strong biblical stance by 'Prayer For Israel', Mr. Lambert's sponsor who supported him in it, and is now influenced by the unbiblical beliefs of The Barnabas Movement. However sad, it is no coincidence that Chrissy Rogers and other bible based Christian Zionists are now leaving 'Prayer For Israel' (PFI) on something less than amicable terms.
The pattern with Derek Prince is unfortunately similar. Among a host of other issues, Derek Prince publicly endorsed the Pensacola Deception (the American version of The Toronto Experience). The financial scandals, corrupted doctrines, open lying about the vibrating girl, and perverse antics on the Pensacola videos are perhaps best described as 'Sick'. But as the Heavy Shepherding Movement once did, Pensacola enjoyed the explicit sanction of Derek Prince. His doctrine is being compromised on a host of issues.
Because there has already been a departure from sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6 & 13-16), the departure from moral integrity on the divorce and remarriage issue is to be anticipated. All bad practice comes from abandoning good doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10). When doctrinal integrity goes, moral integrity cannot but also go. To those writing us who are distraught about this conference and confused by the involvement of Lance Lambert and Derek Prince with this 'preacher' who left a believing wife and remarried, we are saying that while we share their disappointment at the actions of these men, in light of what the bible says about those compromising doctrine, we are frankly not at all surprised.
If Mr. Prince, Mr. Lambert, or Mr. Facius wish to confront me in the presence of an open Christian meeting and in front of a video camera and debate these doctrinal and moral issues, I would earnestly welcome the challenge. How can Western Post Christian, Neo Pagan Society not morally collapse when its Church compromises the moral standards of God on something as fundamental as Holy Wedlock? But can what is supposed to be the Church of Jesus Christ not compromise when it is its own leaders, who are called to be examples to others, are the very ones doing the divorcing and remarrying?
Once Christian Marriages are sacrificed on the altar of self will or just plain lust, with an abrogation of vows made to God, Christianity sacrifices itself to the world from whom it is no longer visibly any different, and in some cases worse. Once leaders are the high priests carrying out the sacrifice however, while other leaders by their actions and silence condone it, we have another kind of marriage. This is the unholy wedlock of Doctrinal Death to Moral Death with backsliding preachers performing the ceremony. When the church has leaders who will sign agreements not to proclaim Christ and wink the eye at a sin God hates, it has no real leaders, only theocratic politicians standing in pulpits masquerading as leaders. Are Lance Lambert, or Johannas Facius leaders by any biblical definition? Their declared actions publicly and categorically prove that they most certainly are not. Once again: God Hates Divorce.
Can anyone imagine a Paul or a Peter signing an agreement to withhold the gospel from Jewish souls, or going along with divorce and remarriage in the church? If such Ebenezer Trust people really loved The Church, The Jews, and The Lord as Peter and Paul did. They would follow the commandments of the Lord (giving no place to marital sin in the church) as Peter and Paul did, and proclaim the gospel to Israel. But they will not, therefore they really do not love. Jesus said: "If You Love Me Keep My Commandments".
When the Church of Jesus Christ under the leadership of such figures accommodates Divorce and Remarriage, it is no longer upholding the true teachings of Jesus, therefore biblically they cannot be upholding the true Jesus (John 14:15). Thus, it is no wonder that the same organization refuses to preach Him to His own people who are headed for an eternal hell without Him.
Ebenezer literally means 'Rock of Help'. Whatever rock their help may be, the rock certainly isn't the rock whom they signed an agreement not to preach - It can't possibly be 'Christ the Rock'. HE HATES DIVORCE!