Sunday, October 30, 2016

Victory of Marcelo Crivella for Rio Mayor Astonishes Conservatives in Brazil


Victory of Marcelo Crivella for Rio Mayor Astonishes Conservatives in Brazil

By Julio Severo
Being used to the shamefully pro-abortion stances of Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), it was a big surprise, for me and other Brazilian pro-life leaders, to see the candidate for Rio de Janeiro mayor, Marcelo Crivella, delivering a speech after his election Sunday honoring the constituents who chose him. Crivella is a Macedo’s relative and a former UCKG bishop.
Marcelo Crivella
In a Facebook vídeo, Crivella said that the constituents’ choice of him was a “No” to abortion, a “No” to drug liberation and a “No” to gender ideology. This public acknowledgement was very important, because elected candidates today have no interest in citizens’ concerns. Crivella, even being a moderate socialist, had this concern.
In fact, the rival candidate promised to promote the abortion, drug and gender ideology. He was a radical socialist.
To bring to a good end, Crivella prayed the Lord’s Prayer with Catholics, evangelicals and people of other religions, not without firstly showing his gratitude to Pastor Silas Malafaia, the Catholic Church, Apostle Valdomiro Santiago of God’s Power World Church and International Grace Church, of R. R. Soares, for their support.
A moderate socialist, who esteems Christian values and respects citizens’ pro-life and pro-family will is much more necessary and important than atheistic socialists who run over the people’s will and despise God’s will.
The socialist or Marxist ideology, when handled by non-Christians, produces death. When handled by an evangelical as Martin Luther King (who was a Social Gospel adherent), produces apparently good social results, with consequences hard to measure, but never blatantly lethal as a total atheistic socialism.
This does not make the socialist ideology good, but the Gospel always mitigates socialism’s malignancy.
My will was for Rio and the whole Brazil to have real Christian conservatives ruling, but if God wanted a moderate socialist who respects Christian values, we should praise Him. At least, he is more open for dialogue than a stubborn atheistic socialist candidate.
A conservative tsunami is sweeping Brazil. According to the British newspaper Financial Times, “Brazil’s Evangelicals Push Politics to the Right.”
Financial Times said that the massive evangelical growth in Brazil is producing a swerve to the Right. The victory of Marcelo Crivella for Rio mayor is its evidence. The swerve to the Right is benefitting evangelical candidates as Crivella, who were not much conservative, but the swerve is producing miracles.
The swerve has everything to do with neo-Pentecostals. “Christian Century” magazine said, “Neo-Pentecostals have led the evangelical boom and have uniquely contributed to the development of an evangelical political ideology.”
In his speech of victory, Crivella began very well and very humble. May God help him to remain so. Brazil needs such courage. If he remains so, he easily reaches Brazil’s presidency.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Right Wing Watch, of People for the American Way, After Julio Severo, Again…


Right Wing Watch, of People for the American Way, After Julio Severo, Again…

By Julio Severo
Right Wing Watch, a major American socialist group, has “exposed” me this week, again, to its U.S. leftist audience for politically incorrect views. 
Right Wing Watch said:
Julio Severo proclaims that “neocon Hillary and her Catholic vice want to purge America from real Christian conservatives …The real Founding Fathers of America, including the first American president George Washington, were white, Protestant and conservative. They were not pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and neocon. They would never support neocon Hillary.”
Right Wing Watch exposed, at the same time, Tony Perkins and Matt Barber just for expressing conservative views hated by the U.S. left.
Other prominent conservative leaders frequently attacked by Right Wing Watch are: Scott Lively, Pat Robertson, Peter LaBarbera, Linda Harvey, Bill Federer, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, Joseph Farah, Jerry Falwell Jr., Jane Chastain, Erik Rush, Bryan Fischer, Michele Bachmann, James Dobson, Dinesh D’Souza, Family Research Council, Barbara Simpson, Mat Staver and many others.
This is not the first time Right Wing Watch exposed me. Earlier this month Right Wing Watch said:
Matt Barber’s BarbWire website posted a story on Monday by frequent contributor Julio Severo, who was alarmed by a “bisexual community briefing” at the White House last month and, in particular, the speech of a self-described bisexual Sioux man who began his presentation by calling on “the Great Spirit, Wakan Tanka, to guide our words and thoughts so that we can speak true and strong.”
In a column titled “Bisexual Indian Invokes Demons At White House,” Severo wrote that the man had invoked “homosexual spirits,” thereby infesting the White House with demons that can only be expelled by “people who know and use the authority of Jesus’ name.”
“A homosexual culture is a culture of demon possession,” he wrote. “Has the White House turned into a haunt of demons?”
The prominent atheistic website Patheos also criticized my Christian view on demons. They do not believe in any God and demon activity in this world. In an article titled “The White House Must Be Exorcised Of Bisexual Native American Demons, Says Christian Writer,” Patheos said, “Severo described the spirits/gay demons as being ‘invisible, lethal and destructive’ — which is fascinating given that, as far as anyone knows, no one has ever actually been murdered by one…”
The Patheos article generated 110 comments from raging atheists against Severo.
In another post this month, Right Wing Watch said: “Julio Severo warns that if ‘Hillary is elected, everyone in the United States and around the world will pay a high cost for her aggressive abortion and sodomy agenda.’”
They also “exposed” in September 28, 2015:
Finally, Julio Severo is not happy with the nomination of Eric Fanning to serve as Secretary of the Army: “I am sure that in Obama’s and Fanning’s case, the Father of America would approve sentence on them and he would treat, with abhorrence and detestation, their sodomy and sodomy advocacy as an infamous crime. In the least, Obama would be expelled from the U.S. presidency and Fanning would be expelled from Army, both with dishonor, never to return. Both have committed treason against the Father of America.”
They also “exposed” me in June 30, 2015:
Julio Severo warns that “homosexuality brought destruction to Sodom, and it will bring destruction to any city or superpower embracing it. A remnant of Christians faithful to God should warn about the danger of sodomy and support efforts to protect children and their families from it.”
In June 18, 2015, Right Wing Watch again “exposed” me by saying:
Finally, Julio Severo wants to see Scott Lively appointed “as a U.S. Special Envoy for the Human Rights of Children and their Protection against the LGBT Agenda.”
Again, Right Wing Watch read my politically incorrect view on Barbwire.
What does Right Wing Watch, which is owned by People for the American Way, want?
According to WND, People for the American Way (PFAW) is “an atheist socialist organization which, through publications like its ‘Right Wing Watch,’ dedicates itself to the destruction of conservatives in general.”
According to its website, Right Wing Watch has a special mission to attack conservatives opposed to the gay agenda, abortion and Muslim ideology.
Right Wing Watch has “exposed” my view other times too, and I answered here: “People for the American Way’s Leftist Diatribe Against a Brazilian Conservative.”
What do they intend to do?
In 2011, WND had reported on surveillance by the Homeland Security Department against my blog. What did they intend to do?
In the same year, WND reported in a headline on PayPal cutting my account after a campaign by a U.S. homosexual organization.
Why is Goliath (Right Wing Watch, Homeland Security Department, etc.) monitoring and worried about a small David?
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Financial Times: Brazil’s Evangelicals Push Politics to the Right


Financial Times: Brazil’s Evangelicals Push Politics to the Right

By Julio Severo
A recent report from the British newspaper Financial Times (FT) accurately said that Brazil’s evangelicals are pushing politics to the right, but it used an inaccurate example: Marcelo Crivella.
FT said, “An evangelical missionary in Africa for several years, Brazilian senator Marcelo Crivella once described Catholics and other Christian denominations as demonic and condemned homosexuality as a terrible evil. Such opinions — outlined in his book documenting his time in Africa — would raise eyebrows coming from any politician. But Mr Crivella, a gospel singer from Brazil’s evangelical Universal church, is the overwhelming favourite to become the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, one of the Americas’ most racially and socially diverse cities.”
FT then says, “His imminent victory in second-round elections on 30 October reflects the emergence of an evangelical bloc that is driving Brazilian politics to the right, analysts say, and is set to become more powerful and influential.”
Even though Crivella is being helped by the emergence of a powerful Brazilian right energized by evangelicals and their pro-family activism, he and his church have stances hardly resembling conservative or right-wing stances. In the Brazilian Senate floor in 2007, then Senator Crivella boldly said, “The Gospel is the most communist handbook that exists.”
In communist ideas, he does not represent most Brazilian evangelicals, who are conservative, even though most Catholic bishops would agree with him. And the Brazilian evangelical Right does not represent him.   
He is a relative of Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG). Macedo has been notorious for his opposition to pro-life causes, conservatives and the gift of prophecy. In his 2007 official biography, he said, “I support abortion, yes. The Bible also does it… A woman needs to have the right to choose.”
Crivella’s history includes his role as a UCKG bishop.
When the socialist administration of impeached President Dilma Rousseff wanted to pass a anti-“homophobia” bill that would endanger religious freedom in Brazil, Crivella did not know if he should side with his socialist ally Rousseff or conservative evangelicals.
Even so, the Financial Times, pretending impartiality, presented the opposing view of Jean Wyllys, the only openly gay member of the Brazilian Congress who is a lawmaker from the leftist Socialism and Liberty party. In the FT report, Wyllys, who supports homosexual indoctrination of children and their annihilation through legal abortion, is quoted as saying: “It’s not enough for them to evangelise — they also want to influence the law.”
In Wyllys’ view, only his homosexual activism should direct laws. Christians should be banned.
FT acknowledges that the evangelical bloc, represented especially by the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus, is an influential power in the Brazilian Congress and that “it played a key role in the impeachment of leftist former president Dilma Rousseff.” In an April report titled “President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil,” CBN had also acknowledged it.
FT says that in the 513-seat lower house, the House of Representatives, evangelical politicians form the “evangelical bloc,” accounting for a total of 199 seats.
FT said that the impeachment itself was led by one of the Congress’ most prominent evangelical leaders, Eduardo Cunha, then house speaker, previously known for championing bills against the gay agenda and abortion. Yet, FT reminds that he was arrested in relation to a corruption scandal at Petrobras, the state-owned oil company — a scandal that has engulfed the most powerful Brazilian socialists who were involved in larger corruption cases.
“The rise of evangelical politicians reflects in part demographic changes in Brazil. While still home to the world’s largest population of Catholics, the last Brazilian census in 2010 showed that evangelical churchgoers had risen to 22.2 per cent of the population from 15.4 per cent a decade earlier,” said FT.
U.S. magazine Christian Century seems to agree with FT by saying, “Some of the most vocal politicians in favor of the impeachment were evangelical leaders. In 2010, 44 million Brazilians, or about 22 percent of the entire population, identified themselves as evangelical or Protestant, and that growth has led to political influence. Neo-Pentecostals have led the evangelical boom and have uniquely contributed to the development of an evangelical political ideology.”
“Their growing influence is causing some concern,” said the Islamic news site Al Jazeera.
“The growth in evangelical Christianity is taking place without a deep discussion of the values enshrined in our historical character,” said Rogerio Baptistini, of Mackenzie Presbyterian University, a mixed liberal and conservative Calvinist institution that does not accept the neo-Pentecostal growth.
“We are an open and tolerant society, but this sudden growth threatens rationality,” added Baptistini, according to Al Jazeera.
If Marcelo Crivella would depend on communism, which he praised, to be the next mayor of Rio de Janeiro, he would surely lose votes from most evangelicals. But he is facing a more radical socialist opponent. FT says, “In Rio de Janeiro, better known for its city beaches crowded with scantily clad bathers than its deeply Catholic Portuguese past, polls suggest that Mr Crivella is leading with 46 per cent support, compared with 29 per cent for his rival, leftist candidate Marcelo Freixo.”
FT said, “Mr Crivella has sought to distance himself from his more extreme statements. In his book, first published in 1999, Mr Crivella wrote that… public health could be improved by expelling the demons that caused disease. He said African religions were based on ‘evil spirits,’ a controversial claim in Brazil, where half of the population has some African blood.”
Even though half of the Brazilian population has some African blood, FT infers that there is an automatic obligation to portray and label blacks as members of African religions. Most Pentecostal churches in Brazil, including the Assemblies of God, which is the largest Brazilian evangelical denomination, have a membership and leadership of many blacks and people who have African blood.
“Mr Crivella has apologised profusely for what he wrote, saying the book was the work of a young missionary, ‘whose immature seal led him to commit this lamentable error.’ The book was published when he was 42. ‘I love Catholics, spiritualists, evangelicals, everyone. If I have on any occasion caused offence, I ask for pardon. The same in relation to homosexuality,’ he said,” according to the Financial Times.
Yet, Crivella has never apologized for praising communism, even though his candidacy is being propelled by conservative evangelicals who hate communism.
Will the emergence of a powerful Brazilian evangelical conservatism push Crivella to the right?
With information from the Financial Times, Christian Century and Al Jazeera.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, October 23, 2016

“The Purge: Election Year”: Horror Film Presents Plot to Take the White House


“The Purge: Election Year”: Horror Film Presents Plot to Take the White House

By Julio Severo
The storyline of the horror film “The Purge: Election Year,” released this year, was set in the White House as Senator Charlene Roan (actress Elizabeth Mitchell) is running for President of the United Stated of America.
Candidate Roan (who seems to purport to represent Hillary Clinton, who is also a former senator) has her campaign focused on eliminating the Purge, which is an annual 12-hour period that legalizes all sorts of crimes including murder, and all police and medical services are shut down in this day. However, the affluent oppose Roan’s campaign because they believe that the event eradicates the poor people.
The affluent are members of NFFA (New Founding Fathers of America), a party of white supremacists who resemble neo-Nazis. With rare exceptions in both sides, whites are oppressors and blacks and Latin American immigrants, who are oppressed, are the poor, defenseless and homeless, who can’t defend themselves and make for easy targets. NFFA wants blood; “Hillary Clinton” wants to hinder bloodshed.
Yet, the real Hillary has a political trail of “mysterious” deaths of people who threatened her political career. She is also credited as the responsible for the creation of ISIS, which has slaughtered thousands of Christians in the Middle East.
The attempt to portray Hillary as a social savior in the movie is a slap on reality. And the attempt to portray conservatives as blood-thirsty is irrational, because Hillary-created ISIS is the real bloody creature. And bloody is also her obsession to back the legal slaughter of thousands and thousands American and international babies through her insane abortion politics. This horror is worse than the macabre murders in the horror film “Purge.”
The NFFA members talk about God. “Hillary” and their band of oppressed do not talk about God.
Even though trying to stereotyping Christian conservatives as NFFA members, it fits only neoconservatives (also called neocons) in real life.
Neoconservatives are present in both the Democratic and the Republican Parties and their focus and priority is not to conserve pro-life, pro-family and Christian values. They want to conserve and expand the U.S. military and political hegemony around the world.
The real Hillary is a neocon. If the horror film “Purge” mirrored the reality, Hillary would be a NFFA member. Not only she is white, but she loves war and bloodshed of babies by abortion and of Christians through ISIS and other Islamic terror groups.
In the movie, there is a plot to assassinate her “Christian” conservative opponent, a male member of NFFA. But the well-behaved Hillary fights to save the life of the apparently “Republican” candidate, even though those plotting the murder are mostly oppressed blacks with the very good intent to get rid of a man who, if elected president, will keep bloodshed in society.
“Purge” ends with NFFA members bringing “Hillary” to a Mass for a ritualistic assassination by a priest. Even though evangelicalism is the main religious characteristic of the original Founder Fathers of America, in the movie Catholicism represents all Christians, and it is murderous, sadistic and against the oppressed. Catholicism was made the Christian bogeyman of the macabre show, perhaps because, like no other Christian church, Catholicism has been stained by the Inquisition and other evils.
But in real life, the opponent of Hillary, Donald Trump, is a Presbyterian. His vice-president is also an evangelical. And a Time magazine article, written by a Catholic leader, said that “Trump-Pence is the Most Anti-Catholic Republican Ticket in Modern History.” Trump does not fit NFFA: his political staff is strongly opposed to abortion, and he does not want war with Russia. He wants to fight anti-Christian ISIS.
Hillary Clinton fits NFFA. She wants the murder of the most innocent of the oppressed: the unborn baby. She wants war with Russia, which is fighting ISIS.
Her vice-president is a pro-abortion Catholic.
If Hillary is elected, a pro-abortion, pro-ISIS NFFA will be in charge of the United States, sadly with massive votes of oppressed blacks and Catholics who do not see they have been duped by deceptive ideologies not different from “Purge,” which reverses the reality.
Neocon Hillary and her Catholic vice-president want to purge America from real Christian conservatives. In this sense, the horror film “Purge” fits her campaign and ambitions.
The real Founding Fathers of America, including the first American president George Washington, were white, Protestant and conservative. They were not pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and neocon. They would never support neocon Hillary.
At last, the real horror is not the film and its blatant malicious characterization of Christian conservatives. It is the real Hillary herself.
With information from Christian Post and Christianity Today.
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, October 22, 2016

C. Peter Wagner, Pioneer in the Apostolic Movement and Pioneering Fighter Against Theology of Integral Mission, Goes on to Glory


C. Peter Wagner, Pioneer in the Apostolic Movement and Pioneering Fighter Against Theology of Integral Mission, Goes on to Glory

By Julio Severo
C. Peter Wagner, pioneer in the apostolic movement and pioneering fighter against Theology of Integral Mission (TIM), has gone home to be with the Lord. He was 86 years old, passing away on Friday.
C. Peter Wagner
Wagner was recognized as a leading authority in the fields of church growth and spiritual warfare. He was co-founder of World Prayer Center and was chancellor of the Wagner Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He held graduate degrees in theology, missiology and religion from Fuller Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary and the University of Southern California.
Wagner served as a field missionary in Bolivia for 16 years and he taught on the faculty of the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Seminary for 30 years. He ministered extensively nationally and internationally from his home base in Colorado. He had written 70 books, including Prayer Shield, Territorial Spirits, and Apostles and Prophets.
He was an autobiography titled “Wrestling with Alligators, Prophets and Theologians: Lessons from a Lifetime in the Church — A Memoir,” kindly sent autographed by him to me years ago.
Wagner became famous as the leader of conservative theologians who opposed to left-wing theologians in the first Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in 1974. He fought TIM not only in Lausanne, but also in the first René Padilla congresses in Latin America, years before Lausanne. He was the first theologian to make resistance to TIM in Latin America.
In 2014, Lausanne paid Wagner’s resistance back in the same coin, by holding in Brazil a meeting of Lausanne leaders against Wagner and his apostolic movement. The meeting was led by TIM leaders, especially Rev. Valdir Steuernagel.
In 2013, C. Peter Wagner wrote the introduction of Julio Severo’s e-book “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Integral Mission” (available for free download in this LINK), which addresses Theology of Integral Mission.
With information from Charisma.
Recommended Reading where C. Peter Wagner is mentioned by Julio Severo:

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Trump will meet with Putin before his inauguration


Trump will meet with Putin before his inauguration

By Julio Severo
In an interview Monday with talk-radio host Michael Savage, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that if he wins in November, he might meet with Russian leader Vladimir Putin prior to the inauguration in January.
Michael Savage and Donald Trump
He said, “If I win on Nov. 8, I could see myself meeting with Putin and meeting with Russia prior to the start of the administration.”
Trump noted relations with Russia are widely regarded as worse than at any time since the Cold War.
“You have potentially a really catastrophic situation here. I’ll be honest with you,” he continued.
“They say, ‘Oh well Russia loves Donald Trump and Putin loves Donald Trump,’” Trump told Savage. “They insult him constantly, no wonder he can’t stand Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
In his last debate with Hillary, Trump said, “She talks tough with Russia. She shouldn’t be talking so tough,” Trump said. “Frankly, if we got along with Russia and knocked out ISIS, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing.”
In an interview in August, Trump told Savage the policies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton toward Russia have prompted something “worse than a Cold War.”
“Many of his ideas came from my previous books. Everybody knows that,” Savage told WND in an interview.
Trump has been in conflict with neocons’ interests. It is no wonder that he has been reading Savage books: Savage has been exposing neocons.
See the Ukrainian case. While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros were calling the Ukrainian revolution a people’s revolution, in a WND report Savage said,
“The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the so-called bad guys, and Ukrainian rebels, the so-called good guys who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people. Don’t believe a word of it. The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As Dr. Stephen F. Cohen has pointed out, Western nations, with the U.S. leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states – Ukraine looks like the next target – and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The U.S. – along with other Western nations – through our incursions into the politics, economics and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that is now unfolding in Ukraine. Cohen is right.”
Savage points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
While Trump has praised Russia and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, neocons have openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.
Obama and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.
Last month, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
While Obama, Hillary and neocons want Ukraine in NATO’s orbit and they are using the Ukrainian situation to strengthen NATO, Trump has again been in conflict with their interests.
The best explanation about neocons’ intent was given by Savage, who said in WND:
“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
Savage is right. And Trump agrees with him. But neocon-minded individuals do not agree. The Trevor Loudon blog said,
“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails, etc.”
Trump’s approach to seek to get along with Russia and meet Putin is correct, but despised by neocons.
Ronald Reagan tried Trump’s approach in the past, when Russia was the Soviet Union and was officially atheistic and communist. In that time, America under Reagan officially valued the Bible and Christian values. Today, the U.S. government officially despises these values, while Russia has officially left atheism and has embraced its Orthodox Christian Church.
It impossible for socialists Hillary and Obama to get along with modern Russia, especially after Russians passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children.
Yet, if it was possible for evangelical Reagan to seek to get along with Soviet atheistic leaders, why should not Trump be commended for seeking to get along with a non-atheistic Russia?
With information from WND (WorldNetDaily).
Portuguese version of this article: Trump se encontrará com Putin antes de sua posse
Recommended Reading:

Monday, October 17, 2016

Elijah: Strange Provision in a Prophetic Mission in the Political Realm


Elijah: Strange Provision in a Prophetic Mission in the Political Realm

By Julio Severo
If you think that the rampant obsession for abortion (which is child-killing) and sodomy in the Western “civilized” governments is a modern issue, think again. Almost 3,000 years ago, the Israeli government, under King Ahab, was obsessed with child-killing and sodomy.
Elijah and the ravens
The state religion of Baal had newborn sacrifices presided by homosexual priests. Sodomy was connected to the sacred state religion of Baal. Child-killing and sodomy were sacred.
Separation of church and state? It was very real in the old Israeli government. They separated God from their government and introduced the state religion of child-killing and sodomy.
America, whose republic was essentially founded by evangelical Christians, is experiencing the same apostasy. They had God in the beginning of their nation and government, but later they separated themselves from God by using the “separation of church and state” rhetoric and introducing the sacred state religion of child-killing and sodomy.
God sent Elijah to say to Ahab:
“As the LORD the God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word.” (1 Kings 17:1 ESV)
No rain as result of national sin. No rain because of “separation of church and state” that meant separation from God. No rain because of the sacred state religion of child-killing and sodomy.
Modern Christian theologians, whose class is mostly debating and even approving abortion and same-sex “marriage,” have many doubts about miracles and a God punishing child-killing and sodomy with a severe national drought. They cloak their incredulity with scientific and sophisticate theological arguments. In fact, they would also doubt Elijah as a prophet.
They prefer science as a tool to justify child-killing and sodomy than validating God’s miracles.
Ahab had the incredulity of these theologians, but without their sophistication. Elijah challenged the president of his nation and, sure, there would be consequences. (Try to challenge directly a U.S. president over abortion and sodomy, and FBI, CIA, NSA, SWAT and other federal agencies will treat you as a national threat and international pariah. The powerful U.S. media will demonize you.)
There was danger. Danger from the government. Danger from the sacred priests of sodomy. This is why God spoke Elijah. But if scientists cannot prove that God speaks, then modern theologians will fully obey their “science”!
“And the word of the LORD came to him, ‘Depart from here and turn eastward and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. You shall drink from the brook, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.’” (1 Kings 17:2-4 ESV)
“Flee and hide yourself!” was God’s command.
If you were Elijah, what would you think about hearing a small voice in your head (in your spirit) saying that God commanded ravens to feed you in a brook? “God, could you not provide a house near the brook? God, your Word says that ravens are unclean birds. You command me to avoid unclean birds, and now do you want to use them to feed me?”
Modern theologians would have a very simple answer to Elijah: If the small voice said God will use birds disapproved by His Word, this is not God!
Doubt-filled theologians would fill Elijah with their doubts.
Elijah could argue, “But the same small voice spoke to me before and happened…” Theologians would not be willing to debate about his God’s voice “problem,” but they would give full consideration to debate with Ahab about if God’s Word justifies abortion and sodomy.
Elijah was spiritually mature and able to distinguish between God’s voice, his own imagination and demonic voices. His heart, untainted by theological doubts, obeyed.
“So he went and did according to the word of the LORD. He went and lived by the brook Cherith that is east of the Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the brook.” (1 Kings 17:5-6 ESV)
Elijah received bread and meat every day from ravens because God is above His Word that teaches that ravens are unclean birds, to be avoided. If the Word’s God spoke, Elijah was not going to avoid the living God’s Word.
Even without God’s Word, anyone would suspect such source of bread and meat. Probably, the ravens brought food by very small quantities and Elijah had to gather them to form a decent meal. “Decent?” doubt says, “What about if the bread was tossed to dogs? What about if the meat came from a corpse? If those birds are unclean is also because they gather unclean food, from corpses from other animals and even humans!”
Theologians would have solid incredulity with solid science and solid dead theology to explain the source of the strange provision to Elijah, who had only a child-like trust in God.
“If God spoke to you,” they would question Elijah, “why send ravens? Why not give you a comfortable house with chicken, poultry and abundant and rich food? Why give you a suspicious food? Your provision was not perfect. So what you heard was not God’s voice!”
Even today ravens are “suspicious.” Sorcerers love them. American writer Edgar Allan Poe, who is loved by Satanists for his macabre books, has a book titled “The Raven.” It was exactly his love for macabre things that inspired also his book “The Pit and the Pendulum” exploring the tortures of the Catholic Inquisition.
The raven is generally thought to be a symbol of sadness, loss, death, Satan and bad luck in most European countries.
Yet, in Elijah’s case, there was no bad luck, because God is sheer “good luck,” and Elijah was not worried about questioning God with nonsensical doubts, “Why do you want to send me unclean birds? Have you no clean birds to feed me?”
To obey, for Elijah, was more important than understanding why, how and what.
If God chooses overrules His written Word and send an unclean animal, Elijah is willing to obey.
If God chooses to overrule His written Word and send unclean tools such as Satanists or things loved by Satanists, Elijah is willing to obey.
If it was unconventional for ravens to provide for Elijah, it was more unconventional for astrologers to provide for baby Jesus.
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men [astrologers] from the east came to Jerusalem.” (Matthew 2:1 Amplified)
“Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Judaea, in the days when Herod was king of the province. After his birth there came from the east a party of astrologers making for Jerusalem.” (Matthew 2:1 Philips)
“Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the king, behold magi from the east arrived at Jerusalem.” (Matthew 2:1 Darby)
Magi is plural for magus, which means “sorcerer.” Astrology is also a form of sorcery. Why would God use sorcerers? By the same reason He used ravens. Not to test the faith of baby Jesus. To test His human parents and even other people.
Ravens, magi, astrologers and sorcerers as God’s providers offend theological minds. The religious and theological reason would complain: “There was no lack of theologians in Israel for God to provide for baby Jesus. Why call sorcerers from far away to do it?”
Good question! Elijah would have the perfect answer to help Joseph and Mary.
God condemns sorcery, magic and astrology. But He is free to use the resources of sorcerers, magi and astrologers to bless His Elijahs, Josephs and Marys. By this He shows that the kingdom of darkness and its resources are under His control. The God who condemns sorcery, magic and astrology has power and authority over them and can use their resources. We cannot choose what God has condemned, but when God chooses to use them to show His power and sovereignty, we accept God’s will.
What the sorcerers gave to Jesus’ parents was enough for this poor couple to flee to Egypt and have resources for their survival in the years they had to live in this foreign nation.
As Elijah, who was fleeing and hiding from Ahab and his wicked government, Joseph and Mary were fleeing and hiding from a murderous government. Both were provided for by “suspicious” channels.
We are not supposed to accept ravens and sorcerers as normal channels of God’s provisions. They are just God’s exceptions. In these circumstances, a man or woman of faith follows the God of exceptions, not the exceptions of God. Elijah did so. Joseph and Mary did so.
If God wanted to send ravens, sorcerers, astrologers and even Satan to feed him, Elijah would trust in God, not in the strange unclean tools. He knew that when God commands, even Satan obeys.
After some time, the brook dried up. Elijah was without water. He was thirsty. “Oh,” the theological chorus would attack again, “God’s provisions are perfect. If the brook were a God’s provision to Elijah, it would never dry up! Are you seeing? He did not hear God’s voice! It was just his imagination!”
“And after a while the brook dried up, because there was no rain in the land. Then the word of the LORD came to him, ‘Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to feed you.’” (1 Kings 17:7-9 ESV)
Without water, Elijah prayed and the small voice said, “I have commanded a widow to feed you.” If ravens tested Elijah and his ability to hear and obey God’s voice, “the widow’s test” was the hardest. Even today, if you say that you heard God saying that He commanded a widow to feed you, people will laugh at you and label you an exploiter. They will certainly say that you have a sexual interest in her and want to take sexual and financial advantage from her.
The widow’s test seemed a sexual scandal enough to undermine and terminate the ministry of a prophet! In fact, fed by ravens and a poor widow would be the perfect curriculum for Elijah not be approved by any modern theological institution — both conservative and liberal. He would have many more chances if he espoused fashionable liberal views for our days: pregnancy termination (abortion) and gender orientation (homosexuality). Liberals would love it! But if he said that God talked to him, liberals and conservatives would hate him.
If widows today have small resources, in past times they had nothing. Married women were totally dependent on their husbands for survival. When their husbands died, there was no social system to protect widows, their children and survival. It would make sense if Elijah had heard, “I am sending you to feed the poor widow and her son.” The best theologians would agree that this would be the only reasonable instruction and approach. But, even in this case, to avoid questioning about his sexual motivations, they would understand that he should have sent a woman to feed the widow.
Besides, the widow was a pagan woman, and the Jews were ordered by God’s Word not to have any contact with pagans, especially women. The widow, just as the raven, was an “unclean” woman by God’s Word. So this kind of contact was directly forbidden by God’s Word.
To flee and hide from a wicked government to take refuge with a poor widow challenges all good sense! There was nothing sublime and spectacular in this. On the contrary, there was more than enough reason to be ashamed.
Actually, God’s instruction to Elijah destroyed common sense. But it was the Word’s God making an exception to God’s Word. He is God and He is free to do whatever He wants.
To challenge the lack of common sense in an Israeli society and government obsessed by child-killing and sacred homosexuality, God destroyed “common sense” in Elijah and his personal life by teaching him to trust more in Word’s God and His small voice than in his personal and religious sense.
The cost of becoming a prophet against a culture of child-killing and sacred homosexuality is to flee and hide from a wicked government system to be fed by “suspicious” channels. It is to let God give any training and send anything He wants to feed the prophet: ravens, sorcerers, astrologers, widows, Satan, advocates of the Inquisition, etc.
I know this cost.
A theologian could not survive these tests. But a true prophet, who reads, loves and obeys God’s Word and the Word’s God, survives.
And when he survives, he is ready to give his testimony against the sacred state religion of child-killing and sodomy.
Through him, God’s voice reaches society in a powerful way theologians can never do.
Elijah’s God and his prophetic missions (trained by strange and challenging “unclean” provisions and a small voice) are available to impact today’s political realm.
Recommended Reading:
Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history