Bio

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, the author of Truthspeak and his new book, The Gospel of Grace and Truth: A Theology of Grace from the Gospel of John," both available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing to Dr. Halsey at michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

Comments may be addressed to michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net.

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

Friday, September 30, 2016

IS THERE A NEW BIBLE COMING?

To many red-blooded Americans, "Trigger" births fond memories of a horse and a hero. The hero was Roy, Roy Rogers, and Trigger was his wonder horse, faithful, true, and obedient too.

But things have changed. Say the word, "trigger," and you're talking about university campuses and students who are "triggered" by words said or intellectual positions taken in classroom lectures or material which cause the students to feel troubled, uncomfortable, erupt in tears, or sometimes screams, outcries, and shouts of distress, even death threats, to the extent that they have to flee the class and find that new campus phenomenon, the safe space.

The safe place is a comfortable spot on campus where the newly traumatized can relax and find surcease with the provided essentials: a teddy bear, a ball pit, crayons, and coloring books along with people with whom they can discuss their feelings. Trained counselors are at the ready. At Brown University a safe space was equipped with cookies, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of frolicking puppies.

If you're attuned to what's going on in the groves of academe` lately, you know I'm not making this up.

ACROSS THE POND

This isn't a piece of American insanity, it's all over the place. A professor at the University College London, the largest postgraduate college in the United Kingdom with 35,000 students, told his “Achaeologies of Modern Conflict” students that they can feel free to leave the class in progress if they’re concerned that any of the material might be too triggering for them to handle. (From National Review)

YOU CAN HANDLE IT; I CAN'T

Triggers are subjective things. What triggers one person to discomfort or hysteria may be something that elicits no such reactions in another. The beleaguered professor never knows what words may trigger a student. Each spoken word becomes a minefield which may explode at any moment. A case in point is the professor who sent a campus-wide e-mail discussing the innocuous subject of Halloween costumes which triggered an explosion of screaming students and the firing of the professor. (All that over wearing a sombrero and a poncho?)

History is filled with troubling events--The Holocaust, The Spanish Inquisition, the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby, Leopold, Loeb, and Bobby Frank, The Hindenburg, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, The Dust Bowl, and The Great Depression are but a few. Whether we're listening to a history lecture, ancient or modern, many are the events we'll encounter that are unpleasant and unpleasant is an understatement.

A SAFE SPACE AT CHURCH?

A solid, Bible-believing-teaching church had the custom of asking one of the men to read the Scripture and pray before the pastor spoke. One morning, the pastor called on one of the men to read Judges 11:29-40 and pray. The man refused.

The pastor called on a second man. He refused.

The pastor called on a third man. He said he would, but he would have to reverse the order and pray first.

This brings to mind the truth: what we see in the world we will soon see in the church, and when we do (not "if" we do) those who speak to appease the sheep and keep them comfortable will follow the paraphrased advice of, "Tread lightly; say no triggers."

In the light of triggers, will a new Bible come on the scene? We have all kinds of study Bibles, running all the way from "The Women's Study Bible" to the "Viet Nam Veterans Study Bible." I predict that there will there one day be "The Trigger-Free Study Bible," a Bible without the Plagues of Egypt, the drowning of the Egyptian military, the extermination of the Canaanites, and, of course, the omission of the Peyton Place of the Old Testament, Genesis 38.

The Trigger-Free Study Bible will eliminate all references to animal sacrifices (sounds cruel and is much too bloody), hell, and man's inherent sin nature (unflattering, very troubling). And, above all, it will eliminate every reference to the blood of Christ along with Christ's words about "eating My flesh and drinking My blood." Then there's the event of the crucifixion and the spear into the side with blood and serum pouring out. Ghastly!

In the book of Acts there are triggers all over the place which The Trigger-Free Bible will eliminate--the stoning of both Stephen and Paul, the breakdown of law and order, the bloody lashings, the riotous assaults on the Apostles, and the demon possessions with accompanying exorcisms.

The church will need strong elders to do as Paul did--preach the whole counsel of God and guard the gospel. 

 


Friday, September 23, 2016

D-DAY


On June 6, 1944, the Federal Government of the United States took control of the radios across the land as millions listened to President Franklin Roosevelt announce that 300,000 Allied Troops had launched the long-awaited invasion of Europe. D-Day had begun. Millions, worried about their fathers, sons, husbands, uncles, cousins, nephews, and brothers, listened to the President in hushed anticipation. No one knew what the outcome would be. If they failed, Gen. Eisenhower was prepared to read a statement he'd already written in which he would take the blame.

D-Day had already been delayed because of the weather, but this was the real thing. The day had finally come. FDR's address to the nation turned into the largest prayer meeting in world history as the Episcopalian President led a war-weary and uncertain nation in a prayer he himself had written.

He began by saying, "And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

"Almighty God: our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day without rest – until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

"They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

"For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

"And for us at home—fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas—whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them—help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

"Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a countenance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts."

"Give us strength, too—strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

"And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

"And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment—let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

"With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace—a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen."

TODAY PART I

Seven decades later, the grandsons and granddaughters, great grandsons and great granddaughters of those millions at that prayer meeting live in an America which would arrogantly pronounce that nonsectarian prayer both quaint and unconstitutional.

Not only would they declare it unconstitutional, but it would be to them also shocking, even politically incorrect: the President embraces God, God's grace, refers to the "Lord" and "the righteousness of our cause;" he defines the enemy as "unholy;" he says our military fights "to preserve our Republic, our religion," he asks that God lead us to "the saving of our country and our civilization."

Their descendants would be unable to fathom a culture whose President would conclude the prayer meeting with, "Thy will be done, Almighty God." (Even the reverence of the words, "thee" and "thou" would be meaningless to them.)

Their posterity would be surprised to see a photograph taken on June 5, 1944, a picture of U. S. servicemen on board a ship, sitting alongside each other in a church service, headed for the Normandy landing. For some, it would be the last church service they'd ever attend, the last hymn they'd ever sing, the last Scripture they'd ever hear this side of eternity.

Nor would they understand that when Britain heard the news of the invasion of Europe, businesses closed their doors and churches opened theirs. In America and Britain, churches and synagogues were packed with prayer meetings.

TODAY PART II

In April 2011, a congressman from Ohio introduced a bill to include FDR's prayer in the WWII Memorial on the Mall in Washington D. C. A coalition formed against the bill, a coalition made up of several Jewish groups, the Secular Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, a Hindu group, a humanist group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, The Interfaith Alliance, a group of mostly liberal Protestants, and the United Methodist Church’s Capitol Hill lobby.

The National Park Service, in charge of the memorial, said, "No inclusion." The bill rumbled around in committee.

TODAY PART III

Three years later, things changed: On June 30, 2014, President Obama signed into law the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013, directing the Secretary of the Interior to add the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the United States on D-Day, June 6, 1944, to the WWII Memorial. No federal funds were to be used for the project; private donations only.

A QUESTION OR TWO

One might wonder, "Do those who opposed the inclusion of the prayer know that not far from the WWII Memorial is the Lincoln Memorial?" If they're familiar with Lincoln's massive memorial, do they know that inscribed on its North Wall is Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address in which he said, "Almighty God has His own purposes," and that he referred to "the providence of God," God's "appointed time," and said, "If God wills . . ." In Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, considered by historians to be one of the all-time great speeches in American history, the President also said that the War Between the States was God's discipline on the nation for slavery.

One might also wonder, "Who and why would anyone be offended by the President of the United States praying with millions of other Americans for the protection of their sons and husbands? Why would anyone be offended by calling the Nazis "unholy?" (One soldier who would land in France on D Day under a barrage of bullets, fight his way further into France, and live to tell the tale reported that even his atheist comrades in arms wanted people to pray for them before they waded ashore on those German occupied beaches.)

An interesting side note to the objections of the secularists to including the prayer is that they objected to the wording of the bill, not to the prayer itself. Maybe they didn't because they would have looked silly.

But isn't that the way it's going to look come the judgment? All opposition to God will, to understate the matter, be shown as silly.  Read Psalm 2:4.



















Friday, September 16, 2016

SHAKING THE FINGER AT THE DECATUR BOOK FESTIVAL--II

As he shook his finger at me, telling me of his study, I thought afterward about how argumentative and spoiling for a fight secularists, atheists, and agnostics are. Someone has pointed out that their pugnacious and argumentative spirit seems more like they're trying to convince themselves not to believe the truth they're suppressing.

Anyway, the vaunted conclusion of his study of all religions (that sounds like hyperbole) led him to announce that God is an invention of man, and in a clever, albeit unoriginal play on words, he turned Genesis 1 on its head, claiming that God is made in the image and likeness of man.

MORGAN FREEMAN PRIDE

He had a great deal of hubris because of the conclusion he'd reached, but others beat him to it, well, at least one did. First, we have Morgan Freeman who played God in a movie and its sequel and since he did, he was selected for a series of TV programs ("Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman") in which one episode is entitled, "Did We Invent God?"

He was asked about that episode concerning how he would answer that question. He was upfront about it, saying, "“So if I believe in God, and I do, it’s because I think I’m God." This is from a man whose education level is the 12th grade, graduating from Broad Street High School in Greenwood, Mississippi, after which he joined the Air Force.

THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER

But one person who beat the secularist with the shaking finger for sure was an ancient Greek named Xenophanes who wrote, "But if cattle and horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have."

The philosopher with the hard to pronounce name poked fun at other Greeks, even the revered blind poet Homer, when he wrote, ""Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men: theft, adultery, and mutual deception."

How right he was, the gods of the Greeks and Romans were such fallible sinners, hardly stronger than men, certainly just as much sinners as men.

THE DIFFERENCE

But how different is the God of the Bible--so awesomely holy and righteous that men can't stand in His presence, that men are to remove their shoes in front of a burning bush, so holy that a nation has to back off from a mountain, so holy that if they touch the Ark of the Covenant, they die, and so holy that He cannot countenance sin without eventually judging it. 

I don't know if Mr. Secularist knows that someone beat him to the punch thousands of years ago, but Xenophanes did, just as the same ancient pagans invented theories of evolution and natural selection way before Darwin did. (Didn't somebody say, "There's nothing new under the sun"? This is what's so annoying about historians-- we say, "This has never happened before," and they say, "Oh, yes, it has. I'll tell you when." Infuriating, isn't it?)

But, let's continue to examine the claim of man's invention of God in reference to Christianity and the Bible. How in the world could mostly unsophisticated men like the New Testament authors invent fulfilled prophecy? How fishermen invent the fulfillment of Isaiah 53's predictions of the Messiah and make them be fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth in such detail? How could they invent the fulfillment of prophecies of the details of the process of crucifixion a thousand years before the Romans even thought of it? How could they make Roman soldiers gamble for Jesus' clothes, just as the Psalmist predicted a thousand years before it occurred? We could go on and on and on.

On another front, WHY would they invent their fulfillment even if they could? They couldn't, but we're, as they say, "Just supposin'." They had zero to gain by it. They had no money to speak of and would never have any. They had no clout in the world psychically speaking and never would have. What they wrote and boldly declared got them scorned, hounded, ridiculed, beaten, lashed, imprisoned, and eventually martyred (all except one died a martyr). And, it bears repeating, if they invented all of this, it has been forever true that men don't die for what they know to be a lie. Men have died for a lie they believed, but men don't die for what they know to be a lie.

But in reference to the prophecies, if we do the math, there can be no invention of Christianity.

"Years ago, math professor Peter Stoner (Science Speaks [Moody Pres, 1963], pp. 99-112) calculated the odds for just a selected set  of just eight Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled by one man who has lived since the time of Christ. 

"Taking a conservative approach, he came up with the number, 1 in 1017. To visualize this, he said that 1017 silver dollars would cover the state of Texas two feet deep. Mark one, blindfold a man, and let him go wherever in the state he wished, but he had to pick the one marked silver dollar. That is the probability that Christ could have fulfilled just the eight prophecies that Professor Stoner used. 

"Then Professor Stoner doubled it to 16 prophecies and the number of silver dollars becomes a sphere extending from earth in all directions more than 30 times as far as from the earth to the sun! Picking the right silver dollar would be the odds that Jesus fulfilled just 16 Old Testament prophecies. But He fulfilled more than 300."

The man at the Decatur Book Festival was like way, way too many: way, way too proud of himself. At the Decatur Book Festival and in the trenches of life, that's the way it is. Pride of intellect is strong.

And what is it that pride goes before?




Friday, September 9, 2016

SHAKING THE FINGER AT THE DECATUR BOOK FESTIVAL

The Decatur Book Festival draws a massive amount of people, bibliophiles one and all, every Labor Day weekend. If you engage in people-watching, you'll see modern human life in a vast passing parade of the 70,000-80,000 people, some of whom look normal, some look just plain weird.

One person wore a T-shirt which featured the outline of Michigan and the words: "Michigan: America's First Line of Defense Against Canada." And then there was the shirt announcing: "Bill Clinton For First Lady 2016." There was a person wearing a Bernie Sanders button. Didn't he hear that Mr. Sanders dropped out?

You'll see purple hair, flaming artificial red hair, and a youth with an earring in his ear that distorted his earlobe to such a large, elongated shape that honest people would weigh it in the balances and pronounce it hideous. Then there was one college-age girl who walked with both shoes untied, which when pointed out by a team member concerned about her safety, stared blankly at him as if saying, "Mind your own business." (There were two separate sightings of those who walked with both shoes untied. It must be some new fad.) There were Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and few Christians, people from all over the place in the passing parade that grew larger and larger as the sun drew closer to its zenith.

We encountered people with an attitude, an edge, and sometimes you could see it in their faces and sometimes you could hear it in their words, words that came with a forced, faked politeness, sometimes with emphasis, and sometimes with rudeness when I invited them to take our survey.

Our venue makes no bones about who we are and what we stand for; both a large poster and banner announce, "FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE," with a smaller notification that we're representing the Hangar Bible Fellowship.

Immediately, passersby see that whatever it is that we are, we have something to do with Christ. When we invite someone to talk to us, we tell him or her exactly what's going to happen--we will interview him to get his opinions on spiritual questions. The banner, the poster, and the verbal invitations are up front; there's no bait and switch, no ruse to get them to come to the table to talk. There's no entertainment to draw them in and then spring the Bible on them. That would be dishonest.

A man walks by and the poster catches his eye. I approach and invite him to take our survey and give his opinions about spiritual matters. He quickly dismisses the invitation, saying, "I'm a self-declared secularist. You wouldn't like my opinions."

I assure him that we would like to hear his opinions (I didn't say that we'd like them, I said we'd like to hear them.) That launches him into what we might call, "The Big I Speech." He begins to talk about himself and I get the impression he's mighty impressed with who he is.

He tells me, "I've studied all the religions of the world [that's one huge exaggeration--there are 4,200 of them] and all of them have invented God," he lectures. "Men have invented God in their image," he explains.

I reply, "We would disagree with that," but he's not interested in how or why we'd disagree. He continues his lecture, and as he does, I notice that he's starting to shake his finger at me, as if filling me in on something I've never heard before. He tells me about living in Eureka, Illinois, the home of Ronald Reagan. I ask, "What does Reagan have to do with what you're telling me?" He ignores the question and says something so forgettable, I have no recollection of it. But I do remember his shaking his finger.

At this point, it's easy to see that the Eureka native is hardened, not interested in hearing anything we have to say. I need to move on to invite other people. I indicate that our conversation is over. He smiles, stops shaking his finger, falls silent, and moves on.

But what about that? What about his study and conclusion of God invented in the image of man?

As smart as he's told me he is, he has no idea how impossible it is for any human being to have invented the God of the Bible because:

1. Who in the world could invent the Trinity? One God in Three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each distinct Persons, not one person in three roles, but three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, yet one God. The Trinity is beyond my comprehension.

2. Who in the world could have invented grace? The Second Person of the Trinity in love comes into the human race and pays every man's complete penalty for sin so that an awesomely holy God could now in righteousness extend unmerited favor to all men and offer to all salvation as a gift without compromising that righteousness and holiness.

3. Who in the world could have invented a salvation apart from works? All religions are of man's invention and they all include works to get to heaven. Yet Christianity has zero tolerance for works for salvation and instead of commending man's good deeds, calls them "garbage," and "filthy rags." Religions heap praise on man's good works for salvation; Christianity criticizes and scorns them as worthless. What the world applauds and gives awards for, Christianity denounces.

4. Who in the world would have invented the doctrine that man is inherently fallen and apart from God by his very nature? Like the self-proclaimed secularist, human beings are proud of themselves. Men see themselves as having a few rough spots, yes, but underneath it all, they see themselves as Anne Frank saw the Nazis--basically good. Every mother whose son steals and murders tells the police and the press, "But he's a good boy!" Religions see man as having a divine spark, a spark that needs a bit of fanning, but a spark nonetheless. Christianity says, "There's no spark. Man is born estranged from God from the womb."

5. Who in the world would invent the by-faith way of salvation? The by-faith way of salvation predates all the religions of the world; it goes back to the Fall of man and the announcement of Genesis 3:15. All the religions of the world are the new kids on the block and not one of them proclaims faith alone in Christ alone for salvation.

There's always a part of us that leaves the DBF saddened by what we have seen and heard there. Saddened by seeing so many lost human beings gathered in one place. Not only do we sense their hardened hearts, their edge, but we also sense and are saddened by their disinterest. So many flinty hearts passing by who have not a shred of care about spiritual matters.

We're doubly saddened, knowing that if they wind up separated from God for all of eternity, they will remember seeing the poster and the banner which told them of "Faith alone in Christ alone." They will remember being invited to those tables. They will remember that they said, "No." They will remember taking the survey and then being asked, "Would you like to hear the Bible's answers to these questions?' They will remember they said, "No."They will remember that God's grace and love was extended to them, but they spurned it.

And one will remember shaking his finger at me. (Cf. Luke 16:19-25)


Friday, September 2, 2016

LEAVING ON A JET PLANE

Henry Deutschendorf was a Texas Tech University student who majored in architecture, but he's more famous for writing the song, "Leaving On A Jet Plane" in 1965, a song which became a mega hit.

There are all kinds of different interpretations for the song, one of which is that it speaks of the soldiers in Viet Nam who are longing for the day when they can leave the war and go home. However, that interpretation doesn't make sense because one of the lines says, "Oh, babe, I hate to go."

The rest of the of the song doesn't seem to fit as a war protest song, but that's what it became once Peter, Paul, and Mary (of "Puff the Magic Dragon" fame) got hold of it and propelled it to popularity.

You may not see a connection between, "Leaving On A Jet Plane" and III John 7, but bear with me and read on.

In the one-chapter book that is III John, the apostle heaps praise on some of the servants of the Lord who accepted no money from unbelievers, thus giving us who live 2,000 years later, a principle of New Testament giving: Only Christians should support the Lord's work (III Jn. 7).

WAIT. WHAT? WHY?

III John 7 may sound strange in our era where televangelists proclaim, "I take money from unbelievers, because that means I'm taking money from the devil." John's praise may sound strange in a day of trying to finance and build ever-bigger church buildings and worldwide ministries in far-flung places, but the principle still holds and is seconded by Paul in II Corinthians 8:1-5, where he writes that the churches in Macedonia were begging to give for the relief of poor believers. It's in that paragraph that Paul says, "But they first gave themselves to the Lord."

Why? Why, in the name of all that's holy, should churches, Christian schools, and Christian ministries not ask unbelievers for money? David J. MacLeod, Dean of Biblical Studies and the Program Director for Biblical Studies, Bible Exposition and Theology at Emmaus Bible College, lists three Scripture-based reasons:  

1. Only Christians are stewards of God's grace and the Christian life is a stewardship in which the Lord has "richly supplied us with all things." (I Tim. 6:7)
2. This was the practice of the Apostles. (Acts 11:29-30)
3. It protects the offer of free grace from confusion. (Matt. 10:8; II Cor. 11:7; Acts 20:35)

The early church believed that only Christians should give. They also believed that every Christian, rich or poor should give, not because of pressure to do so, but because of the example of Christ  (I Tim. 6:17-19; II Cor. 8:1-2, 8-9; I Cor. 16:1-2) What Christians give is up to us. Israel operated by the commanded tithe, their income tax; the church does not. (II Cor. 9:7) Neither the apostles nor the early church looked upon our freedom from the tithe as an excuse not to give, but were eager to share (II Cor. 8:1-5).

THE RICOCHET OF III JOHN 7

The bullet that John and Paul fired in III John 7 and II Cor. 8:1-5 ricochets all over the place, that is, it has big-time ramifications that most don't like to hear, but let's proceed (in love) anyway. 

The giving of money for the work of Christ is an area like the study and application of the qualifications for elders--the texts are either ignored, rejected outright, or compromised. The compromise takes place when churches solicit money from their baptized, yet unbelieving members and when Christian organizations, churches, and ministries appeal to secular foundations for grants or matching funds for support.

The compromise occurs when when churches host bingo games, yard sales, dinners, raffles, and you name it, all a concerted and meticulously effort to get the money out of the wallets of unbelievers and into their coffers. 

THE BULLETIN HULLABALOO

I regularly put the following announcement in the bulletin of a former church: "If you have not trusted Christ as your savior, we don't ask for your money. When the offering plate comes by, let it pass." That biblical statement raised a hullabaloo at the church; some of them ever got over it, because, as they said, "I was telling people how to worship." But one visitor found the announcement so unique and refreshing, she mailed the bulletin to her mother in Virginia. 

BACK TO THE JET PLANE

So what does all this have to do with that jet plane? Good question. 

Way back when, I was talking to a CPA. That's not a fun thing to do, because hardly any of them are interesting. :) Nonetheless, he made an off-hand statement, that, for one of those rare times in his life, was interesting. He said, "No church, no ministry, no televangelist can financially justify the purchase of a private jet." 

Don't misunderstand, I wasn't in the market for a private jet; he was referring to the disgusting lavish lifestyles of TV preachers requesting millions and millions of dollars from both believers and unbelievers to keep the silver spoons in their mouths.  

JUST HOW LAVISH IS LAVISH? 

According to one source, "The cost of a private jet can vary from $1million to $100 million. Some of the other costs are a bit more consistent. You can crew the aircraft for around $1k per day, fuel is obviously proportional to distance traveled; i.e. fuel to Las Vegas from San Francisco might cost around $4k."

One business journal writes, "Many companies these days are re-considering the necessity of purchasing a private jet outright. Not only is the initial purchase price a very high fixed cost, but the ongoing costs are sometimes a bigger consideration. 

"Even without actually flying anywhere, jets cost a huge amount just to keep them serviceable and in keeping with all of the certificates of airworthiness requirements. Ongoing costs to consider include regular (and any unforeseen) maintenance, hangarage, pilot and crew salaries, insurance and more" 

The contributors to such ministries probably think the cost for their televangelist hero to purchase the jet is a one-time expense of X million dollars, but it's far more than that with the ongoing costs mentioned above. Funny, the evangelists never seem to tell the folks about those on-going costs. Wonder why? 

Unjustifiable lavish expenses, the craving for the prestige of jet transportation, these factors put pressure on the evangelists, pastors, and ministries, so they on the hunt for money from any old warm body. 

LET'S NAME NAMES

Earlier this year Creflo Dollar asked for $65,000,000 to purchase a Gulfstream G650. (For the uninitiated like me, that's a luxury private jet.) The church created a video ad asking for the money, so the solicitation went outside the mega church.  Next came an outcry of outrage from the public, asking why in the world the Rev. Dollar (fitting name) needed such transportation. 

The outrage was so great, the church started making excuses--they said they needed the jet to carry 12 people and 100,000 pounds of food. Sound good? No, it's not good--the Gulfstream G650 has little cargo capacity. 

The next tactic for justifying the Gulfstream was to say that the devil didn't want Rev. Dollar to have it, so by reverse illogical reasoning they were saying God did. The outrage was so great that the church dropped the campaign, but, the latest reports say that the preacher still has his heart set on the Gulfstream G650.

To the applause of his congregation, Dollar declared with great drama, "If I want to believe God for a 65 million dollar jet, you can't stop me!"

Pastors Kenneth Copeland (he owns 2) and Jesse Duplantis do own private jets and have their own explanations for the expenditure. It seems that God was having a conversation with Brother Duplantis while he was on his private jet, after flying home from an event where he was speaking with Creflo Dollar. Brother Duplantis was so shocked by what God said that he unbuckled his seat belt and stood up.

Brother Copeland chimes in to say that he couldn’t have stood up on an airliner to have a conversation with God; the reason they need to have private jets is so they can talk to God on the airplane, as it’s their “sanctuary.” This is so blatantly insane, you can't make this stuff up.

Oral Roberts stopped flying on commercial planes because he became so famous that fellow passengers kept coming to him asking him to pray for them. Brother Oral found this to be something that "agitated his spirit." (There's a point that we can miss here--since when do people asking for prayer become a point of agitation to a true teacher of God's Word?)

Another reason given by Copeland is because getting on a commercial plane is dangerous--there are so many demons on board. He points out, "Flying commercial means getting into along tube filled with demons in this dope-filled world."

Although they say that the jets are only used for ministry purposes, Copeland used his to take his son skiing in Colorado and to a Texas game ranch. His jet was a mere $20,000,000.

Pat Robertson, Mark Murdock (he paid cash for one, then cash for a bigger one), Benny Hinn, John Hagee, Joyce Myer, and Mark Barclay also own private jets. Barkley asked for $79,000 from folks to repaint his. And we're not talking about any old private jet; we're talking about luxury private jets. Many of these evangelists, their churches, and their organizations have been or are under federal investigation.

And, always and ever, the their bottom line of justification for such outrages is, "God told me that I need one." And the gullible, the vulnerable believe them. "God told me to . . ." is an old, old pastor's trick to get what they want, after all, they hear the voice of God, you and I don't.

These are the false teachers Peter and Paul warn about, those who "make merchandise of people, those who are in the ministry for personal gain.

But enough of all these sickening reports. Speaking of naming names . . .
flying commercial means getting into a “long tube” filled with “a bunch of demons” in “this dope filled world.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/televangelists-need-private-jets-because-demons-fly-commercial/#sthash.OJfjhRmh.dpuf
flying commercial means getting into a “long tube” filled with “a bunch of demons” in “this dope filled world.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/televangelists-need-private-jets-because-demons-fly-commercial/#sthash.OJfjhRmh.dpuf
But perhaps most important, flying commercial means getting into a “long tube” filled with “a bunch of demons” in “this dope filled world.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/televangelists-need-private-jets-because-demons-fly-commercial/#sthash.OJfjhRmh.dpuf
But perhaps most important, flying commercial means getting into a “long tube” filled with “a bunch of demons” in “this dope filled world.” - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/televangelists-need-private-jets-because-demons-fly-commercial/#sthash.OJfjhRmh.dpuf




 BACK TO  HENRY DEUTSCHENDORF

Remember Henry Deutschendorf who wrote "Leaving on a Jet Plane?" In the biggest mistake of his life, John Henry quit Texas Tech; he just dropped out with only one year to go and then he'd be an architect making big bucks. What a failure that guy was. You say that you don't know Henry Deutschendorf? Yes, you do, but by another name. You know him as John Denver.

How do I know all this? One of my best friends tried to talk him out of leaving the great education he could finish at Texas Tech, he failed, and my friend helped him move.