A Symbol of The Big Problems Within The American Church<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Brannon S. Howse
Opinion and Commentary
Facebook
My radio program and last column has many people talking about the movie Monumental and the statue, Monument to the Forefathers that seems to be a major prop for this movie. While the monument is an important topic for many reasons, I believe it is also a symbol of the troubling, big picture, and state of the American church. Far too much of the church has taken the music, the paganism, the political fight, the pragmatism, the styles and the methods of the culture and tried to mix them with Biblical Christianity. We have proven with plenty of historical documents from 1863 and 1906 that the Monument to the Forefathers is a pagan statue and it should not be called anything but pagan. I believe this monument is a good example of the problem with much of the church today, mixing the truth of Christianity with the paganism of the world. This is often done by mistake and with good intentions, but it is no less a problem.  Neither I, nor anyone I know, has said that the movie Monumental deliberately chose a monument that historical documents report has a history and message of paganism and freemasonry. Neither I, nor anyone I know has said the film will be a pro-freemason film. Neither I, nor any of my radio guests, nor the majority of the Christians that have contacted our organization to thank us for our research on this topic are interested in entertaining wacky conspiracy theories. We understand that sometimes people just make mistakes.  I think picking the Monument to the Forefathers to be the "Gilgal" stone for American Christians was just that, a mistake. After all, should Christians rally around Stonehenge? This monument I believe is actually worse because it has a form of godliness but denies the God of the Bible. The monument's main character is a lady pointing to "a higher power" and "towards the impersonation of the Spirit of Religion above" according to those that planned the monument and erected it.
D.L. Moody, when speaking of the Masons said, "You can never reform anything by unequally yoking yourself to ungodly men. True reformers separate themselves from the world." When you unite around an ecumenical monument with pagan symbols that was built, funded, and dedicated in part by Masons with the Grand Master of the Mason overseeing the cornerstone ceremony, it is not a good idea to call for this statue to be the "Gilgal" stone for American Christians. How can anyone call this a Christian monument or Christian symbol when a "Masonic procession" that included numerous Masonic Lodges and the Knights Templar, a Catholic order, was organized to celebrate the laying of the Masonic cornerstone? I believe Christians that want to call this monument a Christian symbol or a "Gilgal" stone are perhaps inadvertently yoking themselves to a pagan symbol as well as to men that mocked God and served Satan. It may be unintentional but it is still tying oneself to a pagan and ungodly symbol that is hostile to the gospel. Ignorance may be bliss but it does not make such activity any less troubling. When discussing the monument, we have dealt with facts that are documented by the very people that designed and erected the monument. I believe the Christians that are praising this statue simply did not do all the necessary research on the Monument to the Forefathers. Within ten minutes of hearing the name of the monument, I confirmed with one search engine the monument's Masonic dedication. Within four hours I had obtained a book written in 1863 detailing the monument's Masonic and pagan history, symbolism, funding, and ecumenical message. How long has this film been in the works?
 
In John MacArthur's Masters Seminary Journal, fall, 1994 the following statement was published by Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III:
The Lodge teaches clearly that one may earn admittance into heaven on the basis of works, regardless of religion. This is a false gospel, which places those who advocate such a doctrine under Paul's imprecation. If this is not enough to convince a Christian not to involve himself in Masonry, it should be enough that a Christian Mason binds himself by oath to all other Masons in a way that associates him with their idolatry. In 2 Cor 6:14 Paul forbids such a relationship. The activity of a Christian Mason is even more unbiblical, though, when he kneels at the altar of the false god of the Lodge and pays homage to its deity. These facts demonstrate that Christian participation in the Lodge is more than a matter of individual Christian conscience. It is imperative that Christians not participate in this organization.
The defenders of the movie that want to claim that we do not have a right to speak on what we already know until we have seen the film are 100% wrong. In fact, what they say does not even pass the common sense test of reason and logic and must be seen for what I think it is; deflection of legitimate concerns and spinning.
I notice that the movie's defenders have not refuted our documentation of the freemason paganism of the monument or our Biblical text that confirm that Christians should have nothing to do with such things. I notice that the movie's defenders have not addressed or refuted any of the documentation presented in my last article. All they can say is "wait until the film comes out". Truth is often sacrificed by members of the good old boy club because of the benefits that come with such loyalty and compromise; I turned in my membership to that club a long time ago.
I did not have to see the film to know or discover historical facts. I have also watched several lengthy speeches by Kirk Cameron talking about this monument and calling it our "Gilgal" stone. [17 minute mark] I have also watched the movie trailer and other interviews with Kirk that I believe reveal enough to cause concern.
 
I invited Kirk to call me in June of 2011 to discuss some concerns of what I was hearing about his upcoming film. We exchanged text messages in late February of 2012 in which I invited Kirk to be a guest on my radio program.  I wanted to interview Kirk about his film, his purpose for producing the film, who he picked to interview and why and to have him explain his eschatology. Knowing his eschatology would help shed light on his overall worldview. Unfortunately, Kirk did not appear on our program as a guest to discuss the film.
We have plenty of pre-released and promotional information related to the movie, its reported interviewees, goals, and ideas.  Many of these clips have been played on my radio program.  When the film comes out on DVD, I will see it.  Then both positive and negative will be reported.  However, the childish attempts to spin and discredit legitimate concerns I believe only reveals a lack of commitment to truth and a larger commitment to pragmatism. There is plenty of data to examine now about the movie that allow for concrete statements and analysis. I believe a few of the defenders of the movie have already lost some of their credibility because of their willingness to compromise truth in order to have a bigger audience. These are not the folks I believe we should look to now to lead us through this mine field.
One defender has implied that we need to not question this film or Kirk, but to just trust him because of his association with the gospel and Way of the Master. It is because of these associations that so many have been concerned about what we have seen and learned prior to the film even being released. The idea that we cannot disagree with someone or question their project because of who they are and what they have done is exactly the celebrity driven Christianity that has gotten the church in trouble time and time again.  While I am told the Monument to the Forefathers is only a part of the film, I think the fact that it has been a rallying point and has been called a "Gilgal" stone for American Christians is really a symbol of the problem facing the church.
Sadly, many Christians, as I once did, are taking that which is not Christian or Biblical and trying to make it such. While I am sure the gospel will be presented in the film when it is released, this does not make the use of the monument as a "Christian" symbol acceptable. Neither does presenting the gospel make it Biblical for Christians to commit themselves to being "liberty men and liberty women". We should first and foremost be men and women that proclaim the gospel and reject moralizing and reconstructionism. Embracing the Monument to the Forefathers as a Christian symbol is indicative of the big problem and the big picture. The unbiblical big picture is made of up many parts.
1.     Reconstructionism or perhaps revivalist postmillennialism or reconstructionist postmillennialism
2.     Dominionism
3.     Moralizing
4.     Christian activism or political activism as a solution
5.     Embracing those that have embraced ecumenicalism if it helps to win the culture war and thus giving credibility to ecumenicalism even if it is done so unintentionally
6.     Christians giving credibility to false teachers and those preaching another gospel and another Jesus by working with or appearing with them in spiritual discussions, spiritual interviews, and spiritual enterprises.  
7.     Spiritualizing or taking out of context Biblical text to justify Christian activism, reconstructionism, dominionism or a reconstructionist postmillennialism.
8.     Denying a literal interpretation of the Bible in regards to Biblical prophecy
9.     Man centered attempts based on man's political and cultural strategies to restore a nation
10.  A lack of willingness to accept the overwhelming possibility that America will not be "reclaimed" because God has given her over as described in Romans 1. The gospel can still go forth and God will be honored even as He reveals Himself to be the righteous judge that judges nations and individuals. In such a nation and climate, Christians can point  people to the gospel that allows them to pass from judgment into life. If we are truly selfless perhaps we would pray for persecution and national judgment so that the church would be purified, the distraction of Christian activism would end, and the Great Commission would be our only focus.
11. Emotionalism and fear that cause Christians to compromise and build unbiblical alliances instead of fully trusting in the sovereignty of God
12. The sin of placing our desire for our families and the future of our children ahead of God's desire for our families and the future of our children. God may very well want our children to live in a nation that is hostile so they might seek Him. Has the materialism of our nation made our children and grandchildren more likely to seek after God or are they materially satisfied and have need of nothing? If God desires persecution to get the attention of our children and to drive them to the cross, then I pray for persecution. It is better to be persecuted in this life and to come to Jesus Christ than to be comfortable in this life and be tormented in hell for eternity.
When watching the trailer of Monumental and some of the promotional interviews by those involved, I, and some of our Worldview Weekend speakers, got the feel of dominionism, reconstructionism or reconstructionist postmillennialism. Statements have been made about having a plan or formula to restore liberty and freedom. I believe one statement implied that if someone had a pre-tribulation eschatology then their beliefs could create self-fulfilling prophecies. There are Biblical prophesies that God will fulfill regardless of our beliefs about them.
Additionally, the film trailer seems to mock those that believe in a literal interpretation of the Word of God in regards to Biblical prophecy. Another concern is the news reports that state that David Barton will be interviewed in the film.  Barton has called Glenn Beck a Mormon and a Christian. One has to wonder if after the film is debuted in the theatres, will there be a campaign to have the movie shown in churches around the country?  Will they advocate purchasing resources that rally the church to reconstructionism or to accept postmillennialism that includes Christian activism?  How has Christian activism worked out the past thirty years? I am not saying we should just throw up our hands and retreat. What I am saying is that only the proclamation of the gospel and training our children and church members in Biblical theology and doctrine is going to have a lasting and eternal impact. More Christians working to "reclaim the culture" is not going to work if God is turning our nation and world over as described in the Scriptures, and I believe He is turning us over.
The mixing of evangelicals with false prophets for the sake of the culture war is really an offense to the Gospel. God is not dependent on us to violate Biblical principles in order to be successful at restoring righteousness. The culture war is really the byproduct of a spiritual battle and the spiritual condition of America. The church cannot confront the cultural and spiritual problems by compromising on Biblical and spiritual issues. God is watching and I contend that our efforts are being thwarted by God as Divine judgment for setting aside Scriptural warnings and uniting with false teachers in spiritual enterprises intertwined with our Christian activism. 
If Biblically sound Christians stand together for righteousness in the public square and yet we lose we still win because we were able to lift up the gospel in our Godly efforts. However, if Christians compromise the gospel and unite with false teachers in spiritual and political enterprises, regardless of the political outcome, we will have lost because we gave credibility to false teachers and their false gospel. I believe this is Satan's strategy. Our willingness to lose our liberty and freedom and to even be enslaved before we compromise the gospel is how we can win today and win for eternity.
The late Vance Havner was correct when he declared:  "The devil is not fighting religion; he is too smart for that. He is producing a counterfeit Christianity so much like the real one that good Christians are afraid to speak out against it." I believe Americanism is one of many forms of a counterfeit Christianity. When you mix the gospel and Christian activism with people that are calling a Mormon a Christian or people that have signed Evangelicals and Catholics Together, or give credibility to men that have united with Glenn Beck's ecumenical Black Robe Regiment or men that have spoken for Cindy Jacobs of the New Apostolic Reformation; you are giving credibility, whether intentionally or not, to a compromised Christianity. 
I have declared it before and I will declare it again; Christians that partner with false teachers or those involved in the social gospel, or ecumenicalism and think they are defending liberty for the sake of the gospel are actually compromising the gospel for the sake of liberty.
So, let us watch and see how this all washes out and let us see if the movie Monumental causes the church to gain a deeper commitment to preaching the gospel and teaching Biblical theology and doctrine. Will it be one more misguided and perhaps well-intended campaign to enlist the church into Christian activism, reconstructionism, or reconstructionist postmillennialism? Is America better today than it was thirty years ago despite all the Christian activism, and hundreds of millions spent by pro-family groups and attempts at reconstructionism? No!
Mixing the gospel with reconstructionism of any kind and Christian activism is a futile exercise at best. So can the true church get back to our true calling which is fulfilling the Great Commission? After all, that is a big picture strategy that will have monumental results.