(415) EMERGING TRENDS IN THE CHURCH TODAY: The New Age & Bill Johnson – IHOP, Bethel Church, NAR

The New Age & Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer (IHOP), Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)…..etc.

These are names that I am hearing more and more frequently.  To be honest, the first picture that comes to my mind when I hear the word IHOP is PANCAKES.  But, as much as I love pancakes, that is not the topic we are talking about here. Specifically, IHOP is the International House of Prayer.  

Pancakes.pngMany Evangelical leaders are tripping over thebill_johnson_0mselves to associate with major youth events  which are very popular in the Christian world. These mass youth rallies were developed over the course of several decades by Mike Bickle’s IHOP (International House of Prayer) movement, which is interconnected to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). IHOP and the NAR share both personnel and doctrine, with roots that go back into the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God.  In a previous posting, I shared the “Naked Cowboy” which displayed a questionable performance by the worship team Hillsong which shares similar paths with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).

–> https://irondukeblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/409-emerging-trends-in-the-church-today-hillsongs-naked-cowboy/

My goal is to do a series of posts on these groups.  For now, I just want to highlight a common issue of New Age teaching that is creeping into churches such as Bethel Church. I want to refrain from passing judgment on other areas relating to signs and wonders, spiritual gifts….etc., but focus on the influence of the New Age on people like Bill JohnsonBethel Church, NAR...etc. It is important to understand their teachings with these New Age influences are being used by many churches across the country. In addition to my comments, several sources will be used including several footnotes in this posting from the article by “The New Age Propensities of Bethel Church’s Bill Johnson” by John Lanagan.  I also want to stress that my main concern is the mixing of New Age in with Christian teaching which I would think is a major problem with these groups – a problem that you and I should be concerned about.  While you can draw your own conclusions, I am not trying to say all is bad fruit from these groups.  I haven’t done enough research to make that decision – there are plenty of other organizations that do that type of thing if you are interested.

Let’s start with some background.  In Redding, California, Bethel Church has become one of the largest evangelical churches in North America. Many people from around the world travel to Redding to attend the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry, and C. Peter Wagner (“founder” of the New Apostolic Reformation movement) has called Bethel’s senior pastor, Bill Johnson, an “apostle.”  This article combines several articles along with comments from me –                

Given that title with claims on the church website that Bethel has a “global impact as a revival resource and equipping center,” it is expedient and responsible to examine Johnson and determine if he is indeed an apostle sent from God to the body of Christ.


The Physics of Heaven, a recent book Bill Johnson contributed to, and his personal assistant co-authored, reveals a very different picture than that of the apostles described in the Bible. It appears that rather than an apostle of God, Bill Johnson may be poised to serve as the vehicle that carries the New Age and quantum spirituality deep into the Body of Christ.

At that time I could not find a single Christian leader who shared a similar interest in finding out if there were truths hidden in the New Age. Now we are beginning to hear more and more revelation that is in line with what New Agers have been saying all along and we are hearing more and more teaching about Christians “taking back truths” from the New Age that really belong to citizens of the Kingdom of God.1—Ellyn Davis, co-author, The Physics of Heaven

Being drawn to New Age ideas is not something new to Bethel’s leader. In a 2006 book titled Dreaming with God, Johnson writes, when referring to a practice associated with the New Age:

Many prominent pastors and conference speakers add fuel to the fire of fear by assuming that because the New Age promotes it, its origins must be from the devil. I find that form of reasoning weak at best. If we follow that line of thought we will continue to give the devil the tools that God has given us for success in life and ministry.3

Stop and think about what is being said here: “the tools that God has given us” somehow ended up in the New Age? How did that happen? And which tools is he talking about? Why would a professing Christian say something like this? New Age teaching is in total opposition to the Word of God. To suggest that New Age practices are really just hijacked Christian truths is utterly absurd.

Research analyst Ray Yungen explains the basis of New Age thought:

Everything that exists, seen or unseen, is made up of energy—tiny particles of vibrating energy, atoms, molecules, protons, etc. All is energy. That energy, they believe, is God, and therefore, all is God. They believe that since we are all part of this “God-energy,” then we, too, are God. God is not seen as a Being that dwells in heaven, but as the universe itself.4

I’ve heard Dr. Oz talk about these energies on his television show as he combines New Age with Eastern Mysticism while his audience ingests his reasoning because he is a medical doctor.  Bill Johnson and Bethel Church exert significant influence in the body of Christ. And whatever path Bethel and its leaders travel is the path on which many will follow. We need to pay attention to what is happening here, using discernment and godly wisdom.

In addition to Johnson’s own contribution to the book (one full chapter), his personal assistant, Judy Franklin, is a co-author; and the foreword of The Physics of Heaven is written by Kris Vallotton, Senior Associate leader at Bethel. Vallotton lauds the contributors as “seers.”5 Banning Liebscher, Director of Bethel’s Jesus Culture, adds his praise.6 Bill Johnson’s wife, Beni Johnson, also has a chapter in the book. With all that, The Physics of Heaven undeniably has the approval of Bethel’s leaders.

So what does The Physics of Heaven reveal?

The Next Move of God?
Ellyn Davis, one of the authors of The Physics of Heaven, says this:

[The contributors of the book] all agree that the next move of God will cause a shift at the deepest level of who we are—perhaps the very “vibrational level” that the New Age movement has been exploring. They also all agree that there are precious truths hidden in the New Age that belong to us as Christians and need to be extracted from the worthless.7

Contributor Jonathan Welton adds:

I have found throughout Scripture at least 75 examples of things that the New Age has counterfeited, such as having a spirit guide, trances, meditation, auras, power objects, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and more. These actually belong to the church, but they have been stolen and cleverly repackaged.8

Welton believes:

We need to begin to use [New Age] counterfeits as signposts. Every time a counterfeit shows up, take it as the Lord presenting you with an opportunity to reclaim . . . the Church’s stolen property.9

This is like taking a bottle with a “Poison!” warning on it and re-labeling it, “Honey.” Contemplative prayer, which is essentially Eastern/New Age meditation disguised with Christian terminology, entered the church in just this manner.

Co-author Ellyn Davis asserts:

It wasn’t that I wanted to become a New Ager, I just wanted to find out if maybe they had uncovered some truths the church hadn’t.10

Davis then attempts to justify her position by claiming much of what she found “embodied biblical principles” and “could be backed up by Scripture.”11

In contrast to such a mindset, Scripture exhorts us:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

Compare Davis’ desire to sample New Age wisdom with the resolve of the newly saved Christians in Acts 19: These saints separated themselves from the occult; they did not peruse their occultic literature one last time in case there were some “truths” there. The unholy books were gathered and set on fire:

Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (Acts 19:19)

The action taken by these bold new believers caused the Gospel to spread.

So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:20)

Lacking basic discernment about involvement with the New Age, co-author Davis, the Bethel Redding contingent, and the other contributors have rendered a great disservice to the Body of Christ. The Bethel contributors, in particular, can potentially do the most damage because of their popularity and high visibility.

Bill Johnson’s view of Scripture may give us a clue as to how he ended up being attracted to extra-biblical leanings. According to Johnson:

Those who feel safe because of their intellectual grasp of Scriptures enjoy a false sense of security. None of us has a full grasp of Scripture, but we all have the Holy Spirit. He is our common denominator who will always lead us into truth. But to follow Him, we must be willing to follow off the map—to go beyond what we know.12

This is dangerous thinking. The Bible is our map. To go “beyond what we know” is to go beyond the parameters of Scripture.

How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. (Psalm 119:103-105)

The Physics of Heaven, whether intentionally or unintentionally, serves to illustrate how the false church will form—or, more accurately, how it is forming. New Age practices will increasingly be welcomed into the Body of Christ. These practices will be presented as redeemed or Christian in origin. The church will be subverted—turned toward Eastern/New Age/Quantum mysticism. Language, terms, and trappings may even remain essentially “Christian”—but acceptance of the biblical Christ will diminish.

1. Ellyn Davis, The Physics of Heaven (Crossville, TN: Double Portion Publishing, Kindle Edition, 2013), Kindle location: 405.

2. Bethel Redding website, http://bethelredding.com/about.

3. Bill Johnson, Dreaming With God: Secrets to Redesigning Your World Through God’s Creative Flow (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2006), p. 86.

4. Ray Yungen, For Many Shall Come In My Name (Eureka, MT: Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 2007), p. 17.

5. Kris Vallotton, The Physics of Heaven, op. cit., Kindle location: 96.

6. Ibid., Banning Liebscher, Kindle location: 85.

7. Ibid., Ellyn Davis, Kindle location: 447.

8. Ibid., Jonathan Welton, Kindle location: 808.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., Ellyn Davis, Kindle location: 392.

11. Ibid.

12. Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles(Shippensburg, PA., Destiny Image Publishers Inc., 2003, Kindle edition), p. 1113.

13. Kenosis, Christology, and Bill Johnson, Crosswise Blog, http://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/kenosis-christology-and-bill-johnson-part-ii.


There are several reasons why I find it difficult to see Andy Stanley follow a pattern which takes him further away from the Bible.  At a minimum, the “guilt by association” with his father Charles Stanley has been a good perspective to have since his father has long been seen as a dependable preacher who represents a solid biblical perspective for many many years.

However, over the last few years, Andy Stanley has made several questionable statements on various topics raising  concern.  Some of these relate to the topic of  homosexuality.  And like many issues relating to homosexuality, how one views the authority of the Bible is critical to how one forms conclusions on this issue.

This brings us to Andy Stanley’s latest questionable statement regarding the Bible –

Andy Stanley and the Bible

Bible close up

There has lately been a considerable amount of buzz over some controversial statements that Andy Stanley has made. For those who are unaware, Andy Stanley, son and ministry “heir” of Charles Stanley, is the pastor of Northpoint Church in Atlanta, Georgia. John Haller, of Fellowship Bible Chapel, in his Prophecy Update YouTube titled, “The Foolishness of God”, addresses some very serious concerns about things which Stanley has himself stated, and groups/movements he is associated with. For example, the Catalyst Conference, which Stanley put together and Northpoint hosts, at least in 2014 promoted the New Age practice of “Centering Prayer.”

What is raising concern now is a recent Stanley series, “The Bible Tells me so.” Some of the things Stanley says in this series call into question whether he truly believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. Does Andy Stanley believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God – or is simply “inspiring?” John Haller presents video excerpts of Stanley’s talk, which are greatly helpful. Stanley begins with:

Perhaps you were taught, as I was taught, Jesus loves me, this I know – and let’s all finish it together – for the Bible tells me so. Yes. This is where our trouble began.

John Haller first compliments Stanley for the time he took laying out how the Bible was canonized, noting it was fairly well done. Church history should be taught in an understandable way from the pulpit. The canonization process was utilized by early Christian Fathers to weed out manuscripts that had not been penned by the Apostles, or by someone who had worked closely with an apostle (such as Mark or Luke). Stanley remarks that the Bible, as a single book, wasn’t really assembled until near the end of 4th Century A.D. He then begins to go off the rails a bit:

Before the Old Testament and New Testament were combined and titled the Bible – this is unbelievable – Christianity had already, before there was a Bible, replaced the pantheon of Roman, barbarian, and most Egyptian gods, and was the state religion of the Roman Empire. And no one had ever held in their hand a Bible! The first, second, and third century Christians who faced tremendous hardship – don’t miss this – believed Jesus loved them before the Bible told them so. Peter believed Jesus loved him, James did, John, Luke, Paul, they – listen, this is huge – Peter, James, Paul the apostle, they did not choose to follow Jesus because of an infallible Old Testament or a non-contradicting New Testament.

If Stanley’s intent was to teach that we are saved by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as opposed to belief in “an infallible Old Testament,” that is true. Stanley though, goes much further than this. He begins with some truisms, statements that are generally true but may or may not be true in specific cases, but his conclusions are, we feel, misleading. For example, it is true that the binding of scriptures into a single volume occurred a few centuries into Church history, but all of the content of the Bible was extant in the First Century. Therefore, the scriptures, though not yet bound together, were all held in the hands of Christians in the First, Second and Third centuries, as separate documents. In fact, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (church leaders before the Council of Nicaea) quoted from the written documents so prolifically, that even if, by some happenstance, we had lost all of the copies of the scriptures, we could reconstruct the entire New Testament from the works of the Fathers, with the exception of 8 verses! (Of course we had no need to, because the scriptures were not lost.) The Fathers quoted from the scriptures in order to underpin and validate their own arguments, to prove what they were saying by the revealed and written Word of God! This practice was certainly not new to them – they were carrying on the noble tradition which the Bereans followed with the Apostle Paul and the Old Testament:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Not only did the Bereans go to the Scriptures to find support and confirmation of Paul’s claims, but Paul and the other apostles did likewise – and Jesus himself appealed to the Scriptures to make His case:

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

The Apostle Paul makes the Scriptures foundational to the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with theScriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

The Apostles indeed, as Stanley claims, “believed Jesus loved them before the Bible told them so,” in large part because Jesus told them so face to face! No one alive since the first century has had that luxury, and have relied on the Bible to tell them so since those days! The New Testament was written to communicate the stories of the eyewitnesses, to explain and prove what the gospel was and is, and to correct false teachers who were making extra-biblical and non-biblical claims. Sadly, Stanley paints the Scriptures as being an unreliable, “fragile” underpinning of the faith:

In other words, imagine this conversation. You know somebody with all this information you know, comes to the apostle Peter, let’s say the apostle Peter. Says to Peter, ‘Hey before you all geeked out on this following Jesus thing, do you realize there is no evidence for a worldwide flood? Before you get all crazy about the Jesus thing, do you know there’s no archaeological evidence for the exodus? Hey Paul, before you all, and Peter, before you get all crazy by the Jesus thing, you realize the earth is more than 6000 years old, that whole genealogy in Genesis?’

Peter would’ve looked at you like, ‘I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, but, but, but, I followed a man for three years…Who spoke like no other man spoke. He was arrested and crucified, and we thought game over. Because he said too much to be a good teacher, he claimed too much about himself to be a good teacher. Game over. We’re all in hiding – a bunch of women come babbling that the tomb is empty the tomb is empty. I looked into an empty tomb and do you know what I concluded? Somebody stole the body. And a few days later, I had breakfast with my risen friend on the beach. So I’m not sure about 6000-year-old earth. I not sure about archaeological evidence. I’m not sure about all that. The reason I’m following Jesus is because I saw him die and I saw him alive and I went to the streets of Jerusalem to say God has done something among us’.

For the first 300 years, the debate centered on an event – not a book. For the first 300 years of the existence of Christianity, the debate was about an event – not a book. The question was not, is the Bible true, is the Bible true, is the Bible true? The question was – did Jesus rise from the dead? Christianity, don’t miss this. Christianity does not hang by the thread of ‘the Bible tells me so.’ And if your church sent you off to college with that house of cards, I apologize. And if your entire life, your whole thing has been, ‘I gotta defend the Bible, I gotta defend the Bible,’ uh oh, there’s information that looks like it contradicts the Bible. ‘I can’t look over there. Honey don’t look over there.’ I’m so sorry you are left with that fragile version of our faith.

The big blue elephant in the room, which Stanley seems to overlook, is that the resurrection cannot underpin our faith, apart from the Bible. Peter could say that he personally witnessed a man being crucified and raised from the dead. Yes, he certainly could! Unfortunately, we, as people who were not eyewitnesses to the resurrection, cannot say the same! It is primarily the Bible which makes the case, and cannot possibly base our faith upon the resurrection without it! How would any of us know the truth of the resurrection without its testimony?

Laying that fundamental problem aside, the events he cites as indefensible are recorded in the Old Testament, and faithful Jews in the First Century believed these stories to be accurate and inherent as the word of God. Even more importantly, Jesus Himself confirmed each of these as being true. He affirmed Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:27-38; Luke 17:27). Jesus references Moses and events which were recorded in the Exodus account several times. In Mark 12:26, Jesus referenced the burning bush. In Luke 24:44, he speaks of the Law of Moses, which was given to Moses in the Exodus account. In fact, Moses and the Law are repeatedly referenced, which demonstrates Jesus’ belief that the accounts as recorded are true – factual, i.e. really happened, just as laid out in the Old Testament scriptures. Could Jesus have been mistaken? Was He, as fully God, uninformed? Could the “somebody with all this information” have rocked Jesus’ faith, maybe?

Second, if we cannot today appeal to the scripture to verify our faith, why are the scriptures the very thing that Jesus and the apostles appealed to? When Jesus and the Apostles were challenged, they often appealed to Scripture as authoritative and reliable. For example, when Jesus was tempted His response was to quote Deuteronomy 8:3:

But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4; cf. Luke 4:4)

Peter openly equates Paul’s writings to Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16 which reads:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

The battles over biblical claims, from the First through the Fourth Century, are recorded in Scripture and in the writings of the early church Fathers (the Ante-Nicene Fathers). These battles weren’t over the flood or the Exodus, because those were completely settled issues, written in Scripture and confirmed by Jesus.

There was little debate or discussion about the Deity of Christ in the first few centuries because, again, the fact of Jesus’ deity was universally believed by the early church. What did come under fire was the question of God taking on human nature, and we find a great deal of apologetic written in defense of that proposition. Similarly, Paul had to address the question of the physical resurrection very early on (1 Corinthians 15), and this battle continued with Justin Martyr and others in the Second Century…..

The complete article can be viewed here – http://midwestoutreach.org/2016/09/15/andy-stanley-and-the-bible/


(413) EMERGING TRENDS IN THE CHURCH TODAY: Hugh Ross & Theistic Evolution

(413) EMERGING TRENDS IN THE CHURCH TODAY: Hugh Ross: Progressive Creationists / Theistic Evolutionist

Looking at the A.W. Tozer Seminary (Simpson College of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church) faculty listing, one can find Dr. Hugh Ross as the Adjuct Professor of Apologetics – Internationally known astronomer and speaker Dr. Ross is the president of Reasons to Believe, a Glendora, Calif.-based organization that seeks to bridge the gap between science and faith. Dr. Ross has addressed students, faculty and theologians at hundreds of locations around the world.

While his intention is noble and his influence on many within the Evangelical community is wide reaching with his focus on science, he takes views that, in my mind, puts science ahead of scripture in forming interpreations and drawing conclusions.  Here is a sampling of his beliefs compared to Creation Ministries International (Young Earth).

Untitled copy

Included in his beliefs are many characteristics commonly promoted by Evolutionists including long ages and limited flood scale.  Here is an article from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati who has written extensively about the issues involved and specificaly about Dr. Hugh Ross.  Sarfati contrasts the Biblical view of young earth creationism with Ross’s long ages and shows many discrepancies in Ross’s position.

Exposé of The Genesis Question*

Serious biblical and scientific errors deceive evangelicals



The astronomer Hugh N. Ross now seems to be the world’s most prominent ‘progressive creationist’ (PC). While he is insistent about distinguishing himself from ‘theistic evolutionists’ (TEs), Ross adopts the same basic philosophical approach. That is, he makes uniformitarian (i.e. essentially materialistic, billions of years, etc.) ‘science’ his authority over Scripture.

This means that he must try to fit billions of years into Scripture, with corollaries of a local flood and pre-Adamite soulless man-like creatures, and death of nephesh animals before sin. The only real difference between the two positions is that PCs deny transformism, the changing of one kind into another. Amazingly, Ross claims that his approach is ‘a literal reading of the Genesis creation chapters’ (p. 86). This is surely a very non-literal usage of the word ‘literal’!

Ross’s popularity in evangelical Christendom is based on several factors:

  • His books are published by the once-biblical NavPress, the publishing arm of the Navigators.
  • Ross name-drops a number of Christian leaders who appear not to realise that Ross’s departure from Scripture involves far more than the age of the earth.
  • Ross gives the impression that his books will help Christians defend their faith in a scientific age.

It’s clear that for the last few years, NavPress has opposed straightforward biblical creation. In this recent Ross book [see also our introductory chapter critique of Ross’ June 2004 book release A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy], NavPress appears to have even resorted to somewhat misleading marketing tactics, i.e. the dust-jacket has some ‘praise’ from allegedly prominent authors, one of whom is:

candidate in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Formatted as above (starting a new line and changing the font style from small capitals to italics after ‘Ph.D.’), this gives the first impression to a skimming reader that Conner has a Ph.D., because only after careful inspection is it clear that he is a Ph.D. candidate, i.e. not actually qualified.

The canonisation of ‘nature’

The worst part of Ross’s teaching is the gross liberties he takes with the scriptural text. He does this to fit the canonical 66 books into what he calls the ‘67th book’, nature.1 What he means by ‘nature’ is the uniformitarian interpretation of nature. However, the creation is cursed (Genesis 3:17–19, Romans 8:20–22) and man’s heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and the thinking of a godless man is ‘futile’ (Romans 1:21), while Scripture itself is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15–17). So a biblical Christian should not reinterpret the perfect, unfallen Word of God according to fallible theories of sinful humans about a world we know to be cursed (Genesis 3:17–19, Romans 8:20–22).

Ross’s heterodox canonisation of nature has been thoroughly rebutted by Van Bebber and Taylor.2 Their book, Creation and Time: A report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, is valuable reading for defenders of the biblical worldview, as it answers point-by-point Ross’s earlier theological and historical errors.1 However, The Genesis Question repeats many of the same errors.

Ignorance of Hebrew

Ross routinely gives audiences the impression of being very familiar with Hebrew. However, in a meeting with Dr Ross on 12 April 1999, Dr Russell Humphreys asked Ross in Hebrew: ‘Do you speak Hebrew?’ and Ross was clearly uncomprehending. Humphreys then said (in English): ‘You must respond in Hebrew’, to which Ross admitted his inability by responding (also in English) ‘I can’t.’ Humphreys hastens to add that he himself is not expert in Hebrew, and nor am I, but we at least know enough to understand the question and to reply using the Hebrew word forno.

Ross’s ignorance of Hebrew shows when he tries to discredit the common creationist identification of behemoth in Job 40:15–24 with a sauropod [see Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], because he believes the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Ross writes (p. 48): The Hebrew word for “behemoth” appears in its plural form, behema, …’ However, even beginners in Hebrew know that –a is often a feminine singular and –oth is a feminine plural. So Ross got it back-to-front: behema is the singular form, while behemoth is grammatically plural. It is a figure of speech known as an intensive plural or plural of majesty, where ‘the referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used’,3 ‘beast of beasts’. The context says that behemoth is the largest beast God made. And Job 40:17 says: ‘His tail sways like a cedar’ which certainly doesn’t fit Ross’s suggestion of a hippopotamus (unless it was a bonsai cedar, maybe).

Fanciful eisegesis4

One of Ross’s major aims is to show that Genesis can be fitted into uniformitarian astronomy and paleontology. To avoid the plain teaching of Genesis—that land dinosaurs were created with man and after whales—Ross also claims (pp. 52–53):

‘The list [of creatures created on Day 6] does not purport to include all the land mammals God made. … Though remes refers occasionally in Hebrew literature to reptiles, the opening phrase of Genesis 1:25 makes it clear that these are mammals. … Bothbehema and chayyāh refer to long-legged land quadrupeds. The former group encompasses those that easily can be tamed or domesticated for agricultural purposes, and the latter, those that are difficult to tame but have the potential to become excellent pets.Remes refers to short-legged land mammals, such as rodents, hares, and armadillos.’

However, this is typical of Ross’s imaginative eisegesis. Genesis 1:25 teaches nothing so restrictive. And his analysis of Hebrew terms has no basis—Ross’s own source, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT),5 doesn’t support him. Chayyāh is simply a generic word for a living creature although it can often refer to wild animals (TWOT 1:281)—the phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nephesh chayyāh) is used of sea creatures inGenesis 1:20, and of man in Genesis 2:7. Behema refers to both wild beast and domesticated animal (TWOT 1:92). Remes describes small creeping animals ‘especially reptiles’ (TWOT 2:850). The TWOT shows that Ross is ‘over-defining’ these terms.

Van Bebber and Taylor6 pointed out the same errors in Ross’s earlier book,1 and it’s tiresome to see Ross repeating discredited nonsensical arguments time after time.

Note that even if we grant Ross’s contention that remes means ‘short-legged land mammals’, it still doesn’t match the uniformitarian order in the fossil record. Such creatures are alleged to have appeared millions of years before whales, which Ross identifies as created on the millions-of-years-long ‘Day 5’. And mesonychids, the alleged predecessors of whales, were certainly ‘long-legged mammalian quadrupeds’, so would fit even Ross’s descriptions of Day 6 creatures.

Those who promote Ross’s material as sound science should thus think again. It is doubtful that secular people will be impressed by Ross’s claim that the order of Genesis matches ‘science’. When they point out exceptions, Ross redefines terms so that Day 6 doesn’t really refer to any creature that appeared before whales. And when all else fails, he claims that the ‘days’ overlapped.7

Insightful exegesis or delusions of grandeur?

One key point about Ross’s ‘harmony’ of Genesis with billions of years is to claim that Genesis 1:2 ff. is written from the viewpoint of an observer at the earth’s surface. He claims (p. 21):

‘The frame of reference, or point of view, for the creation account suddenly shifts in Genesis 1:2, from the heavenlies that make up the entire physical universe to the surface of planet Earth. For whatever reason, perhaps because it comes so abruptly, most readers—even scholarly commentators—miss the shift. I am convinced that my absorption in science prepared me to see it.’

So Ross, despite a demonstrable ignorance of even the most basic Hebrew and an inability to use Hebrew lexicons correctly, discovers amazing insights, thanks to ‘science’. This claim by Ross, like so many others, is a denial of the perspicuity of Scripture. I.e. God’s people were left entirely in the dark about Genesis until modern uniformitarian theories were invented—mainly by bibliosceptics.

More likely, this alleged frame shift has been missed because it is not in the text! The real frame-shift to the Earth is very clear in the Hebrew, and occurs in Genesis 2:4, not Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a summarised account of the whole creation, while Genesis 2:4 ff. focuses on the creation of mankind (in chapters 7 and 10, Ross rightly rejects higher critical theories that claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory creation accounts). This shift is clear from the boundary marking phrase ‘These are the generations (toledoth) of the heavens and of the earth’, or better, ‘This is the account …’.8 Also, in Genesis 2:4, the order ‘heaven and earth’ changes to ‘earth and heaven’, alerting the reader to focus on the earth.9

Ross applies this alleged Genesis 1:2 frame shift to assert that what really happened on the fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years.

Disks around stars, by an amazing leap in logic, supposedly show that all planets, including the Earth, started with opaque atmospheres of hydrogen, helium, methane and ammonia (p. 26). But it would not take a very sophisticated knowledge of science to know that hydrogen couldn’t be held by earth’s gravity, and methane and ammonia would be photolysed quickly. These gases are transparent, incidentally.

Ross’s ideas are not only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The Hebrew word ‘asah means make throughout Genesis 1, and may be used interchangeably with create (bara’), e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). This is supported by Hebrew scholars who have translated the Bible into English. Over 20 major translations were checked, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.

(See also How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?)

Days of creation

To justify his interpretation of the six creation days of Genesis 1 as millions of years long, Ross writes (p. 65):

‘In English, the word day enjoys flexible usage. We refer to the day of the dinosaurs and the day of the Romans, and no-one misunderstands our meaning. But we recognize this usage as figurative, acknowledging just two literal definitions: a twenty-four hour period, from midnight to midnight, and the daylight hours (roughly twelve, but varying from one latitude and season to another).’

Because ‘day’ (Hebrew yôm) in some contexts can have a non-literal meaning, Ross feels justified in assuming that a non-literal meaning is acceptable in the particular context of Genesis 1. But such an interpretation shows that he could benefit from elementary training in exegesis, e.g. the book Exegetical Fallacies10 by the evangelical New Testament scholar Dr Don Carson. Ross commits a classic case of a fallacy that Carson called

‘Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.’

Ross’s fallacy can be illustrated by the following sentence that has several uses of the word ‘day’.

‘In my father’s day, he would go to bed early Sunday evening and rise early in the morning of the following day, and spend the next sixdays travelling, during the day, to cross the whole country.’

Of course ‘my father’s day’ is an indefinite period of time. But this doesn’t mean that it’s legitimate to interpret the ‘six days travelling’ as anything but ordinary days. And the combination of evening and the next morning are another way of showing that his bedtime was contained in one ordinary day, not an indefinite time period.

Genesis 1 modifies the creation days with both ‘evening and morning’ and a number, almost as if God was trying to make it as obvious as possible that they were ordinary days. Exodus 20:8–11 reinforces the point that the six days of creation followed by a day of ‘rest’ were the basis for the Israelites’ six-day week and seventh day Sabbath. The phrase ‘during the day’ is also obviously the daylight hours, as per Genesis 1:5.

Ross also claims (p. 65): In biblical Hebrew, no other word besides yôm carries the meaning of a long period of time and cites his own book1and TWOT.5 Again, Van Bebber and Taylor pointed out11 that Ross’s own source contradicts him, stating that the Hebrew olam and its Greek equivalent aion (from which we derive the word ‘eon’) often means ‘long age’.12 There were plenty of other words that God could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time.13,14 God could also have used phrases like ‘x myriad myriad years ago’ to teach ages of hundreds of millions of years. For a less precise indication of vast ages, God could have compared the years to the number of sand grains or stars. Yet God did not use any of these—rather, He emphasized literal days.

Does the seventh day continue?

Ross claims on p. 64:

‘Each of the six creation days closes with the refrain: “There was evening, and there was morning,” then the day’s number. The statement suggests that each day had a start time … and an end time. However, the refrain is not attached to the seventh day. Its closure is missing.

‘… its absence from the account of the seventh day can be taken as a meaningful hint: the day has not ended.’

From this, Ross has concluded that the other creation days could be long ages. However, the systematic theologian, Dr Douglas Kelly, responded to the same argument from Ross1 in his book Creation and Change as follows:

‘To say the least, this places a great deal of theological weight on a very narrow and thin exegetical bridge! Is it not more concordant with the patent sense of the context of Genesis 2 (and Exodus 20) to infer that because the Sabbath differed in quality (though not—from anything we can learn out of the text itself—in quantity), a slightly different concluding formula was appended to indicate a qualitative difference (six days involved work; one day involved rest)? The formula employed to show the termination of that first sabbath : “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made”(Genesis 2:2) seems just as definite as that of “and the evening and the morning were the first day”.’ 15

Ross also argues that Hebrews 4:1–11 teaches that the seventh creation day began after the creation of Adam and Eve, continues through the present, and extends into the future. However, again Ross repeats an argument rebutted by Van Bebber and Taylor.16 Hebrews never says that the seventh day of creation is continuing to the present; it merely says that God’s rest is continuing. If someone says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday.17 Kulikovsky carefully analyses the grammar of Hebrews 4 and concludes:

‘The “rest” of Hebrews 4 clearly refers to the Kingdom of God … Nowhere in the text is it equated with the seventh day of creation, nor is there any grammatical or contextual data suggesting any such equation.’18

The history of mankind

A straightforward reading of the biblical genealogies according to the reliable Masoretic text19 shows that Adam was created about 4000 BC, and this was on Day 6 of creation.20 And Jesus said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), not billions of years later. But Ross dates Adam at about 35,000–47,000 BC, based on secular chromosome research (p. 111), i.e. almost at the endof billions-of-years old creation.

Since he also accepts the ‘earlier’ evolutionary ‘dates’ for other hominids, Ross concludes that they have no relationship to man, although they buried their dead, made tools and musical instruments, painted pictures, etc.

Biblical genealogies

Ross (pp. 108–110) points to some biblical genealogies that have gaps to claim that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are largely incomplete. He also claims (p. 109):

‘The words translated in to English say this: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z.” Someone reading the same passage in Hebrew would see a second possibility: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of a family line that included or culminated in Z.”’

However, none of Ross’s examples of gaps in genealogies (Matthew 1:8–9 vs 1 Chronicles 3:10–12) mention the age of the father at the birth of the next name in the line, so are irrelevant.

Ross also points out that father can mean grandfather or ancestor, while son can mean grandson or descendant. But Ross again errs byunwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field.10 The Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies say that X ‘begat sons and daughters’ implying that Z is likewise a son of X in this specific context.

And even if we grant that Z is a descendant of X, Z is always preceded by the accusative particle ’et, which is not translated but marks Z as the direct object of the verb ‘begat’ (wayyoled). This means that the begetting of Z by X still occurred when X was Y years old, regardless of whether Z was a son or a more distant descendant. The Hebrew grammar provides further support—wayyoled is the hiphil waw-consecutive imperfect form of the Hebrew verb yalad. The waw-consecutive is the typical Hebrew way to indicate a sequence of events (see Doug Kelly interview), and the hiphil stem communicates the subject participating in action that causes an event, e.g. Seth as the begetter of Enosh. No wonder the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37/38–c. 100) saw no gaps in the genealogy.21,22

James Barr, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, wrote in 1984:

‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’23

Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

Ross also points out that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. But this is spurious, because this name was probably not in the original autograph, but inserted later,24 certainly after the time of Josephus.25,26

Secular history

Ross also uncritically claims that missionaries teaching a literal Genesis were discredited by:

‘Chinese historical accounts placing Chinese national origins earlier than 4004 BC. … The same reaction comes today from … Australian Aborigines, who date back to 25,000 BC …. All are firmly established dates.’ (p. 108).

However, the Encyclopædia Britannica says on China: The first dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang, or Yin (18th–12th BC).27 The Australian Aborigines were an oral culture, without writing, so their ‘dates’ are not based on historical records but on ‘dating methods’. However, some of these claim that Aborigines existed before even Ross’s ‘date’ for Adam—what will happen to his apologetics if such dates become widely accepted?

Floundering on the Flood

Some Ross supporters like Dr James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, evidently believe the overwhelming biblical evidence for a global flood, but fail to see the inconsistency of this position with billions of years. A global flood would have laid down a vast thickness of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock in a year, which would nullify much geological ‘evidence’ for billions of years. Conversely, accepting that the fossil record was formed over billions of years eliminates any evidence for the Flood. Ross is more consistent, and believes the Flood was restricted to Mesopotamia.

Local flood arguments

Ross points out that there are passages where ‘all the earth’ and ‘whole world’ are used in a non-global way. Again, Ross is guilty of unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field.10 In the Flood account, the frequency of the Hebrew word kol (all, every) indicates that God is going out of his way to emphasize the universality of the Flood.28 Genesis 7, NIV, reads:

19 ‘They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. …

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and allmankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.’

A question could be asked of Ross: ‘Just suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God had wanted to teach a global flood—how could He have said it more clearly than in Genesis 7?’

Too little room for the animals?

Ross caricatures belief in a global flood, parroting discredited sceptical/atheistic arguments against the Ark. Ross ignores key books like John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark—a Feasibility Study,29 which answers nearly all his objections.

Kinds and species

Creationists, arguing from the text of Genesis, believe that Noah took two of every kind of land vertebrate animal. Ross distorts this into a claim that creationists believe two of ‘every single species’ had to go on board. He also claims that the fossil record documents that ‘half a billion to a billion new species of life arose between the Cambrian explosion … and the arrival of human beings’ (p. 150). But the number of actually catalogued fossil species is only about 200,000, about 95% of which were marine invertebrates which Noah was not required to take on board anyway. The ‘billion’ is probably estimated from the transitional forms needed if neo-Darwinism were true, and even then is a huge exaggeration. And it’s likely that many so-called fossil species and even genera within a family were merely varieties of a single polytypic ‘biological species’. This is true today, as shown by many cases of hybridization between members of different ‘genera’.30

Ross regurgitates the sceptical nonsense that it was impossible to derive all current species from the relatively few kinds on board the Ark, unless super-rapid evolution occurred. Ross effectively believes in fixity of species, in ignorance of proven speciation within a kind.31 Sceptics would thus find him an easy target.

However, not all change is evolution, in the sense of molecules-to-man, which requires an increase of genetic information, just as not all monetary transactions are automatically profitable ones. Many varieties can arise rapidly from an initial population with large genetic variety. If this population splits into isolated small populations, each subgroup may carry a fraction of the total genetic information. Later information-losing mutations, e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks,32,33 can result in reproductive isolation, thus a separate ‘biological species’.

Rapid production of ‘varieties’ can be shown in humans: it is well known that a marriage between two mulattos (people with one black and one white parent each) can produce children with a large variety of skin colors. Of course it couldn’t happen quickly by evolutionary means, because they must rely on random mutations to generate new genes, and slow substitution over many generations to establish them in the population.34

This is why both Eskimos and native equatorial south Americans have mid-brown skins and haven’t developed very white or very dark skins—the relevant information is simply not present. Such ‘people groups’ today are highly specialised, with less genetic variation than mulattos (and Adam and Eve), which is why they produce offspring of limited variety.

Because of Ross’s lack of knowledge of genetics, he postulates direct divine intervention at Babel to introduce ‘racial’ traits into separate populations (pp. 177–178). The Bible doesn’t even hint at this. Ross admits that it’s a ‘God of the gaps’ explanation, which would be unnecessary if he had read any of our books. Ross says that the different ‘racial’ characteristics were designed to aid man’s dispersal. This is disturbing—although Ross does repudiate racism and sees nothing wrong in ‘interracial’ marriages, this theory almost implies that God designed racial prejudice.

If Ross had read basic creationist books, e.g. Stones and Bones, The Creation Answers Book or What is Creation Science? [or see the internet article How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?], he wouldn’t need to resort to such daft explanations, which hardly give the would-be Christian apologist relying on his books any credibility.

‘Fear of the millions’

Ross claims that a main motivation of those opposing billions of years is fear that it would make evolution possible, hence the above subheading on p. 92. As usual, Ross’s claim betrays a willing ignorance of creationist literature as well as ignorance of evolution/variation as shown above. Many years before Ross wrote any of his books, leading creationists like Dr Duane Gish made it very clear that they believed the earth was only thousands of years old, on both biblical and scientific grounds. But Gish also strongly pointed out that evolution would be impossible even if billions of years were granted, e.g.:

‘Therefore, whether the earth is ten thousand, ten million, or ten billion years old, the fossil record does not support the general theory of evolution.’35

‘Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could have arisen by pure chance on earth in five billion years.’36

The need for the Ark

Why would God have told Noah to build an ocean-liner-sized Ark just to escape a local flood? Noah could easily have migrated. Why bother to take birds, when many can fly hundreds of miles in a day? Ross ‘explains’ (p. 160):

‘First, when God pours out judgment, He gives ample warning ahead of time. He sends a spokesperson, a prophet, and gives that prophet a kind of platform from which to be heard. For the antediluvians, Noah was that prophet and the scaffolding around the Ark was his platform.’

Another Ross flight of fancy—what other prophet needed a ‘platform’, let alone one requiring such a huge expenditure of labour?

‘Straw man’ and ‘guilt by association’ arguments

Ross often misrepresents what creationists believe and have clearly stated. For example (p. 148):

‘Some global flood proponents who acknowledge the problem of a grossly inadequate water supply propose that Earth’s surface was “smoothed,” or flattened, by the Flood, thus reducing the water requirement. More specifically, they claim that during the forty days and nights when the floodwaters rose, Earth’s mountains radically eroded from their lofty heights of ten, fifteen and even twenty thousand feet to just one or two thousand feet, perhaps less.’

This is totally inexcusable, because Ken Ham had responded to a similar Ross misrepresentation (which was even then inexcusable) well beforeThe Genesis Question was published:

‘In my 20 years of involvement in creation ministry, I have never known of any material from any biblical creationists indicating that God “eroded the mountains from a height of 30,000 feet down to sea level during the forty days”! … Biblical creationists believe that most mountains today did not exist before the Flood, but were raised up (and ocean basins sank) towards the end of the Flood, thus causing the water to run off to where it is today.’37

Akin to straw man arguments is guilt by association—Ross complains that a TV documentary about the alleged discovery of the ‘Ark’ gave the sceptics an easy target (pp. 165–167). The obvious implication is that it’s all the fault of global Flood proponents, although the major global Flood organisations have repudiated such claimed discoveries.38 Many creationists even agree with Ross that the Ark is unlikely to be found because its timber would probably have been used for construction, so that is hardly a unique local-floodist insight.

Ross also copies the ploy of the apostate Ron Numbers,39 attributing biblical creationism and flood geology to ‘the visions of an Adventist prophetess [Ellen White]’ via George McCready Price. A number of papers by Dr Terry Mortenson in Journal of Creation show that the early 19thcentury scriptural geologists presented such ideas well before Price [see The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson]. Ken Ham pointed out that he had never even heard of Price at the time he founded CSF/AiG, and that he adopted creationism because of the biblical teaching.37 Even if Ross were right about Price, he is wrong to think that discrediting Price is enough to refute creationism—this is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.

With such serious logical fallacies in Ross’s book, it is astonishing that it was endorsed by Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, who is usually very astute at spotting such fallacies. (Did he actually read it?)

Pitching the Ark?

Ross parrots another discredited argument from atheistic sceptics: that it would be impossible to ‘pitch’ the Ark without millions of years for petroleum products to accumulate (pp. 153–154). This shows that Ross is unwilling to admit to his readers that biblical creationists have already addressed most of his arguments long ago. Dr Tas Walker pointed out 15 years ago that pitch need not be made from petroleum at all—the pitch-making industries in Europe made pitch from pine resin for centuries.40 The Encyclopædia Britannica says about naval pitch: ‘Oleoresin, also called gum or pitch … is extracted from the pine …’41

Too much coal?

Like bibliosceptics, Ross claims that there is too much coal in the earth’s crust to have been formed in the Flood (pp. 151–154). Even worse, as ‘evidence’ he cites some calculations from a Journal of Creation paper, Too much coal for a young earth?42 However, the whole point of this paper was to solve that problem, by showing evidence that much coal had formed from large floating ecosystems comprising arboreal lycopods, which had been catastrophically buried by water. Ross also omitted the question mark when citing the title, thus further conveying to his readers the diametrically opposite meaning to the paper’s intention. Also, John Woodmorappe had shown long ago that vegetation living at the start of the Flood was not the only possible source of carbonaceous material which had eventually transformed into coal. There were about 1656 years between the creation and Flood, enabling much peat to form, which could have been buried by the Flood and easily transformed into coal since.43

Death and the Fall

Since Ross accepts the billions of years, for consistency he must believe that the death, suffering and disease shown by the fossil record occurred well before Adam sinned. Thus Ross denies the biblical teaching that death could not have been part of God’s ‘very good’ creation (Genesis 1:31) because death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26).

Vegetarian diets

Ross agrees that Genesis 1:29 teaches that humans originally had a vegetarian diet, not merely an indication that all food resources derive from plants (p.71). But he ‘explains’:

‘Vegetarianism perfectly suits the potential longevity of the first humans. Animal tissue contains between ten and ten thousand times the concentration of heavy elements that plant material contains. This difference sounds drastic, but it poses an insignificant health risk for people living only 120 years (the limit God imposed at the time of the Flood). However, the difference is by no means trivial for people living nearly a thousand years.’

Ross provides no documentation. How could he know what dangers would face long-living people without any to test?! This statement is falsified by the lifespans greatly exceeding 120 years long after people were permitted to eat meat. And his statement is hopelessly imprecise:which plants and animals? Some plants take up heavy elements so readily that they are used to clean up waterways. Soy and tea plants are known to take up aluminium readily. Conversely, many animals can excrete such elements. And accumulation is more of a problem in animals higher in the food chain, e.g. sharks with mercury, as well as filter-feeders. This might be a reason for the Mosaic laws against eating carnivores and shellfish.

Also, Ross undercuts one of his own claims. Ross agrees that Genesis 1:29 teaches original vegetarianism for humans, but then surely by his own reasoning, the next verse must teach original vegetarianism in land animals and birds. But Ross denies this without realising the contradiction, because he believes that carnivore fossils pre-date Adam.

Plant death

Ross points out that plants must have died before the Fall. Again, he persistently misrepresents what creationists actually teach.37 We havenever taught that plants or individual cells didn’t die before the Fall, but only nephesh (soul) creatures. It should be obvious from Genesis 1:29–30 that the Bible is clear that plants do not have life in the sense of nephesh, while animals do. [Update: see The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe: Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible]

Biological incompetence

It’s perhaps understandable that Ross, whose major qualifications are in astronomy, would not be an expert on biology. But it’s astounding that a man who specializes in supposedly scientific apologetics, makes fundamental errors with even high-school level genetics. His apparent ignorance of speciation is covered above, but there are other areas where he does not understand basic genetics.

Human longevity

Ross does accept the biblical long lifespans, and rejects any redefinition of the word ‘year’ (a pity he isn’t so careful with the word ‘day’). But in ch. 15, Ross interprets the 120 years of Genesis 6:3 as shortening of human lifespans. This is clearly fallacious because it contradicts other Scriptures showing that people lived for hundreds of years well after the Flood. The best understanding is that the 120 years was the time left for mankind before the Flood would destroy it, with only a remnant surviving on the Ark.

Ross’s explanation for shortening human lifespans is: God supernaturally increased the rate of apoptosis (programmed cell death) to ‘protect’ us from an increasing-with-age risk of cancer in the aftermath of a radiation burst from the Vela supernova. But it’s bizarre to talk about ‘protecting’ people from cancer should they reach 500, 600, even 900, by making sure they become decrepit and die before 120! What next, ‘protecting’ people from Alzheimer’s disease at 80 by causing fatal heart attacks by 60?

A sensible physical explanation for the drop in longevity is loss of ‘longevity genes’ by genetic drift because of the population bottleneck at the Flood, and maybe other post-Babel bottlenecks as well, but Ross’s book ignores creationist literature and evidence from gene studies.44

Cain’s wife

Ross correctly believes that Adam’s sons and daughters must have intermarried, that such close intermarriage happened in Abraham’s time, and that God did not forbid this until Leviticus 18:6–18. But his explanation is garbled (p. 105):

‘Genetic defects as a result of intrafamily marriage develop slowly. They would present no risk until after the first several dozen generations.’

Aside from the inconsistency with his deviant view of hundreds of generations between Adam and Abraham, this misunderstands the problem of close intermarriage. It’s not the intermarriages per se that cause defects. Rather, there is a greater likelihood of inheriting two recessive defective mutant genes in the same locus, which would thus be expressed. Whereas if the parents were more distantly related, the offspring would likely inherit defects in different loci, each paired by a normal allele that would mask the defect. But since Adam and Eve were created with no defective genes, recessive mutations would take many more than ‘several dozen generations’ to accumulate to levels where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring.

See also Cain’s wife—who was she?

Other scientific fallacies

Some of Ross’s arguments are blatantly circular, in effect: ‘Isn’t it amazing how modern uniformitarian science backs up what Genesis says?’ Hardly surprising, because Ross has reinterpreted Genesis to fit in with uniformitarian science!

Ross strongly overstates the case for fine-tuning of the earth and universe. He claims (p. 32) that Earth’s gravity is strong enough to hold lots of water vapour (relative molecular mass (Mr) = 18), but not so high as to keep life threatening quantities of ammonia [Mr = 17] and methane [Mr = 16].’ Not true—earth’s gravity even holds helium (Ar = 4) strongly (incidentally, more helium from α-decay is released into the atmosphere than escapes into space, and the total amount in the atmosphere is evidence that it is less than two million years old45). We are protected from methane and ammonia because they are rapidly destroyed by UV light.

There are many other errors, even in Ross’s own field of astronomy, documented by the astronomy professor Danny Faulkner.46


I haven’t covered all of Ross’s errors in this review (however they are available in my book Refuting Compromise). But there is enough documentation here of his biblical and scientific errors to show that Christians should not promote his books. [See also the June 2004 articleCritique of the introductory chapter of Hugh Ross’ new book A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy.]


Related Articles


  1. Ross, H.N., Creation and Time, Navpress, Colorado Springs, p. 56, 1994. Return to text.
  2. Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S., Creation and Time: A report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994. See online chapters. Return to text.
  3. Waltke, B.K. and O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, p. 122, 1990. Return to text.
  4. Exegesis means reading out of the text (i.e. letting the text teach you); eisegesis means reading one’s own ideas into the text. Return to text.
  5. Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980. Return to text.
  6. Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 86–91. Return to text.
  7. Ross, H., Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, Wiseman Productions, Sierra Madre, CA, p. 12, 1983. Return to text.
  8. Kelly, D.F., Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), Ross-shire, UK, ch. 2, 1997. Return to text.
  9. Kelly, D.F., lecture at Moore Theological College, Sydney, 7 August 1999. Return to text.
  10. Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 2nd Ed., p. 60, 1996. Return to text.
  11. Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 76–77. Return to text.
  12. Harris, et al., Ref. 5, 2:673. Return to text.
  13. Grigg, R., How long were the days in Genesis 1? What did God intend us to understand from the words He used? Creation 19(1):23–25, 1996. Return to text.
  14. Stambaugh, J., The days of Creation: a semantic approach, Journal of Creation 5(1):70–76, 1991. Return to text.
  15. Kelly, Ref. 8, p. 111. Return to text.
  16. Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 69–73. Return to text.
  17. Is the seventh day an eternal day?, Creation 21(3):44–45, 1999. Return to text.
  18. Kulikovsky, A.S., God’s Rest in Hebrews 4:1–11, Journal of Creation 13(2):61–62, 1999. Return to text.
  19. For a defence of the Masoretic text vs the altered Septuagint (LXX), see Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology, Journal of Creation12(1):98–106, 1998. Return to text.
  20. Not just Archbishop Ussher, but also Kepler, Luther and Melanchthon, calculated very similar dates. See Young, R., Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, 8thEd., Lutterworth Press, London, p. 210, 1939. Return to text.
  21. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV, Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, 1930, p. 73; Loeb Classical Library No. 242. Return to text.
  22. Young, Ref. 20. Josephus calculated the creation date at 5555 BC, because he used mainly the inflated figures of the LXX (5508 or 5586 BC). Return to text.
  23. Barr, J., Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. Return to text.
  24. Sarfati, J.D., Cainan of Luke 3:36, Journal of Creation 12(1):39–40, 1998; see also Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Gen. 11:12? Return to text.
  25. Josephus, Ref. 21. Return to text.
  26. Pierce, L., Letter to the editor, Journal of Creation 13(2):76, 1999. Return to text.
  27. ‘China’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 3:230, 15th Ed. 1992. Return to text.
  28. Kruger, M., Genesis 6–9: Does ‘all’ always mean all? TJ 10(2):214–218, 1996. Return to text.
  29. Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1996. Return to text.
  30. Marsh, F.L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA, 1976. Return to text.
  31. Wieland, C., Speciation Conference brings good news for creationists, TJ, 11(2):135–136, 1997. Return to text.
  32. Cohen, P., The great divide, New Scientist 160(2164):16, 1998. Return to text.
  33. Jerlström, P., Genomic imprinting, Journal of Creation 13(2):6–8, 1999. Return to text.
  34. ReMine, W.J., The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, St. Paul, MN, 1993; see online review. Return to text.
  35. Gish, D.T., Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, 2nd ed., p. 43, 1973. This book has been superseded by Evolution: The fossils STILL say NO! Institute for Creation Research, El Cahon, CA, USA, 1995. Return to text.
  36. Gish, D.T., The origin of life: theories on the origin of biological order, ICR Impact 37:iii, 1976. Return to text.
  37. Ham, K., Demolishing ‘straw men’, Creation 19(4):13–15, 1997. Return to text.
  38. Snelling, A.A., Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé, Creation 14(4):26–38, 1992. Return to text.
  39. See the review of Numbers’ historically unreliable (perhaps due to his anti-creationist bias) book The Creationists by Andrews, E., Origins (Journal of the British Creation Society) 8(20):21–23, 1995. Return to text.
  40. Walker, T., The pitch for Noah’s Ark, Creation 7(1):20, 1984. Return to text.
  41. ‘Naval stores’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 8:564–565, 15th Ed. 1992; emphasis added. Return to text.
  42. Schönknecht, G. and Scherer, S., Too much coal for a young earth? Journal of Creation 11(3)278–282, 1997. Return to text.
  43. Woodmorappe, J., The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the entire fossil record, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Creationism, 2:205–218,1986. Return to text.
  44. Wieland, C., Living for 900 years, Creation 20(4):10–13, 1998. Return to text.
  45. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1990; see also Blowing old-earth belief away: Helium gives evidence that the earth is young. Return to text.
  46. Faulkner, D.R., The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross, Journal of Creation 13(2):52–60, 1999. Return to text.




(412) Emerging Trends in the Church Today: The Goose Chase & Brian McLaren

The Wild Goose Festival continues to attract and pull in people from many different faiths including Evangelicals.  The following article gives an update to this year’s festival with regards to a question about Brian McLaren. While I personally may have used other descriptives in the article describing those who attend this festival (i.e. I don’t know who or how many are in apostasy, “slapping the face of God”, who is or isn’t a Christian…etc.), the author makes some other very good points about how we form our view on issues relating to the authority of the Bible. The topic of how one views the authority of Scripture is a vital question which influences many in the Evangelical Church today especially with regards to social issues. Also, it is important to be aware of aberrant and/or false teaching that can influence many within the church when many don’t have their footing based on the authority of God’s word in our lives.


The Goose Chase Brian McLaren Finds Himself In

Brian McLaren Wild Goose Chase

I had a call last week from one of our supporters, wondering if I knew that Brian McLaren, Emerging Church leader, and writer, is involved with the Wild Goose Festival. For these who do not know, the Wild Goose Festival is a gathering of the fallen away, eager to share and celebrate their apostasy with others eager to applaud them for having the courage to slap the face of God. I don’t follow the festival circuit very closely, so I was unaware of McLaren’s participation. When I asked the caller why this seemed so important to him, I was told that McLaren was teaching a pro-gay message. That is not really surprising to me. In 2012, McLaren officiated at his son Trevor’s same gender marriage ceremony. How could McLaren, ordained as a pastor in an Evangelical denomination, justify this level of support? Very easily. He places experience above Scripture as authoritative. As the Christian Post noted:

It had just been a couple of years when McLaren shifted his thinking and abandoned the traditional view of homosexuality being a sin that he grew up with.

“I had gone through my change in this view before I ever guessed that any of my kids might be gay,” he said on the radio program.

“I was a good kid, I believed what I’d been told. And as a pastor, I started having gay people come out to me and what became clearer and clearer to me is that their experience was not explained by the theology I inherited,” he explained. “And that it would be unjust to continue to uphold what I’d been taught. Maybe I could say it like this: My call to love God and love my neighbor was in conflict with what I’d been taught the Bible required me to say and do.”

We posed the question in 2008, “Is Brian McLaren a Christian?” In this article we demonstrated that McLaren had pretty much abandoned the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture in favor of the Social Gospel of the late 19th and early 20th century liberal, Walter Rauschenbusch, Jesus Seminar co-founder, John Dominic Crossan (see our Hysterical Search for the Historical Jesus), Socialist and Black Liberation Theologian Cornell West, and Karl Marx, among others.

Since then, he has further “evolved” to practice and endorse pagan rituals and practices, tossing out even more of what, to use his words, “the Bible required me to say and do.” He is a man in pursuit of “spirituality,” but he judges the validity of spiritual claims and practices on experience and not on God’s revelation in Scripture. At a number of conferences over the past several years, he facilitates pagan rituals to help attendees become more “spiritually aware” and “attuned.” So, McLaren’s Wild Goose Chase to the Wild Goose Festival makes perfect sense. Participant Frank Schaffer (New Age son of the Late Francis Schaffer) says in the promotion:

One of the reasons I love Wild Goose Festival is we don’t come here labeled atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever. We come here as human beings on a journey. A lot of us alienated from our religious path on a journey somewhere else. Wild Goose Festival is the one place I go every year where I know I am not alone.

The speaker lineup is a veritable who’s who of false teachers – Jim and Joy Wallis of Sojourners magazine, LGBTQ  activist and workshop leader from Willow Creek Chicago, Darren Calhoun, Emergent leader Doug Pagitt, defrocked Roman Catholic priest turned earth worshipper Matthew Fox, and others.

The sessions include:

  • Yoga for Social Change
  • Do Progressive Christians Need Satan?
  • Brian McLaren and Social Intelligence
  • The Cosmic Christ and the Struggle for Eco-Justice – Matthew Fox
  • Can We Talk? An LGBTQ+ Sharing Circle

Brian McLaren’s Wild Goose Chase to the Wild Goose Festival makes perfect sense. It is a modern day “Corinth in the woods” where any and all religious expression and belief is embraced and lauded, provided no allegiance to the one true God is required or holy living as He prescribed is expected.

To paraphrase 1 John 2:19:

They emerged from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they emerged, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

Don and Joy Signature 2


© 2016, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.





(411) Emerging Trends in the Church Today: Transgender Baptist Preacher


“Allyson Dylan Robinson is a minister of the gospel, trained for the task, and ordained to the gospel ministry by another community in which she has served as pastor,” former leader Amy Butler wrote at that time. “Over the course of her journey, God has invited her to step into the faithful witness of a new identity, a true identity, and a new name.”


“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s starting as a trickle, but you are looking at the future of the Christian church in America and ultimately around the world. It is collapsing to become the Laodicean mess that Jesus said it would be in the last days before the Rapture. The only ‘revival’ coming will be the false revival of worldly church that puts personal feelings, emotions and desires far above that of Bible doctrine. Here we have a transgender ‘preacher’ who says that an ‘angel’ appeared to him to tell him that the Bible is wrong on homosexuality, and the world celebrates his ‘courage’. Last days.

Daniel Robinson, who goes by the name Allyson Robinson, had been studying to be a pastor at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary in 2005 when he began to wrestle with his gender identity as never before. He had struggled with his desire to be a man since childhood.

“I have known my entire life that the world was wrong about me, that on the day I was born, when the doctor took a cursory glance between my legs and authoritatively declared ‘It’s a boy,’ he was wrong—dead wrong,” Robinson told the Alliance of Baptists in St. Louis this month.

He said that one day in his early seminary days he contemplated suicide, but an “angel of the Lord” that he called “reason” stopped him.

“What if God hasn’t fixed you because you’re not broken?” Robinson said he heard inside of himself.

“That can’t be true,” he thought. “The Bible says I’m broken.”


Robinson told those gathered that in that moment he “sacrificed his certainty” and hoped that God would count it as “righteousness.”

In other appearances, Robinson has explained that he went into therapy but kept his gender identity issues as secret until graduating from Baylor due to the seminary’s policies about homosexuality and transgenderism. He also took a position as pastor of Meadow Oaks Baptist Church in Temple, Texas during his time at Baylor.

Robinson’s wife, Danyelle, expressed her support about his desire to identify as a woman.


“Allyson Dylan Robinson is a minister of the gospel, trained for the task, and ordained to the gospel ministry by another community in which she has served as pastor,” former leader Amy Butler wrote at that time. “Over the course of her journey, God has invited her to step into the faithful witness of a new identity, a true identity, and a new name.”

Robinson now speaks as an itinerant preacher and appeared at Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner’s renaming ceremony last year.

Frankly I consider Job, Gautama Buddha, Joan of Arc, Rumi and Johnny Cash to be my spiritual predecessors far more than Augustine, Aquinas or Barth,” he told the Alliance of Baptists this month. “My hymnal has a lot less Isaac Watts and Fanny Crosby, but it’s full of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Tupac and Beyonce.”

However, some have come to the opposite conclusion of Robinson, and state that it is not healthy to support and affirm a person’s desire to live as those of the opposite sex.

As previously reported, Walt Heyer, a 75-year-old man who obtained a sex change operation in the 1980’s to live as a woman for eight years before reverting back to his biological gender, now leads a ministry in which he shares his story with the world of how Christ redeemed his life and gave him hope.

Nobody’s ever born a transgender,” he told the Daily Mail last January. “They’re manufactured as a result of something, a developmental childhood issue that has yet to be determined for many people.”

All of them have some level of depression, and we’re not treating them,” Heyer lamented. “We’re just cutting off body parts and giving them a new name and a new gender.”

“God designed man; He designed women,” he also said in a video recorded last year. “God will redeem the lives of people who struggle with gender identity issues just like I did. He redeemed my life, and I’ve been free from it as a result of that.”

Transgender Baptist Preacher Allyson Robinson Says ‘Angel Of Reason’ Told Him Bible Was Wrong

(410) EMERGING TRENDS IN THE CHURCH TODAY: Exercising Their Senses

Study and Know the Scriptures

Ephesians 6:10-20

The Whole Armor of God

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 lPut on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the 2wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against mprincipalities, against powers, against nthe rulers of 3the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 oTherefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand pin the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, qhaving girded your waist with truth, rhaving put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 sand having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking tthe shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And utake the helmet of salvation, and vthe sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 wpraying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, xbeing watchful to this end with all perseverance and ysupplication for all the saints—19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, zthat I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which aI am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Eph 6:10–20). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Study and Know the Scriptures

There is no doubt but that the most unhappy and discouraged Christians today are those who do not exercise their senses with respect to this Word of God.  We cannot live on snippets in the spiritual realm  We have to get down to these profound truths of the Scripture; we have to make time to read them and to read books about them.  The trouble today, as it has been for so many years, is that Christian people have not been reading their Scriptures, not troubling to understand them.  They say, “Oh, I am too busy, I have too many things to do, and life is very harassing at the present time.”   But our forefathers, who worked much harder, and for much longer hours, and for much smaller wages, found the time.  Those men used to read their Scriptures and study them  They generally bought a Bible which had a commentary at the bottom of each page, and they studied it and spent time with it.  They also read other books which helped them to understand the Scriptures.  They were “exercising their senses”; and that is what made them strong.  That was the secret of the Protestant martyrs.  It was the secret likewise of the Covenanters in Scotland in the seventeenth century.  Those men were strong because they knew their Scriptures, and they knew the truth of the Scriptures.  They had exercised their senses.  They gave time to the exercise; they lived by the Word.  And thus they ceased to be babes and became mighty, strong men.
You and I must behave in a like manner.  There is no substitute for that.  We do not sit back and “just look at Jesus” to do it all for us.  That is false doctrine: I do not hesitate to use such a term.  We must exercise our senses, and we must build ourselves up in our most holy faith.  It will not happen to us automatically; there are no short-cuts in the Christian life.  If you want to build yourself up, exercise yourself in the Scriptures.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “The Christian Soldier: An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10-20,” pg.88-89
Posted by Glenn E. Chatfield  http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2016/07/study-and-know-scripture.html



Hillsong NYC Youth Leader Appears as ‘Naked Cowboy’ Reportedly for Women’s Conference

NEW YORK — Concerns are being raised after the youth leader at Hillsong NYC appeared as the “naked cowboy” at a recent women’s conference.

Hillsong’s Colour Conference was held on May 6 and 7 in Madison Square Garden with ticket prices set at $209.50 a person in advance and $219.50 at the door.

“Colour seeks to ‘gather, equip and mobilize’ women of all age, background and culture in the belief that together we can and will make the world a better place,” a description of the event reads. “Our team labor to create an atmosphere that will refresh heart and soul, and inspire transformation. Our desire is that worship, creativity and the presentation of God’s Word (the Bible) will honor the King of heaven and cause faith to rise, enabling the enormous potential within to become reality.”


But online video footage of the event shows members of Hillsong NYC engaging in patriotic shout-outs and performing the song “New York, New York” surrounded by firemen, a costumed statue of liberty, Broadway dancers—and a look-alike of the city’s notorious “Naked Cowboy.”


The “Naked Cowboy,” dressed in only his underwear and a cowboy hat, moves to the front of the stage at one point and blows kisses to the cheering, flag-waving crowd. Hillsong NYC leader Carl Lentz is believed to be seen in the footage, as well as Bobbie Houston and her son Ben Houston, who leads Hillsong Los Angeles.

At first, the identity of the “Naked Cowboy” was a mystery to outsiders who viewed the online footage, but one Instagram user named Kelly Amber soon posted a snapshot of the event online, writing “light and shade #colour conf.” She also tagged Ben Houston and Hillsong NYC youth leader Diego Simila in the photograph.

Followers began chiming in, “Is that Diego with his shirt off?” “His shirt wasn’t the only thing missing!

Simila has served as the youth leader at Hillsong NYC since 2010. A former model, Simila sports his last name tattooed in large script across his chest, which can be seen in the video footage.

According to an online video featuring Simila preaching at LifePointe Church in Olathe, Kansas last year, Simila was formerly a part of a boy band in California, but believed that God had called him to leave it all and attend Bible college at Hillsong Sydney. After graduating, he moved back to California where he worked as a model, until he then felt led to move to New York City.

“He lived homeless there for about three weeks and he was just jumping from couch to couch. But he was faithful, and all of a sudden in a short, short time, he winds up being asked, being told to be the Youth Pastor of Hillsong New York City, started in 2010,” LifePointe leader Patrick Norris explains to the congregation.

But some find it inappropriate to have a youth minister appear as the “naked cowboy” and parade himself in his underwear at a women’s conference presented by a professing Christian church.

“I usually don’t expect to see a near-naked cowboy gyrating from the stage of a Christian women’s conference. Nor would I see and hear thousands of Christian females applauding and squealing in delight, and spurring on the performance. Indeed if I were of the world, I’d expect these sights and sounds to come from a giant bachelorette party at a strip club,” wrote Amy Spreeman of Berean Research.

Hillsong continues to astound by their complete and utter disregard for how scripture instructs Christians to conduct their lives in this present evil age,” also commented the blog Pirate Christian. “First they brought us sleezy Silent Night. Then they had the sexual pervert Austin Powers appear at their women’s conference in London and now they’ve had The Naked Cowboy appear at their women’s conference in New York. We fear to see what they have in store for their next conference.”

Hillsong’s contact information is not posted online and therefore none could be reached for comment.