Things are getting bad out there. Our President wants the right to shut down the internet "in case of an emergency" of course. HA! But this is the president who also falls prostrate at the alter of Islam and did away with the national day of pray observance in the White House. So, what can be done? Well, one thing I can do, while I have freedom of the internet, is to speak freely. Since I am not a political, but a pastor, I will speak to the ministry of the Gospel at large.

In the last fifty years the Church has changed tremendously. However, many religious leaders have not noticed the change or at least said little about it. This change has moved mainstream Christian thought and doctrine away from the old line denominations to the independent or congregational type Churches. As a matter of fact many smaller denominations are greatly affect by this change too. To think about it farther, all denominations are affected by it as well as the average pew warmer. It is the ecumenical movement of the conservative church.

Now this word ecumenical means a joining or unite together. The old line denominations such at the United Methodist, American Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterian's and others, have been hob nobing with this for years. Yet the only real merger that has occurred has been with the Evangelical United Brethren and the Methodist Church. This ecumenical merger resulted in the forming of the United Methodist Church. But I would argue that this is not the kind of ecumenism that the liberals speak of. This merger was discussed even in the days of Bishop Asbury. In reality both groups were fairly identical. Be that as it may, there are some new children in the ecumenical neighborhood. This ecumenism is more of an accident then on purpose.

I discover these new ecumenical groups while researching material for a book. The book is about modes of baptism. You know, is immersion the correct mode of baptism or can sprinkling an pouring be considered equally scriptural? What I discovered was the fact that modern literature found in most Christian type book stores, and in other market places seem to have nothing to do with sprinkling and pouring. From the mere mention of the word baptizo to the in-depth word studies of this new ecumenical family, all represent this word as meaning "to immerse" and only to immerse. Then too, wherever this word is found in the scripture, all who read it now interpret such passages do so with immersion deeply imbedded in their minds. Yet in the years that denominationalism was in its golden age, most would look at such passages without any kind of water being considered.

More to the point, what I speak of is that this new ecumenical movement has given us three new denominations from the honest desire to find true and vivacious faith. These new denominations do have generic sort of names. They have as one of their monikers "we just preach and teach the Bible." Many claim the moniker of being just "independent" and "Bible believing." Many are made up of small groups. They also control most pastors who have real allegiance to Christ within mainline denominationalism. They have many small "Bible Colleges" but some do grow fairly large.

The largest of these three groups is called Evangelicals. The next largest would be the Charismatic or Pentecostal's. Again, just like the Evangelicals they too influence the mainline denominations as well. Finally there are the Fundamentalists. Because of their standard of separation their impact is not as large as the first two, though they are still very influential. While that is true, they are very much alike in some areas. So these are the three new denominations that are now wagging the tail of Bible Believing Christianity. But do they have any differences. The tiles Evangelicals, Charismatic or Pentecostal's and fundamentalists certainly says there must be some differences. Let's look at them briefly. We will not parse these differences that closely.

Let me first stay that all three generally have a firm faith in the orthodox doctrines of the Bible. Each claim that it is the proper rule for the life and conduct of a Christian. But from this point they do differ. I want to address are the areas that they use for their litmus test for fellowship and cooperation.

The Evangelicals are composed of mostly Baptists. They are the driving force behind this group. There are a sprinkling of Methodist, Free Will Baptists, and others within this group. However, the difference here is the fact that to really fit well, you must believe in the eternal security of the believer. Also there is a firm belief that immersion is the only scriptural mode of baptism. This dogma is better know as "believers baptism." Finally there is a very dogmatic adherence to the prophetical position of Pre-millennial Dispensationalism. This view is most popular to day. Now those who don't hold to these three may be generally accept, but only in the sense of being nice or Christian about it.

Now how does the Charismatic or Pentecostal's differ? Only in one point really. They accept "believers baptism." The also embrace Pre-millennial Dispensationalism to the point of finding codes in the Bible to prove it. I would suggest that they "use to" reject eternal security. However there is a growing trend to accept that doctrine within this group. This the would leave the idea of the charismatic gift of tongues as the only point of difference in reality. And this is a big difference to.

And what about the Fundamentalist's? They too believe in the doctrine of Pre-millennial Dispensationalism. This to them, is very important because of their view on the literal interpretation of the scriptures. They whole heartily embrace eternal security. And like the Evangelicals many are beginning to embrace total Calvinism. And what about "believers baptism?" Like both the Evangelicals and Pentecostal's many boarder on baptismal regeneration because of their extreme dogmatics. The area in which they differ from the other two new denominations is separation. This idea has as its foundation the idea of leaving or separating from those who comprise with liberal theologians, and evangelists.

Now lets add up what we have learned. The all have a the core of their belief the orthodox doctrines of the Faith. Beyond this, they hold dogmatically to "believers baptism," eternal security, and embrace without apology Pre-millennial Dispensationalism as the only Biblical view of the prophecy. The only real difference is the sticky issue of the charismatic gift of tongues. The only other possible difference is music. The Fundamentalists would tend to embrace an anti contemporary Christian music stance. This is to their credit.

So this should answer the question for those of us who are Wesleyan in heart. For years to be Methodist Arminian with in the context of the current Fundamentalist movement was met with the suspicion of heresy. After all a real Bible Believing Methodist would never accept eternal security or "believers baptism" as orthodox Christianity. In the early years of the Fundamentalist movement these same two doctrines along with Pre-millennial Dispensationalism was never accepted as a litmus test of orthodoxy. Today it is, though they deny it. This is the reason why I and other Independent Methodist pastors have wondered over the line of separation to worship with United Methodist pastors who were Biblical in faith and Arminian too.

To be honest, both the Evangelicals and Fundamentalist have been co-oped by the Baptists. It is not because of their doctrines or name that kept them from the denominational foolishness of liberalism, but the fact that they were more congregational and their school were small and there was such a diversity of Baptists.

Now I am calling the Evangelicals, Charismatic or Pentecostal's, and the Fundamentalists a denomination and involved in an ecumenical movement. This is in the face of many within these spheres who boldly claim that they are none denominational in faith and doctrine. That moniker sounds very ecumenical within its self. Now to my understanding, or at least in the classical sense of the definition, denominationalism would mean that they would hold to certain doctrinal standards that have divided church into different groups. You know, doctrines such as eternal security, different views of prophecy, gifts of the Holy Spirit, healing, Calvinism, Arminianism, modes of baptism and the list could go on. Well, if this is the case, and it is not, that would mean that those folks would just preach the gospel in general terms, and hold to the deity of Christ and those sorts of orthodox concepts and ignore such miner doctrines.

Like many old line denominations, they very much do hold to such particulars. As a matter of fact, many churches proudly display what they believe on their billboards in front of their church. Of course there is no sin in that, but it does identify them with one of the three new ecumenical churches of our time.

These things within themselves are no sin. They do, however, run a amuck when they pretend that what they believe is what all Christianity has always believed. That their views on eternal security/ Calvinism, "believers baptism"/ baptismal regeneration, and Pre-millennial Dispensationalism/prophecy is just what the Bible teaches. This would be funny except for the fact that this is the reason that we have developed denominations in the first place. It would be funny had these three movements not made such doctrines into a litmus test for others who understand that such doctrine are not all that demonstrable from the King James Bible or any other honest translation of God's holy Word.

Just as I will join the ecumenical movement of the liberal Churches, I will not join in with the under handed ecumenical movement of these three new cross denominational Churches. While they pretend to embrace the Bible, they embrace a dogmatic that not even our Lord taught while here on earth. The doctrines as cited above as their litmus test for faith and fellowship was never cited by Christ, the Holy Twelve, or St. Paul. Wesley was condemned for not believing in eternal security and Calvinism. Yet God used him more then any Calvinist. Even the old time Calvinist's who were very missionary minded tended to down play but never rejected their core Calvinist beliefs.

Perhaps the Fundamentalists should suffer more criticism then the others. Their very name "Fundamental" excludes the denominational doctrines like "believers baptism," eternal security, and Pre-millennial Dispensationalism. All of this they claim is what the Bible teaches. Yet their early founder would have none of this. Until the Fundamentalist's begin to realize that many out here are just as Fundamental as they, but have no allegiance to such corrupt denominational doctrines, God will not honor even their faithfulness. And what of the Evangelical? While they too hold to the above three denominational doctrines, they do have a tendency to tolerate those of us who do not hold the same. Yet, through their media, wether it is radio, TV or the press, they build great defenses for those three doctrines. In the common man's term, they hammer them. And what about the Charismatic or Pentecostal's? Do they escape any criticism? No. For them, while they are slowly buying into eternal security, they tend to place most of their emphases on the "gift of tongues" and healing. This then is their litmus test for other Christians. They have influenced many main line denominations. About all that changes in those denominational congregations after receiving such a gift is the fact that they now speak in tongues. Christianity deserves more this mere outward applications of a dip in water and tongues. It deserves the righteous walk of the person saved.

What should those of us in Wesley's family do? While many of us hold to optional modes of baptism, and that a believer can be as secure in God as he wants, and that any particular view of prophecy has real difficulty Biblically, our litmus test can be summed up like this. We are to flee the wrath to come? This was Wesley's test. This test has withstood the test of time. Within this question and believer must continually work by God's help on developing Godliness, righteousness and holiness in his personal life. Is this not what Christianity is about. A true desire to "flee the wrath to come" will move us away from the humanistic philosophies of our time. It will develop in us the desire to please and serve God. And this is all that God asks us to do for him. To keep his commandment. And in "fleeing the wrath to come" we find that His burden is much lighter then ours.

No my dear friend. I want no other litmus test to serve as an ecumenical uniter then to "flee the wrath to come." In this signal statement of Wesley stands all that God would desire us to be. In this statement we find the grace to help us in the time of need. No thanks. I want no part of this new none-denominational ecumenical movement either.