Charisma News is pouring it on regarding poor biblical teaching and eviscerating American history. Christians should stand for the truth.

::::::::

You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah. You love all words that devour, O deceitful tongue. - Psalm 52:3-4 (ESV)

Click Here

As repeatedly stated in this ministry, the NAR Dominionist heresy is the last idol of the church age. The vast number of churches in this country already bow to this altar, most without even realizing it. The bottom line scripturally for us is that we are citizens of heaven, not America. God does not approve of dual citizenship. We are supposed to be pilgrims and sojourners merely walking through this land to our eternal promise, trying to take as many people with us as possible through the gospel. Our job is not to conquer cultural mountains, demand the unsaved behave like Christians or set up a theocracy. At the heart of the problems with this theology is the clear delineation made by dominionists that one political party is evil and thus they confer righteousness to the one they support. The truth is neither party cares a whit about the cause of Christ, while some in the Republican Party pay lip service to the apostate church. Both parties are evil and the very best argument one can make is a lesser of two evils argument, which is entirely unbiblical. Imagine standing before Christ trying to explain why you thought something was a "lesser evil" when we are commanded to avoid all appearances of evil!

At the lead defense for Dominionism is Charisma News, a virtual cesspool of false teachers and horrific teaching. Don't believe me? Currently on the front page of their website are no less than 15-20 articles about the church and this country, most of which are just utterly heretical and inaccurate. The core teaching of NAR dominionism pretends that America was somehow founded by rogue evangelicals who wanted to actually set up a theocracy but who somehow have drifted from God. Some of them pretend God is in covenant with America. Some even dare to teach that America has essentially replaced Israel, a most blasphemous charge. Leading the pack for the many dominionists at Charisma is Eddie Hyatt. Eddie writes about only two things and one of them aint the gospel. He primarily twists the bible to defend women as pastors and promote dominion theology. It is bad enough how pitiful Eddie's biblical acumen is but his grasp on American history might be even worse. Beloved, the history of this country is not unknown. It was recorded. Is America the best experiment in secular history? I certainly believe so but to pretend that it was a Shangri-La of faith, or a Christian utopia is patently absurd. Not only does Eddie rewrite history to fulfill the NAR narrative but now he has taken the charge to specifically pretend that slavery in this country was somehow not as bad as reported. It becomes harder to idolize the founding fathers if they were all rabid slaveholders. The article linked above, released for the Fourth of July is his latest attempt to whitewash, literally, slavery in this country. It is important as believers that we stand for the truth. Our God does not believe in Machiavellian philosophy. The ends absolutely do not justify the means. God is in charge of the ends. We are responsible for the means. Let us reason once more so that we can reflect the truth and the lost can see that we do not distort history or the bible in pursuit of NAR dominionist dreams.

"America's Founders are under attack. Their monuments are being toppled and their names removed from schools and other public buildings. Children are being taught that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were evil, rich slaveowners who formed this nation to protect their wealth and maintain the institution of slavery. This twisted history of America is dividing and destroying her. The truth is that at a time when slavery was being practiced in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and many parts of the world, America's founders turned against it." - Eddie Hyatt

If by under attack you mean the truth being told, then yes. I also do not think their statues are being torn down across this land. That seems a bit hyperbolic. I also have never heard the charge that the founding fathers formed this nation to protect their wealth and slavery but to pretend the American Revolution was not based on economics is to be ignorant of history. Were Washington and Franklin rich and slave holders? Absolutely, not to mention how they became rich. Most in that day earned their riches through agriculture propped up through slave labor. This is not to disparage anything Washington and Franklin did positively, and they did a whole lot positively. We do not however need to pretend that they walked around with halos because they most certainly did not. Hyatt's opening argument, which he loves making, is that when they decided to turn from slavery was earlier than other countries, as if that matters. It does not. Not to mention that the US was decidedly late to abolish slavery as compared to other countries.

The more interesting thing here is the projected notion that telling the truth about history is somehow twisting it and dividing and destroying America. It is very interesting because the true culprit in the division and destruction of this country is the apostate church that Eddie is proudly a member of. This nation is bitterly divided by political party and policy and the church has taken sides, demonizing anyone who dares to disagree with them politically. Some preachers like Greg Locke and Mario Murillo have gone as far as to condemn to hell anyone who has the temerity to vote for the Democratic Party. In doing so, they idolize and prop up absolutely vile and evil men within their party of choice as somehow being biblical when they are not. This is obvious to the lost who see hypocrisy very well, thank you. It is a ridiculous strategy as a church to villainize the very people who need the gospel and remove over 50% of the lost as "irredeemable" simply based on carnal voting patterns. It is the utter idolization of this country and this world.

"The Source of the Moral Outrage Against Slavery. The rise of this 18th century movement against slavery can be traced to the great, spiritual awakening that rocked Colonial America beginning in 1726. Entire towns were morally transformed as evidenced by Benjamin Franklin's description of this "Great Awakening" in his hometown of Philadelphia in 1739. He wrote:

"From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious so that one could not walk through the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street" (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 14). Out of this Awakening racial and cultural barriers were breached and there arose a powerful anti-slavery movement as Awakening preachers began, not only to offer salvation to individuals, but to attack the institution of slavery as sinful and evil in the sight of God." - Eddie Hyatt

So according to this wannabe history revisionist, the awakening in 1726 greatly affected the moral conscience of this nation even though slavery would not be abolished for over a hundred more years. Even the quote from Franklin was an observation that did not change his personal ownership of slaves for another 50 years when he was past 80 years of age. While it is true that some, including John Adams were anti-slavery from the beginning, most found their moral courage when they were already heading toward death, probably very concerned about facing God. What Eddie likes to do is quote out of context, both biblically and historically. We will soon see that the heroes he offers up here were hardly that. The church awakening also was probably helped by the enlightenment spreading across Europe, which was far ahead of the US in abolishing slavery.

"This abolition movement gained momentum and eventually turned multitudes against slavery, including America's founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson called slavery a "moral depravity" and "hideous blot" and said it presented the greatest threat to the future survival of America." - Eddie Hyatt

Hyatt talks about Samuel Hopkins, a vocal slavery opponent. Remember, we can easily point to some who were genuine but to claim the founding fathers suddenly had a great change of heart will be proven to be a false claim here and we start with Thomas Jefferson. Remember the charge Eddie is making here is that Jefferson turned against slavery. It is true that Jefferson, who also rewrote the bible to remove the deity of Christ, said the above quotes. Yet he remained a slaveholder his entire life, owning over 600 slaves. He also did not believe that blacks and whites could live in the same country and that blacks were inferior and "as incapable as children." He actually correctly predicted the eventual Civil War over the issue. While it does sound like politically, he staked out the anti-slavery side he never followed through personally, although it seems like he wanted better treatment for slaves. Yet the bottom line is in his will he freed five men, but another 156 were sold at auction. Not to mention the fact that he had upwards of six children through one of his slaves and they remained slaves, although some were part of the five, he freed upon his death. It sure doesn't seem like in his personal life he considered slavery a moral depravity and hideous blot. This does not change his tremendous contribution to the formation of this country but stop idolizing him for stating anti-slavery sentiments with a personal record like this.

"James Madison, America's 4th president, called slavery "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."' - Eddie Hyatt

Princeton University states that Madison did indeed publicly decry the practice of slavery, as vociferously as Jefferson. Yet he still owned over 100 slaves, brought enslaved people to the White House with him and ultimately sold them for personal profit. His fortune, as most of the founding fathers, was a result of plantation owning with slave labor. Even upon his death, Madison did not free his slaves instead leaving them to his wife. He instructed her to only sell them with their consent, but she ignored this and sold them off to pay debts. Madison certainly did advocate for slavery's end publicly but again not personally. At the end of his life, in a letter to the Editor of the Farmers' Register he declared that slaves are "infinitely worsted by the exchange from slavery to liberty, if indeed their condition deserves that name."

'Benjamin Franklin, in 1785, liberated his two slaves and began advocating for abolition. He joined the Abolition Society in Philadelphia and later served as its president. He called slavery "an atrocious debasement of human nature."' - Eddie Hyatt

This is true but let's provide the missing context. Ben Franklin owned slaves from 1735 (age 21) until 1790, at age 84. This quote is from when he was 79 after 50 plus years of being a slaveowner. Now, as this list goes, Franklin is a bit of a better story as he appears to have "only" owned seven slaves. The two he freed in old age were the last two he owned. He did also become very involved in the abolitionist movement for the final five years of his life following a trip to "Enlightened" France. He gets full credit for these changes in his views but again Hyatt tells a quarter of the story to prop up Franklin as some bastion of anti-slave sentiment when he most certainly was not. Again, this does not minimize all of the contributions Franklin made to this country, but we should not be idolizing any man, let alone based on revisionist history.

"George Washington faced a more complex situation because of the size of the plantation and the number of slaves he had inherited. Nonetheless, he set up a compassionate program to completely disentangle Mt. Vernon from the institution of slavery. Concerning abolition, he declared: "Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle" (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 42)." - Eddie Hyatt

This is the second time Hyatt engages in the specious tactic of quoting himself. As if his book is an authority and this article holds merit because it agrees with something he wrote previously. Note the absurd defense offered here by Hyatt because he recognizes it is hard to defend Washington when it comes to slavery. The obvious pushback should ask if inherited slaves were somehow harder to free? Of course not. The other argument is worse essentially claiming that he needed the slaves because he owned a really big plantation. The words he declared are irrelevant to the facts about his life when it came to slaves. He owned them throughout and at his death he owned over 300 slaves. He did not even free them upon death but instead left them for his wife to free upon her death. Now, records show that his position softened, and he took care of his sick and elderly slaves probably better than most but this notion of Washington as the great abolitionist is simply not supported by history.

"By the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787, virtually every founder, even those who owned slaves, agreed with John Adams, America's 2nd president, who declared: "Every measure of prudence ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. I have throughout my whole life held the practice of slavery in abhorrence. Frederick Douglass (1816-1895), the former slave and passionate abolitionist, learned these truths about America's Founding Fathers and came to have a high regard for them. In a July 4th speech delivered in 1852, Douglass referred to the U.S. Constitution as "a glorious liberty document," and said: "Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too"great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men." (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 36)." - Eddie Hyatt

As noted, Adams was a purist and deserves recognition for such. As we have shown here, the "agreement" may have been political for many but not necessarily personal. Frederick Douglass is correct to say that these were great men who rose to fame to define a great age but that does not remove what they did that may not have been so great. We can go find individual stories of true anti-slavery sentiment from the founders, but the majority simply did not live what they may have professed. Again, as Christians if we are so willing to lie about this why would anyone want to hear what we have to say about Jesus Christ?

"Not Perfect, But Worthy of Honor. America's founders were born into a world where slavery had existed for thousands of years. They were not perfect and their writings sometimes reflect prevailing notions of the times. Nonetheless, they should be honored for the revolutionary stand they took against slavery at a time it was accepted and practiced all over the world. Against the tide of history and world opinion, they created a nation based on the belief that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They formulated founding documents that would eventually eradicate the institution they had come to abhor, and make America the land of the free and home of the brave, with people of every race and ethnicity wanting to live here." - Eddie Hyatt

Hate to break this to you Eddie but the world they were "born into" does not matter. It provides context not excusal. Are the founders worthy of honor for their new approach to governance and the creation of this nation? Sure. But honor for their anti-slavery stance? That should not even be a serious question. It was not revolutionary to own hundreds of slaves all of your life and maybe think better of it when you are facing your own mortality and even then, not freeing them. Their drafted documents did not eradicate the institution of slavery in this country as it would stick around for nearly a hundred years after the Revolution. This whitewashing of the history of slavery is not only stpuid but it is not needed. We all recognize the greatness of certain people without believing they were perfect or worthy of honor in areas they do not deserve. Eddie though, needs them to be worthy in order for his theology to work. To further the "Christian nation" lie that he promotes. The NAR desire is for political power not the gospel. Their lies hurt the cause of Jesus Christ as many refuse the faith because of the political stances of the apsostate church. It just brings to mind the admonition of the Psalmist in the key verses today. When speaking of those who boast in evil, David laments that they love evil more than good and lying more than speaking what is right. The words of Eddie Hyatt and the NAR devour with their deceitful tongues. Mark and avoid.

Reverend Anthony Wade - July 6, 2023

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.