The Latter Rain doctrine of a united, global church is behind the movement's desire to unite all churches, and their disapproval of what they call a ''denominational spirit.''

Jack Hayford no doubt means well, but since when are doctrinal beliefs about the person of Christ, the role of the church, or how one is saved ''petty'' ? These things have eternal consequences. And where in the Bible does it say we are supposed to ''enforce'' Christ's victory? Where does it promise that any actions we take can cause ''all hell to finally retreat into the abyss'' ? Friends, these are extra-biblical doctrines, there is no scriptural basis for them whatsoever. Don't let your faith be misled.

The current strategy to achieve the desired unity is to call for unity of purpose while allowing for some varying belief and identity within the whole. Mike Bickle envisions a system where churches could, theoretically, retain their own identity and doctrine yet would all be united as one ''church'' in each city. (He envisioned his Kansas City Fellowship as the central authority over all but that part of his idea hasn't gone over too well with other pastors.)

Prophet/leaders of the movement are supportive of the ultimate move for reunification with the Roman Catholic church as well; Rick Joyner and Paul Cain have even been knighted by the Catholic ''Knights of Malta'' order.  (39) 

The new prophets are teaching that it is not only Christian denominations, but heretical sects, that will merge into the global 'church,' joining to ''worship God in spirit'' without worrying about doctrine.  (41)  The Mormon church has already been invited to take part in their ''March for Jesus'' with no doctrinal change being necessary.  (42) 

Do they realize that according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is the brother and equal of Satan, and Joseph Smith will help conduct the last judgment? That we are saved by good works, not by faith in Christ, and those with enough good works can become gods and start their own worlds after this life? That although we have been forbidden to add new teachings to God's word, they have added a whole book of them?

Is the name ''Jesus'' all it takes to make someone an authentic Christian, no matter what is believed about Him? Where do you draw the line? If I believe in a ''Jesus'' who is no more than a ''good teacher'' or who is a spirit guide, or a space alien, does that make me a Christian? Not according to the word of God, which draws the line clearly - ''God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,'' Jn 4:24. We must worship the true Jesus who is revealed in truth in the scriptures; the historical Jesus, not the 'cosmic' Jesus who can be whatever you want Him to be.

Isn't it strange that they are ready to welcome falsehood into the church with love but have so much animosity toward those who will trust only in God's word?

Young people growing up in these churches, being given little or no foundation in the Bible, a distorted view of Jesus Christ and themselves, partaking of mysticism and being led to believe it is ''normal Christianity,'' will perhaps not find it difficult to assimilate into the false world religion that is coming, for they will not have been given a great appreciation for the concepts of truth or accuracy, and they will see that what they've experienced as Christianity is no different than what is practiced and experienced in all manner of strange religions.