Sunday, December 06, 2009

Perry Noble, New Spring Church and the deplorable tactics of some AODMers

It seems that some AODMers or rather anti-Christian ODMers have manifest their conduct as being worse than non-Christians. Dr. James Duncan, Associate Professor of Communication at Anderson University, is said to have been viciously slandered, harassed and intimidated by *pastors* and other members from New Spring Church, which is headed by Purpose-Driven pastor Perry Noble. So what exactly is his crime? According to him, this was due to criticizing New Spring Church's "innovative" sexual ads promoting their church and "sermon" series on sex (yes, in church), as well as highlighting the antics of others like Steven Furtick and Gary Lamb.

In his blog post, Holy Rage at the 'Spring [Warning: Extremely unedifying adult content present in quotes from supposed "Christian" AODMers], Dr. Duncan detailed the persecution he has to endure from professing Christians.

I’m about to tell you how NewSpring insiders attempted to corrupt my family, sabotage an adoption, destroy my career, and ruin my reputation. This campaign, which became the subject of a police investigation, was conducted with the knowledge and encouragement of NewSpring’s senior leadership.

Things got so bad that the whole thing is now part of a police investigation, and Dr. Duncan is seeking USD3 million in damages.

This is one more bad fruit of the Purpose-Driven paradigm, and exposes the criminal elements present in parts of the AODMer camp. How despicable can a person be to impersonate another person (identity theft is not only a sin, it is a crime), and subscribe the person for gay porn magazines and other such depraved stuff? To impersonate the person, forged a resignation letter (crime of forgery) in an attempt to make the other person jobless? To shadow the other person's activity and post it online to threaten the safety of the other (criminal intimidation), as well as other confidential information? Sadly to say, at least some AODMers have been seen to be guilty of such not only unChristian but criminal conduct. Dr. Duncan should file suit against all of these people and seek millions of dollars in damages to teach these people a lesson. Such should indeed put a chill on the AODMers so that they would be less inclined to take part in such criminal behavior to "silence their critics", unless of course they don't mind being investigated by the police and sued under the law of the land (Internet anonymity is no protection against police investigation just in case those people do not know it yet)

[HT: Christian Research Net]

42 comments:

Daniel said...

Interesting perspective. What constitutes "persecution"? Do we persecute others when we denounce them as faithless, apostate, wicked and degenerate?

WHy does God punish? Why does God curse? To prove he is just, yes, but not only just, but also merciful and loving.

Therein lies the distinction between chastisement unto reconciliation and chastisement unto iniquity.

PuritanReformed said...

@Daniel:

the issue here is not whether we speak out against others, but when people break the law and violate all ethical standards in treating those they disagree with. Even if Duncan is really in the wrong in his criticism, nobody has the right to do such deplorable and illegal actions such as

1) forging a letter for him to resign from his job
2) identity theft in impersonating him on Twitter and on magazine subscription
3) Reveal his address and the daily activities of his family - that is called criminal intimidation
etc.


We haven't gotten to the smutty talk by these so-called "pastors" who in impersonating him converse on matters too sick for those who call themselves Christians to do so, nevermind pastors.

Daniel said...

I think i'll be more pointed - the real question is: do we chastise and condemn for the sake of reconciliation or to puff ourselves up?

PuritanReformed said...

>do we chastise and condemn for the sake of reconciliation or to puff ourselves up?

And why are these two the only options available? Most definitely the latter is wrong, but there is at least one more option that you are not putting on the table.

Daniel said...

Which one does God ask that we do?

PuritanReformed said...

>Which one does God ask that we do?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:17-22)

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:10-11)

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” (Acts 7:51-53)

PuritanReformed said...

For believers and those who will listen, we bring the Gospel message unto them for reconciliation. Otherwise, for those who refuse to listen, we leave them with the Law and the sentence of judgment. See the above comment with the Bible verses for the latter.

PuritanReformed said...

This is especially so in the case of Stephen in Acts 7, who was full of the Holy Spirit (6:15, 7: 55). I doubt any Christian will want to say that the Holy Spirit was wrong in condemning the Pharisees through Stephen.

Daniel said...

And so, what happpens when we condemn fellow believers with "the Law and the sentence of judgment"?

It becomes easy to cover our sin by labelling them as heathen.

PuritanReformed said...

So who do you know they are "fellow believers" in the first place? Oh, ok, that ties in with the comments on the other post. I would hope you address that one first.

Daniel said...

Nobody but God sees the soul.

For us: by their fruits you shall know them, but tell me: if we were judged by our fruits, how many people would think we were saved?

PuritanReformed said...

Of course only God sees the soul. Does this therefore mean that we cannot know anything about the state of the soul from what is professed? Is that your position?

Daniel said...

We can try to discern. Poorly.

Does a Christian sin? Yes. So if a man commits a sin, does that make him a heathen? No.

A Christian may even be caught in habitual sin, for his entire life.

So how do you know when to extend reconciliation?

Daniel said...

So many of the people condemned on these pages profess Christianty, do they not?

Yes, they are in error, but wouldn't it behoove us then to seek reconciliation with them? Are we not the stronger brother who should not crush the weaker, at least in this narrow field?

PuritanReformed said...

So tell me:

Was Paul right in condemning the Judaizers to eternal hellfire in Gal. 1:8-10? He sure wasn't offering reconciliation! Maybe some of them are actually Christians "caught in habitual sin"?

PuritanReformed said...

>Yes, they are in error, but wouldn't it behoove us then to seek reconciliation with them? Are we not the stronger brother who should not crush the weaker, at least in this narrow field?

That depends on whether they are in rebellion against God or just ignorant. Those in rebellion face the Law, while those who are ignorant would be warned and when penitant will face the Gospel. Always preach Law and Gospel!

Daniel said...

>Always preach Law and Gospel!

It doesn't say that in the Bible.

PuritanReformed said...

>It doesn't say that in the Bible.

It is narrated for us in the Bible - it doesn't need to be said! Just look at all the encounters Jesus and the Apostles had with people. To those who persist in rebellion, the note of the condemnation of the Law is sounded. Initially to all and later only to believers, the grace of God is proclaimed.

Daniel said...

>Was Paul right in condemning the Judaizers to eternal hellfire in Gal. 1:8-10? He sure wasn't offering reconciliation! Maybe some of them are actually Christians "caught in habitual sin"?

Do we exhibit the deep love, charity, compassion, understanding, forbearance, grace, peace and sense brotherhood that Paul does?

Men like us burn bridges and pronounce anathema, without the necessary backdrop of Godly love. That is why it always rings hollow when we pronounce condemnation.

Daniel said...

>It is narrated for us in the Bible - it doesn't need to be said! Just look at all the encounters Jesus and the Apostles had with people. To those who persist in rebellion, the note of the condemnation of the Law is sounded. Initially to all and later only to believers, the grace of God is proclaimed.

Our pronouncement of Law rings hollow because our Gospel is preached in scant whispers.

PuritanReformed said...

>Men like us burn bridges and pronounce anathema, without the necessary backdrop of Godly love.

So all of a sudden, you know my backdrop? I thought you said that only God sees the soul?

>That is why it always rings hollow when we pronounce condemnation.

How it sounds is not my problem. We are only to proclaim the Word, God is the only one who brings conviction. It is not within my power to bring conviction of sin, and neither is it within anyone's power either. To think that we can do anything to bring conviction of sin is a denial of the depravity of Man and of the power of the Holy Spirit.

PuritanReformed said...

>Our pronouncement of Law rings hollow because our Gospel is preached in scant whispers.

OK, I may not be preaching the Gospel on my blog in the proportions that you think is appropriate. Fair enough.

Daniel said...

>How it sounds is not my problem.

So then are we to continue in uncharitability? God forbid.

It is our problem how it sounds as much as it is our problem that we are not living a life that is worthy of the Gospel.

It is the latter that causes the former. A life that does not mirror Jesus will make all our words hollow.

Brother, I implore you to increase your Christlikeness so that your ministry through this blog not be a waste.

PuritanReformed said...

Er... do I know you?

Daniel said...

I suppose so: I'm from RHC. I'm sorry. I should have identified myself earlier. Daniel Yap.

We haven't spoken much in person.

PuritanReformed said...

I see. Suspected such.

Daniel said...

I am glad that I have been suspected.

Do take my encouragement to heart, ok?

PuritanReformed said...

Well, your commment on "increase your Christlikeness" sounds RHC-ish. And you have just added me on FB so....

My blog is mainly for my theological reflections, but I will take your encouragement.

Daniel said...

Reflect on grace! Reflect on charity! They are so much more noble than the details of synods and movements of man.

PuritanReformed said...

I reject your false dichotomy. If translated into the local church, this is what your words would become:

"Reflect on grace! Reflect on charity! They are so much more noble than the details of church AGMs and movements of members in the church."

Daniel said...

"Reflect on grace! Reflect on charity! They are so much more noble than the details of church AGMs and movements of members in the church."

AMEN! AMEN! :) Now you understand me! I completely agree with that, brother.

Grace and compassion and love and peace! Did Jesus die for referendums and schisms?

PuritanReformed said...

@Daniel:

so why aren't you not following your own advice? Why are you leading a RHC home group and thus get involved with the "movement of members in the church"? Do you attend the AGM of a church? Why not "reflect instead on grace and charity"?

Daniel said...

I never said not to do it. How did you read that into my phrasing? I said it was much more noble - and it certainly is!

I lead my home group because I love them, as I love you. That is no mere movement of man, but a movement of passion.

PuritanReformed said...

@Daniel:

*sigh*. I have just said that I reject your false dichotomy. Grace and charity are NOT antithetical to synods and the movements of men. To say that it is a "movement of passion" and therefore not a "movement of men" ignores the plain fact that real people - real men and women are involved. Can your "movement of passion" exist without people?

It is not an either-or thing. Neither it is a "which is nobler" thing. All of Scripture is profitable, NOT some more profitable than others. Synods and movements are just as important as grace and charity! Acts 15 is just as inspired as 1 Cor. 13; Gal 1:8-9 just as inspired as Acts 2:42-47. I refuse to play the game of setting Scripture against Scripture, and obeying only certain parts of Scripture (the ones we prefer) while ignoring the parts of Scripture we don't like.

Daniel said...

>I refuse to play the game of setting Scripture against Scripture, and obeying only certain parts of Scripture (the ones we prefer) while ignoring the parts of Scripture we don't like.

So where is the life of loving brotherhood, gracious unity in the Spirit, Christ-imitation and abundant compassion that you and I ought to both live?

Have we neglected grace and lovingkindness and thus become the one-sided, unprofitable souls you have described?

PuritanReformed said...

@Daniel:

that is getting nowhere. I think the problem in the Church today is the other extreme, and I am convinced that you have not proven your case on any of the issues you have raised.

With regards to grace etc, first of all, unless you can show from Scripture why such and such an action is not gracious, then all accusations of being "not gracious" is wholly subjective. Secondly, you do not know me much as a person either.

Daniel said...

And you do not know the vast majority of the people you condemn on these pages.

Daniel said...

But tell me - who are you? What drives you to use God's gift of your mind in such a way? What is your place in the body of Christ?

Share with me the sweet communion and intimacy you have with our Lord and with the brethren, inspire me with your heavenly revelations. Let me be your brother in Christ.

PuritanReformed said...

>And you do not know the vast majority of the people you condemn on these pages

Did Paul know the Judaizers by name? Did John know the proto-Gnostics? I reject your unbiblical assumption that words can only be said to those you know personally.

>But tell me - who are you?

I am a Christian.

>What drives you to use God's gift of your mind in such a way?

Passion for God and love for His truth

>What is your place in the body of Christ?

An ordinary Christian witnessing of the truth for His glory. Just as Apollos, a layman, witnessed for God, so do I. I categorically reject any difference between clergy and laymen with regards to such. I stronly believe in the Priesthood of all believers, and categorically reject the unbiblical Romish error of clergy only being allowed to proclaim the truth and correct others. I simiarly reject the error found in many Baptist circles that witnessing is an activity to be done only to unbelievers. This I call the error of ecclesia-localism.

PuritanReformed said...

I stick with the early church and the Reformers on this. All Christians are to be witnesses of ALL of God's truth to ALL of creation. Most of the early church were not theologically trained, and during the Reformation, ordinary men rose up where no local church exist and preach to the people the Gospel, and were matyred by the Roman Catholics for doing so.

As usual, you can have the last word.

Daniel said...

My encouragement to you has been and still is - to develop the aspects of Christ that you lack, while not neglecting the aspects of Christ that you possess.

I am here to hold you up, strengthen you, make every word you say here and elsewhere bear a thousand times the weight it does now. I do not seek to silence you - you are part of the body and have a gift and ministry. I want to help you enhance it.

Daniel said...

Dear brother: I have not one second of formal theological training.