Aimee Byrd, and on differences in interacting with men and women

“As if she were a man”

Why not just interact with men and women as if they were people, regardless? That’s what Jesus did.

— Tim Fall (@tim_fall) September 28, 2020

In response to my review of Aimee Byrd's book Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Tim Fall decided to fault me on one particular sentence in my introduction, whereby I clearly state that I am reviewing Byrd's book "as if she were a man." That phrase seems to be riling up some feathers, which was rather surprising since I do not buy into radical egalitarianism. But somehow I guess what used to be common sense and biblical good manners need to be defended in this current age. So here goes.

It is generally assumed in a civilized society that one treats women with more gentleness and kinder words, as compared to how one treats men. Call that treating women as a "weaker vessel" if you will, but a civilized society will want to protect women and children, and this (protect women and children) is NOT up for discussion. Part of such protection as it pertains to words is to not use strong words to a woman. One would rather play down the issue or verbally concede when interacting with women. Such actions may sometimes appear disingenous, and perhaps there are better ways society can mange such interactions. However, the notion that one should not speak strongly with women is a good general principle.

In the case of Aimee Byrd, what she has been doing in her rejection of biblical manhood and wommanhood, and the drama that comes along when she reacts to critics, is extremely off-putting. Her teachings are pernicious, but what makes it even worse is that she takes upon herself authority to publicly rebuke men and even pastors. Her aggression is like that of a man, and this is why I am treating her as if she were one. She is not teacheable, aggressive, uncharitable, and less than honest.

How does doing a review for a male author differ from for a female author? While I am not always consistent, here are some examples:

Typical reviewing of a male author	Typical reviewing of a female author
This reviewer suspects a greater fidelity to this hermeneutic due to Byrd’s unrepentant misrepresentation of her opponents.	This reviewer suggest a tendency towards this hermeneutic due to Byrd’s continual misrepresentation of her opponents.
After all, if the response to a critical review alleging misrepresentation is to double-down on those charges, then either Byrd is dishonest, or she embraces a reader-response hermeneutic wherein she gets to decide what a text really mean.	This suspicion comes about because Byrd fails to perceive her misrepresentations even after they had been pointed out to her. Since the charge of misrepresentation was clear, the only option possible is for her to embrace some version of reader-response hermeneutic where she decides the meaning of any text she reads.
One wonders just how bad is Byrd’s capability at comprehension, that she cannot even understand what Piper is plainly saying	Byrd is therefore misrepresenting Piper in what he is plainly saying.
For a book that claims to be a rejection of biblical manhood and womanhood, and a “recovery” from it, Byrd surprisingly misrepresents biblical manhood and womanhood throughout her entire book	While portraying itself as a biblical rejection and “recovery” away from biblical manhood and womanhood, Byrd sadly misrepresents it throughout her book.
Naselli in his review mentioned that Byrd has misinterpreted ESS, but she refuses to listen. Again, either she is a dishonest woman, or she embraces a reader-response hermeneutic. I leave it up to the readers to judge for themselves.	Naselli in his review mentioned that Byrd has misrepresented ESS, but she has not corrected her mistake. Supposing that she comprehends his word, the most charitable interpretation is that she is embracing a reader-response hermeneutic in her interpretation.
In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is soaked through with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts.	In conclusion, while Byrd does have a few legitimate grievances over some practices in the wider church, her book is filled with an unbiblical hermeneutic and unbiblical interpretations of the biblical texts.
She is less than honest about her opponents, constantly misrepresenting them and doubling down on her misrepresentations when confronted about it.	She continues to misrepresent her opponents even after being corrected over it.

When I asked if one should be rough with women the same way one can be rough with men, Tim Fall decided that 2 Timothy 2:24-25 is appropriate here, to which I raised Galatians 5:12. But to flesh out my response, somehow "gentleness" as defined by the modern world is the gold standard. But the same apostle who wrote 2 Timothy 2:24-25 also wrote Galatians 5:12. The same gentle Jesus who would not break a bruised reed pronounced severe woes on the Pharisees. The fact is that biblical gentleness IS compatible with being rough if the occasion demands it. In the apostle Paul's case, it was against the false teachers in Galatia, the Judaizers. Thus, we see that when it comes to error, there is a place for strong words, in order to warn people and turn people away from falsehood. It is surely illuminating that all the "gentleness" in the American churches has allowed borderline heresy to thrive under the banner of Revoice, with very few being "man enough" to rebuke them and file charges against those involved.

When error is promoted by women, in line with the view that women should be generally protected from strong words, the tendency should be to suspect failure of understanding rather than failure of character, even when the evidence is clear it is the latter. Again, this may look disingenous, but this is the best practice so far. Generally, strong words should not be used on women, whereas men should be able to take it. Not being able to take and give strong words in a man is in my opinion a sign of effeminacy.

On the use of words circumscribing sin, and the perception of insults and derogation

Lift up your eyes to the bare heights, and see!
Where have you not been ravished?
By the waysides you have sat awaiting lovers
like an Arab in the wilderness.
You have polluted the land
with your vile whoredom.
Therefore the showers have been withheld,
and the spring rain has not come;
yet you have the forehead of a whore;
you refuse to be ashamed. (Jer. 3:2-3 ESV)

.

"Whore" is a biblical term. When used as a accurate description, it is not offensive. I do not believe in demeaning, ridiculing or mocking women

— puritanreformed (@puritanreformed) July 1, 2020

If you use some versions, it says 'whoredom'. That word is not and does not mean whore. They share the same root word, but even the def show diff. 'whoredom' says its outdated while 'whore' is derogatory. Words that share the same root are not the same: take cyclopes vs cyclones

— Marianne (@The_Dark_Elf) July 8, 2020

In a Twitter exchange between Marianne (@The_Dark_Elf) and me, she astonishing paints herself in a corner in an attempt to make the word "whore" a reprehensible insult. My position was, and always is, that it is not right to demen, ridicule or mock women, but facts are facts. Calling a prostitute a whore is not an insult. Calling a loose woman a "slut" is not an insult either. Yes, IF one uses these terms to insult the person, then it becomes an insult. But just because a word can become an insult does not necessarily make it an insult. In the thread, I also pointed out how the postmodern Western culture is against terms like "sodomy," "immorality (except when applied to right-wing 'sins' especially 'Capitalism')," "adultery," "fornication" and other such words. Are these words to be blacklisted just because others see them as 'insults'? Who exactly determines what word is to be an insult and what not?

To press home the fact that "whore" is not an insult, I had directed Marianne to Jeremiah 3:2-3, where God inspired the words (in Hebrew) where God accused Israel "you have the forehead of a whore." Marianne finally admitted that "some versions" use the word "whoredom," and then asserted that "whoredom" does not mean "whore," and that the two are as different as "cyclopes" and "cyclones." I do not know whether to laugh or to cry at this tweet. "Whoredom" is merely the substantival adjectival form of the verb "to whore," describing the state of a person whoring around. I am not brought up with Shakespearean English either, so this is not an archaic term at all. So why the weaseling around the fact that "whore" is a perfectly proper English term?

The problem here is that too many especially in the West have a different value system in place rather than the value system of the Bible, where certain terms are, subconsciously or consciously, termed "out of bounds" and thus not to be utilized. This is not necessarily speaking of Marianne, but it is fascinating to me how many people are offended when you used words as Scripture uses it. In a private FB post, I had stated the fact that Scripture treats LGBTQ as abominations, and it was fascinating how even a pastor can be offended by it. It is truly weird time indeed, when proper English words are taken to be "out of bounds" even though they are not archaic, just because these people have imbibed on the culture's value system instead of the biblical value system.

A Response to Trevin Wax's "A Word to my Calvinist Friends"

Trevin Wax, whose blog is on the Gospel Coalition Compromisers (TGC) website, has decided to complain about the perceived "tone" of two 5-point Calvinists who have taken a stand against 4-point "Calvinism." Dr. James White spent about 45 minutes of his Diving Line podcast responding to Wax's whining.

While there are a lot of issues with 4-point "Calvinism," or Amyraldism, my main response here is with regards to Wax's mild rant and the attitude he brings to the entire issue.

Before I begin, let me first say that I don't know Trevin Wax. His person is not the issue; his article is.

First, we note that Wax wrote this:

Instead of asking, “Why do you reject the unlimited atonement view?,” the question is framed in a way that treats four-point Calvinists like they have simply failed to adequately consider all the relevant points. The implication is this: Oh, those four-pointers are good guys, but they obviously haven’t thought it through as well as we have.

No, my brothers. There are plenty of us who reject the traditional Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement precisely because we have adequately considered the arguments and have found them wanting. The reason I stand with theologians like J.C. Ryle, Millard Erickson, Gregg Allison, Bruce Demarest, and Bruce Ware is because their argumentation is more persuasive than yours.

Wax here is complaining about the language that Barrett and Nettles used, that 4-pointers have not thought through the issues clear enough. In reply, we must ask, would Wax prefer them to express their view in these other ways?

4-pointers reject the Bible

4-pointers reject the clear teaching of Scripture for their emotional feelings

4-pointers refuse to consider the alternative option because they are emotionally unable to bring themselves to consider the other option objectively

Positing a failure to be logically consistent is by far the most charitable judgment given to 4-pointers by those of us who are convinced of the biblical teaching of Definite Atonement. We are unable to say that Amyraldism in any of its forms is biblically warranted or legitimate, and asking for us to think of it as a possible biblical option with just as much legitimacy as consistent Calvinism is to ask us to betray our conviction of what Scripture teaches.

The problem with Wax is the absolutely emotional nature of his article. He claims that there are universal texts that Calvinists then are forced to fit into "tight, particular shoes." That itself is false. There are NO universal texts in the Bible. Just because he thinks there are does not mean that by fiat they exist.

Wax claims that he, along with other 4-pointers, have "adequately considered the arguments and found them wanting." No argument however has he put forward as to why these arguments are considered wanting. If really there is a known-down argument for universal atonement, where is it? Throwing big names at us don't mean anything.

We are not to wear our emotions on our sleeves, especially when we are dealing with what the Bible teaches. Wax claims that Amyraldism is biblical. Fine, prove it! If you are so certain that your system of doctrine is biblical, surely you can defend it according to the Scriptures? Instead of doing so, why are you whining on a blog post about you taking offence at a perceived "tone" of condescension?

That's the problem I have found with quite a few of these "New Calvinists." They always claim they are reading the Bible (so by implication are they accusing me of NOT reading my Bible?) and thus they found all these particular doctrines they are subscribing to. Yet, none of them that I have interacted with wants to interact with me on the biblical basis for their particular doctrines? You would have thought they since they are convinced of their views according to Scripture, they could defend their views according to Scripture? Nope! Its basically "Ego dixi, finitus est" (I have spoken, it ends). So are we or are we not trying to be biblical? Or does "tone" triumph over the truth of Scripture? Or maybe you are your own mini-pope, that your impression of what the truth of Scripture is is THE true interpretation of Scripture? Who is your ultimate authority in interpreting Scripture? Is it your own intellect, or the Holy Spirit using the means of the Church to sharpen our interpretation of Scripture and correct our blind spots?

The Protestant view of Sola Scripture does not make everyone their own mini-popes shouting "here I stand" and then claim that their conscience bind them to whatever interpretation they found through reading the Bible by themselves. No, that is Solo Scriptura. The Protestant view of Sola Scriptura states that the conscience of believers are to be bound to the interpretation of the Scripture they found through reading the Scriptures in the power of the Holy Spirit in interaction with the Church. The idea that anyone can just claim to "read the Bible" and then state that they have "adequately considered the arguments and found them wanting" is contrary to the Protestant hermeneutic. Whoever thinks their system is biblical, let them put forward their case and argue for it. The Reformed Churches and their descendants have rejected Amyraldism as error, while not considering it outright heresy. The onus is on those who claim otherwise to defend their positions, not whine about perceived slights due to our rejection of their errant doctrines.

So no, I will not defend my Amyraldian friends from the charge that your positions leads to universalism. To do so is ridiculous, since we are convinced that is contrary to biblical truth. If none of them desire to biblically defend their positions, perhaps they are not actually following Scripture but rather their emotional gut feelings.

Rick Warren: The use of psychoanalysis and the violation of Mt. 7:1

@RickWarren: Some people only feel close to God when they're angry & attacking. It's caused by fear & deep disappointment. Just love them.

(Source)

One characteristic seen in the twitter feed during DG2010 after Warren's "message", for example in Ed Stetzer's tweet, is the judgmental attitude of these leaders and/or followers towards their critics. A recent Rick Warren tweet perfectly illustrates the issue at hand.

I know a brother in Christ whom I shall not name who I would place in the New Calvinist camp. One of the conflicts we previously have had was over something akin to this. It amazes me constantly how much information they think they can infer from, in this case my actions on the blogosphere, and from there psychoanalyze me. I have heard it myself that in his view, the critics who have the same view as me and encourage me on many of these issues (ie being against Rick Warren) are most probably men who hide in their mothers' basements in some house in Grand Rapids, Michigan, typing away on their computers.

My intention here is not to attack my friend who has since apologized, especially because he is indeed genuinely concerned for me (although the concern was misplaced), but to use this episode as an example of what it seems is epidemic within the so-called Evangelical and New [Evangelical] Calvinist mindset. I am astonished where all these stereotypes come from, and am sad that those who are termed "critics" are pigeonholed into these categories and judged as such.

Warren's latest tweet, as I have mentioned, perfectly illustrates the problem. The question is: How does Warren (or anyone else for that matter except for God) knows that the critics are critics because of "fear and deep disappointment"? I can grant that some critics may be such, but upon what basis does Warren judged the motives of any and every particular person of whom some he has never even meet or converse in person (not that such would excuse Warren anyway)?

Mt. 7:1-5 state:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Mt. 7:1-5)

As Matthew Henry exposited this passage:

The prohibition; Judge not. We must judge ourselves, and judge our own acts, but we must not judge our brother, not magisterially assume such an authority over others, as we allow not them over us: since our rule is, to be subject to one another. Be not many masters, Jam. iii. 1. ... We must not judge rashly, nor pass such a judgment upon our brother as has no ground, but is only the product of our own jealousy and ill nature. We must not make the worst of people, nor infer such invidious things from their words and actions as they will not bear. We must not judge uncharitably, unmercifully, nor with a spirit of revenge, and a desire to do mischief. We must not judge of a man's state by a single act, nor of what he is in himself by what he is to us, because in our own cause we are apt to be partial. We must not judge the hearts of others, nor their intentions, for it is God's prerogative to try the heart, and we must not step into his throne; ...

— Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Source). Bold added

Warren stands in blatant violation of Mt. 7:1 in its original meaning of the verse. As Matthew Henry later points out, this passage is not against judging per se but hypocritical judging (and judging of motives). In the same way that we judge we will be judged (cf Mt. 7:2). The Warren critics that I know of use the standard of the Word of God, and therefore we will be held to the same standard of orthodoxy that we use with regards to the application of Mt. 7. Warren however judges intentions based upon his bias interpretation of the actions of others, and his own standard of judging will automatically condemn him. The last command by Warren "Just love them" is so condescending it is insulting and demeaning to anyone it applies to, as if critics are to be treated like insane relatives who are to be loved and their insane actions are to be tolerated because they can't make themselves behave properly.

Is this how the New Calvinists are going to treat critics? If so, they stand in violation of Mt. 7:1 and in fact violate the ninth commandment in bearing false witness against the brethren.

WJD? Or rather WWHJD? - What would the human Jesus do?

Quite a while back in the 1990s when I was younger, a movement swept across the church — the WWJD movement, asking us to imitate Christ and to act in a way similar to how Jesus would act. As I was then around my rebellious teen years, I wasn't interested in that phenomenon though I remembered the interesting paraphernalia, i.e. bracelets and bands, that were been sold and given. The only thing that stuck was the saying and how we are to grow in Christ-likeness, with Jesus being our example of how we were to behave and act in our daily lives.

Now, I am not going to analyze that particular phrase and the history etc behind it, of which anyone who is interested can read up on it (although I do have and did read Sheldon's book). I think anyone who has read my blog for some time should have noticed that I am no friend of socialism either, although I do think the Faith is a much more important issue than socio-political ones. In this post therefore, I would rather want to concentrate on the fact that most Christians would agree that we should be growing into Christ-likeness (i.e. 1 Peter 1:15-16, 1 Cor. 11:1), and thus move on from there.

In light of New Evangelicalism which is being complemented by the "New Calvinism", one blind spot which I have come to see with these modern Christians is with regards to the Christian idea of growing in Christ-likeness. Assuming an orthodox interpretation of the phrase WWJD?, we should be emulating Jesus in his love, compassion and ... anger?

Clearly, the usage of the slogan WWJD? to promote biblical responses to heresy and false teachings do not quite fit into the zeitgeist. New Evangelicals have then invented this interesting caveat: "Well, Jesus is God and we are not [so Jesus can be angry and judge others because He knew their hearts etc]". So in other words, we are to imitate Christ in all his non-divine actions, and those undesirable actions as defined by the zeitgeist are of course *conveniently* regarded as those only the divine can do.

Let us grant them their extremely myopic view of Scripture which takes no account of the actions of the Prophets and Apostles in this respect. The question then is: upon what basis are we to differentiate between the "human" actions of Jesus which we are to emulate and the "divine" actions of Jesus which we cannot emulate? Shouldn't we then say WWHJD — What Would the Human Jesus Do? Ignoring the Nestorian implications of this question for the moment, isn't that really what the New Evangelical application of WWJD actually amounts to?

The fact of the matter is that all of Jesus' actions are done in his person who is indeed very man. No doubt some of them could only be done because of his divine knowledge of things we cannot know, i.e. saying that those Jews back there did not believe because they are not His sheep - the Elect (Jn. 10:26). But these are "divine" only in the sense that such actions are done based upon knowledge that humans can never hope to have. There is nothing inherently divine in teaching and proclaiming judgment, as humans do that all the time on all topics.

The sorry excuse given by the New Evangelicals, with their objection that Jesus was also God, to the argument from Christ-likeness is thereby rendered moot. If one truly wants to grow in Christ-likeness therefore, ALL of Christ's life is an example for us, not just the "nice" parts. Jesus is not only meek and mild, but is also righteous, bold, and never afraid of calling a spade a spade and offending people's sensibilities. And when he comes again on the last day, He would come with a sword to smite His enemies beneath His feet.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (Rev. 19:11-16)

Amen. May God save us from the zeitgeist of "niceness" (especially to heretics) that has no legitimate place in the Kingdom of God.

CT on Warrengate, Horton's response and mine

Over at the Christianity Today (CT) Liveblog, editor Colin Hansen, author of the book Young, Restless, Reformed has written a post on the Warrengate fiasco. Consistent with CT's founding philosophy, Hansen has taken the New Evangelical stand on this topic, which we shall see and examine later.

Back when I first started reading up on the New Calvinist phenomenon after Hansen published his book detailing the movement, I came to notice that there are no essential differences between the ministry philosophy of the original New Evangelicals and the mainstream of the "New Calvinists". With this, I have coined the term "New Evangelical Calvinism" to refer to this movement. Since then, and especially with the Warrengate incident, further observations have confirmed my at-then fledgling suspicion of the New Evangelical philosophy and mood behind the "New Calvinism", with the "New Calvinism" thus manifesting itself as nothing more than New Evangelicalism version 2.0 . Why anyone wants to re-try a failed philosophy after seeing the failure of the original vision 50+ years later is anyone's guess.

In Hansen's article, the prevailing zeitgeist of being "nice" was amply represented there, as Hansen in the beginning described Michael Horton's perceptive yet extremely mild critique of Piper's invitation to Warren as "biting". Yes, you read it right. Pointing out where Warren does not conform to biblical principles in his conduct in an irenic tone is considered "biting". How far are we indeed from what is clearly taught in the text of Scripture?

Pastor John MacArthur in his book The Jesus you can't Ignore shows from the Gospel narratives how Jesus reacted to the false teaches of his day — the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. As MacArthur states:

The Great Shepherd Himself was never far from open controversy with the most conspicuously religious inhabitants in all of Israel. Almost every chapter of the Gospels makes some reference to His running battle with the chief hypocrites of His day, and He made no effort whatsoever to be winsome in His encounters with them. He did not invite them to dialogue or engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.

As we are going to see, Jesus’ public ministry was barely underway when He invaded what they thought was their turf—the temple grounds in Jerusalem—and went on a righteous rampage against their mercenary control of Israel’s worship. He did the same things again during the final week before His crucifixion, immediately after His triumphal entry into the city. One of His last major public discourses was the solemn pronunciation of seven woes against the scribes and Pharisees. These were formal curses against them. That sermon was the farthest thing from a friendly dialogue. ...

That is a perfect summary of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees. It is blistering denunciation—a candid diatribe about the seriousness of their error. There is no conversation, no collegiality, no dialogue, and no cooperation. Only confrontation, condemnation, and (as Matthew records) curses against them.

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full of compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus a resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and post-modern evangelicals—the neoevangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and His treatment of them are breathtakingly severe. (pp. 19-21)

The infatuation with positivity that I have previously noticed is also criticized by MacArthur as follows:

Contemporary evangelicalism in general seems to have no taste whatsoever for any kind of doctrinal friction — much less open conflict with spiritual wolves. The Evangelical Manifesto ... expressing many more works of concern about evangelical pubic relations than it ever does for evangelical doctrinal soundness. The document confidently asserts that "the Evangelical message, 'good news' by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always position before it is negative." That's a considerable overstatement — especially given the fact that Paul's systematic outline of the gospel in Romans begins with the words, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven" (Romans 1:18) and then goes on for almost three full chapters expounding on the depth and universality of human "ungodliness" and unrighteousness," which is what unleashed God's wrath in the first place. Only after he has made the bad news inescapable does Paul introduce the gospel's good news. ...

As we are going to see, Jesus Himself was not always positive before being negative. Some of His longest discourses, including all of Matthew 23, were entirely negative. (p. 15)

In times of greater doctrinal purity during the Reformation, the Reformers used strong language in denunciation of error. Luther for example called the Pope the Antichrist, and Lucas Cranach (the Elder) painted in a book a picture of Christ going to heaven on one page, with the opposing page showing the Pope descending to hell, an interesting work which I have the privilege of seeing (under a glass case) in 2005 when I visited Luther's home turned museum in Lutherstadt Wittenberg.

The Liberal/Modernist and now Post-Modernist zeitgeist has infiltrated the Church, and nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the New Evangelical and New Evangelical Calvinist movement. It is extremely revealing that Hansen called Horton's article "biting". One would have thought that the person of Jesus as biblically described was a raving Fundamentalist in Hansen's eyes as He does not conform to the "meek and mild" Jesus figurine with long brown hair and fuzzy eyes more likely to be seen in a dog begging its master for a favor.

Professor R. Scott Clark has chipped in on this issue on his Heidelbog with his perceptive thoughts here. He concludes with a question:

What becomes of Christian truth telling in an age when even the most gentle criticisms are regarded by evangelical leaders as “biting”?

What then indeed? Which is why I ignore the prevailing zeitgeist. Pandering to it and attempting to win the friendship of God and the world if consistently two-headed would do neither. The world always will be offended by the truth, and it seems Evangelicalism being soaked in the world's mentality thinks likewise. Since I am going to offend them anyway or risk offending God, why not just call a spade a spade, and follow the injunctions of Scripture on this matter instead of toning down biblically mandated polemics?

Hansen further states in his blog post, following Piper, what he thinks the issue is about:

... At the same time, reaction to Warren's invitation reveals something that demands reflection. Negative campaigning may be the shortest path to successful movement building. But it eventually leads to a fork in the road, offering the choice of constructive responsibility or destructive cynicism. By inviting Warren, Piper has challenged his followers to choose which path they will take.

While certainly pure negativity is destructive, Hansen misconstrues the issue as if criticism and obeying the doctrine of separation are forms of "destructive cynicism", rather than obedience to God's Word. It is sad that New Evangelicals are so saturated with the zeitgeist that they cannot lift themselves out of it, instead following the world in viewing any form of contending for the faith (cf Jude 1:3) as the unChristian thing to do. Instead, in their view, all forms of "Christianity" whether true or false must be allowed to the dialogue table it seems, whereby no criticism is ever allowed (only disagreement) much less the hurling of anathemas against unrepentant heretics as made by the Apostle Paul in Gal. 1:8-10. Well, I think that the New Evangelicals have found their first "destructive cynic" - the Apostle Paul himself in the book of Galatians! Fancy condemning a group of "Christians" to hell merely because they teach others that circumcision was a good thing to do. How unloving!

The last gaffe made by Hansen is his insistence that

... [New Evangelicalism was the] middle course between isolationist fundamentalism and ecumenical Protestantism

If not for the fact that the New Evangelicals truly believe that, it would have been laughable, but now it is just sad. Where were the Reformed churches during that time? Were they "isolationist fundamentalists" or "ecumenical Protestants"? There IS a third way even back then without the need for the New Evangelical compromise. Speaking of which, the New Evangelicalism IS from its inception ecumenical and now even more so with the signing of the ECT (Evangelical and Catholics Together) accords and the recent Manhatten Declaration. So did this third wave between "isolationist fundamentalism" and "ecumenical Protestantism" actually materialize? Or is it rather just the fusion of Liberal ministry philosophy with Evangelical theology, with that theology disappearing over the years as the Church becomes ever more and more pragmatic?

Prof. Mike Horton has responded tangentially to Hansen's blog article with a post on the White Horse Inn blog here. While he does raise certain excellent points, an issue of concern with his article is the Christians' responsibility to the others in the "hallway". Granted that there are issues which Christians can legitimately disagree on and still fellowship with each other, but shouldn't we treat the "hallway" conversations as more than mere conversations especially when seeing brethren who are straying or compromising on the Gospel (as in the case of Waren)? While certainly it is in the context of the Church and not a movement whereby discipline can be properly done, it is IMO not loving at all not to point out errors in another Christian even if they are seen in the "hallway" and not living within the same "room".

As it is now becoming sadly evident, the New Evangelical Calvinism is showing itself to be just New Evangelicalism version 2.0.

An excellent excerpt from John MacArthur's new book

Over at the Shepherd's Fellowship blog, Pastor John MacArthur has posted an excellent excerpt from his latest book, which addresses the Zeitgeist in the area of "niceness". Was Jesus always "nice"? Check it out.

Here it an excerpt:

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full of compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus a resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and post-modern evangelicals — the neoevangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and His treatement of them are breathtakingly severe.

(Bold added)

New Evangelical Calvinism: Ambassador for Christ or embarrassed of Him?

[continued from here, here, here, here and here]

---

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:18-20)

As Christians, we are called to be ambassadors for Christ; to represent our King as His messenger to proclaim His Word. In the secular world, ambassadors represent not themselves or their interests but the interests of their respective countries. Even if they personally feel a certain way, they do not express their personal feelings (or at least aren't supposed to do so), but only such as benefits their countries' interests.

The Christian is an ambassador for Christ, and thus represent Christ to his fellow men. This of course has many implications for our behavior, including how we live our lives and our witness for Christ to those who do not know Him. We will however focus on the aspect that is at contention here in the New Calvinism: The focus on being an ambassador in our attitudes in Gospel and Truth proclamation.

An organization that has became the de facto flagship of the New Calvinism, The Gospel Coalition Network, epitomized the mood of the New Calvinism in its handling of the truth, an improvement over the older New Evangelicalism half a century ago which jettisoned the importance of truth in her outreach. Instead of the perceived opposites found within "Fundamentalism" and the Postmodern Emerging Conversation, the Gospel Coalition has came up with a "mood" or approach to truth which they call a "chastened correspondence theory of truth", as stated

We adopt a “chastened” correspondence–theory of truth that is less triumphalistic than that of some in the older evangelicalism. But we also reject a view of truth that sees truth as nothing more than the internally coherent language of a particular faith– community. So we maintain, with what we hope is appropriate humility, the principle of sola Scriptura. (I.4.1) [42]

The older evangelicalism is considered "more triumphalistic" with its uncompromising proclamation of the Truth which is perceived to not take into account the fact that we perceive the Truth only partially and infallibly. Since our perception tints our view of the Truth (perspectivism), we are to be humble in our proclamation of the truth as we may be wrong. Such humility or a chastened attitude precludes the prophetic proclamation of Truth as being definitely THE truth, unless it be accompanied by disclaimers that we may be wrong and therefore invite others to correct us if they are able to; to show us that our perception may not be totally true. So says the New Calvinism and the Gospel-centered movement. However, is this view of ourselves and our knowledge of truth biblical?

First of all, it must be conceded that we are most definitely not neutral with regards to Truth, and therefore we may not be definitely true. Sometimes even what we strongly think is true may be wrong, and we should welcome criticism and evaluate our theories accordingly. However, to extrapolate this fact "We are not always definitely true" to "We are always not definitely true" is a logical fallacy, a fallacy hat the Gospel-centered movement and New Calvinism are in fact committing.

How do we Christians come to know biblical truth? We know biblical truth through God's revelation in the Scriptures, which are objective and absolute truths free from all human perspectives. The Truth therefore is present with us, and this truth being free from human perspectives and biasness will never be wrong and needs no apologizing. After all, this is what is meant when we say that Scripture is the ultimate authority for all of life.

The next step has to do with internalizing the external Truth into our minds, which of course is not an infallible process due to sin. In point of fact, the unregenerate cannot receive the truth of Christ, and are not able to perceive them as truth but only as seeming folly (1 Cor. 2:14). However, the same passage informs us Christians that we can and do definitely understand God's Truth. As it is written:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. ... The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:12, 15-16)

Those who are truly believers, the regenerate, will have the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit (cf Jn. 16:13; 17:17) and understand God's truth. No doubt new believers have to grow in Christ and renew their mind (Rom. 12:2), but definite knowledge of the truth can be achieved, otherwise the passage in 1 Cor. 2 makes absolutely no sense, giving us the contradiction that even with the mind of Christ and being able to judge all things, the truths we obtained through having the mind of Christ are not necessarily true. We must here differentiate between definite and exhaustive knowledge of the truth: Definite knowledge of truth deals with the quality of our knowledge of the truth as being 100% confident to be true, while exhaustive knowledge of truth deals with the quantity or depth of our knowledge of the truth. We most definitely cannot obtain exhaustive truth since we are finite and God is infinite, but there is nothing to prohibit the definite acquisition of truth especially since we have the mind of Christ.

All of this ties back in to the issue of being an ambassador for Christ. Ambassadors are to represent their countries, not themselves. Similarly, in Gospel and truth proclamations, we represent God and not ourselves. We are still not perfect and are still sinful, but we are NOT representing our own human frailties but the perfect, infallible and sinless God whose greatness surpasses our puny human frames. Having given the mind of Christ, and thus able to definitely know truth, are we then to shrink back and adopt a "chastened" attitude with regards to truth? We are jars of clay containing the truth of Christ (2 Cor. 4:7). Is the value of the treasure fundamentally affected by the type of jar it is in? So why are we so focused on ourselves rather than the Christ who uses us weaklings to proclaim His truth?

We are therefore to be bold in our proclamation, because the message we have does not depend on the state of the vessel for its existence and truthfulness. Our job is in presenting it clearly through faithful exegesis of Scripture, and thus let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and we need not ever apologize or try to be humble in its proclamation. In fact, since this is God's truth we are talking about, humility is portrayed in proclaiming it authoritatively, and the "chastened" attitude is in fact false humility which devalues the Word of God by making its proclamation less authoritative than what it actually is.

Will the New Calvinists reject this new "chastened" attitude towards the Truth of Scripture? Will we rather let Scripture and Scripture alone dictate to us the relative definiteness of the various truths of Scripture, and react accordingly, instead of allowing philosophical and cultural analyses to shape our epistemology?

Conclusion

We have seen five major issues of concern with New [Evangelical] Calvinism. All of these are serious in their own right and have the potential to derail the entire movement from the Scriptures. On top of this, the issue of pragmatism (part of New Evangelicalism) has lately reared its ugly head, seen especially when it comes to defending Driscoll and Keller from criticism by pointing to how successful they have been in reaching the lost and church planting. Now each one is a serious concern in its own right, but compounding them all together and it seems that the New Calvinism is fraught with many problems as they continue in the errors of their predecessor the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. Will we and the New Calvinists be willing to listen to Scripture and be willing to biblically re-evaluate New Evangelicalism, or will we continue in the deluded thinking that as long as our doctrine and our Gospel narrowly defined is orthodox, our larger worldview and ministry philosophy are irrelevant? Will we learn from Scripture and from history, or will we repeat the same mistakes over again?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

May God be with us and open our eyes to see the truth and rejects the errors in the New Evangelical Calvinism. Amen.

References:

[42] Theological Vision for Ministry, The Gospel Coalition Network (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision)

---

Check out the full article available in PDF format here.

New Evangelical Calvinism: The New Evangelical infatuation with positivity

[continued from here, here, here and here]

This is a more extensive section evaluating the New Evangelical idea of positivity compared to the review of Challies' articles here.

---

The idea of being positive or seen as positive was one aspect of the New Evangelical movement [33] which is however not as easily recognized as demarcating New Evangelicalism per se. The New Evangelical/ Fundamentalist divide is remembered more for the divide over the doctrine of separation, if it is remembered at all. The apostatizing mainstream "evangelicals" in our day have long since jettisoned treasuring and proclaiming the truth, and therefore the New Calvinists do not seem to be New Evangelical in the aspect of truth as compared to the "Evangelicals" nowadays. However, this has not been the case. The early New Evangelicals like Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell personally treasure the truth [34] and desire that biblical Christianity experience a revival in the land. Trying to have their cake and eat it, the New Evangelical strategy of infiltration backfired and it was the world that turned the church upside down instead of the other way round. But it must be remembered that the early New Evangelicals do indeed treasure the truth and were appalled by the fruit of their compromise [35].

The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies' blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers [36], of which the false accusations are soundly refuted by both Phillip R. Johnson [37] and Steven J. Camp[38]. We would not be doing a lengthy rebuttal of his attack and his subsequent clarification here [39], but just to focus on his attack post as a microcosm of the New Calvinist seeming infatuation with positivity.

The most revealing passage in this regard is seen as follows:

I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news. ... They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry. [40]

These statements by Challies perfectly illustrate the New Evangelical and now New [Evangelical] Calvinists' infatuation with positivity. Negativity is to be shunned as much as possible, while being positive is extolled as a virtue, all without biblical proof for such an assertion. Worse still is the fluid notion of what constitutes "positivity" and "negativity" as utilized by Challies, concepts which he did not and have not elucidate. With such a dynamic notion of "positivity" and "negativity", Challies' attack becomes wholly subjective and comes across as a holier-than-thou self-righteous proclamation of how "positive" and thus good he is compared with the "watchblogs".

What then does the Scripture teaches about our attitude? Doesn't the Scripture tell us to think about what is good, as it is written:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil. 4:8)

Indeed it does, but it is a false assumption that focusing on what is good necessarily implies positivity. The former denotes our attitudes and focus as Christians, while the latter denotes the way we act and conduct ourselves. Certainly, having an attitude which focuses on God and on what is commendable would have an impact on the way we ourselves act, but to absolutely correlate attitude with behavior is fallacious, as we cannot judge a person's motives based upon the appearances of his actions. This is especially so since appearances can be deceiving, as a cursory look at the prophetic books in Scripture would show. Would we when reading the book of Lamentations or Jeremiah for example think that the prophet Jeremiah was focusing on what is bad; that his attitude was to treat "evil as entertainment"? Most certainly not!

So how then should we act and conduct ourselves in light of Scriptural exhortations like Phil. 4:8? Personally, we are to strive to praise God in our lives and to proclaim the glory of His Name, treasuring the good things of Scripture and of God in our hearts. Our actions however are determined not according to some arbitrary standard of "positivity", but on how we can bring glory to God and honor Him. If praise is needed, we praise and glorify our Lord. If refutation of errors is needed, we do such a seemingly "negative" action for the positive defence of God's truth so that He would be glorified as error is overthrown and truth is enthroned. The biblical focus therefore is not whether an action is "positive" or "negative", but whether we "positively" do all for the glory of God and the defence of His truth, even as we treasure His name and glorify it in our lives and actions, whether positive or negative.

Scripture itself shows us that we must be both positive and negative in antithecal living, as it is written:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Tim. 4:1-5)

Note the pattern here: Verse 1-2 are "positive" verses, which is followed by "negative" verses in verses 3-4, and capped with a "positive" statement in verse 5. Such patterns are in fact found throughout the Scripture, and this antithetical teaching and lifestyle should characterize the lives of Christians. We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error, but in all we should focus on and glorify God "positively".

Challies with his view of being loving and his infatuation with positivity manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened [41]. Just like New Evangelicalism historically, such an infatuation with positivity will slowly but surely destroy the Church. Will we reject this infatuation with positivity? Historically, New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both, to the glory of God.

References:

[33] Pickering, p. 8

Early New Evangelical leaders took great pains to emphasize the fact that fundamentalists were too much "against" and not enough "for". Their plea was "Let's be positive and not negative". While this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative — it is for some things and against others. We must strive for that same balance.

[34] Murray, p. 20

[35] Pickering, pp. 78, 96-97

[36] Tim Challies, Evil as Entertainment, Blog post dated April 6, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/evil-as-entertainment.php)

[37] Phil. R Johnson, Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too, Blog post dated April 9th, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/turning-blindeye-to-evil-is-evil-too.html)

[38] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, Blog post dated April 8th, 2009 (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/04/bloggingwatchblogging-meta-and.html)

[39] See Appendix I for a fuller rebuttal to Challies' errors in both his posts and further proof of his infatuation with positivity.

[40] Challies, Evil as Entertainment. Bold added.

[41] One just need to glance at the meta of Challies' two posts to see Warren apologist Richard Abanes and Chris Lyons of the anti-Christian watchblog CRN.info praising Challies and attacking the watchblogs, to see the damage Challies has done

The New Evangelical method of argumentation

Pursuant to my post exposing the New Calvinist infatuation with positivity as can be seen in Challies' two posts, I have received some feedback on the matter. It is sincerely hoped that my full article on New Evangelical Calvinism, which provides the foundation of my case, would help to change their minds, but I am not too optimistic about it.

From the interaction so far, the best that can be offered in defense of Challies' posts is that "Challies is correct", or that "Challies has a point". What has NOT been attempted so far is a biblical and historical refutation of the arguments in the article. Hopefully, with my full article online now, there would be a change in the way the topic is addressed. Honestly, if the only response is an appeal to the subjective sans biblical support, then my point is further proved; that New Calvinism is content to profess (and work on to a certain extent) unity on the material principle of Scripture, but it categorically ignores the formal principle of Sola Scriptura in the process.

With this, let us see how things work out. As it is, if this infatuation with positivity continues within the New Calvinist movement, then the only option left is to treat them the same as the New Evangelical movement; just as errant and as compromising of the faith as their predecessor, and we should expect that doctrinal compromise within the camp would soon come, as per their predecessor the New Evangelicalism with the crisis over the topic of Inerrancy in the 1960-80s.

New Evangelical Calvinism: An Analysis of the Calvinist Resurgence

After much thought, and feedback from my good friend and brother Stephen Macasil, I have finally came up with a paper on the New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The full article has now been uploaded to my website here [removed], of which I will post sections of it in the near future since the subject is clearly important as the New Calvinist train picks up steam.

I have found FIVE points of concern on the New Calvinist movement, some of which are quite serious. They are:

1. Will we learn from history? — The New Evangelical failure to heed the doctrine of separation
2. Will we embrace the material principle of the Gospel without embracing the formal principle of Sola Scriptura?
3. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?
4. Will we reject the New Evangelical infatuation with positivity?
5. Recovering the role of being an ambassador for Christ

In subsequent posts, each of these five points will be further elucidated, and through them, the New Calvinist movement would hopefully be examined in light of Scripture and secondarily through the lens of church history. It is further hoped that the article would show the foundation behind the recent rebuttal to Challies' attack posts and the (rather amateurish) poster I have made.

So stay tuned for the analysis, or read the full article if you cannot wait for them to be posted in parts.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Poster: Negativity

I always wanted to try my hand at poster-making (although I am not too familiar with graphic design software), especially since a picture is said to be worth a thousand words. Anyway, this is a very interesting poster I have made which sums up nicely one point of contention against Tim Challies' attack post.

See:

A Belated Response to Tim Challies' article attacking watchblogs.

A belated response to Tim Challies' article attacking watchblogs

I have been writing for quite some time and am now polishing up my article on New Evangelical Calvinism or the "New Calvinism", after receiving constructive feedback from my friend Stephen Macasil.

Anyway, I thought I would post my belated response to Tim Challies' horrible posts attacking watchblogs. For those who have no clue as to what has happened, the "world's most famous Christian blogger" Tim Challies has decided to post an attack article attacking watchblogs as presenting Evil as Entertainment (presumably he is exempted from his own charge?). Both Steve Camp in his post Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, and Phil R. Johnson in his post Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too have responded to the outrageous attack launched by Challies against fellow Christians. Challies responded to the outrage with a follow-up article Fighting Fire with Fire, in which he made some cosmetic changes but maintained his fundamental stance with regards to the issue.

Previously, I have decided to respond to Challies in the context of my larger article on New Evangelical Calvinism, for otherwise it may be harder to substantiate my refutations since they deal with an issue not normaly seen as errant, New Evangelicalism with its infatuation with positivity. However, it seems that such may not be a good idea after all, so I would be presenting my full rebuttal here first.

---

The idea of being positive or seen as positive was one aspect of the New Evangelical movement [1] which is however not as easily recognized as demarcating New Evangelicalism per se. The New Evangelical/ Fundamentalist divide is remembered more for the divide over the doctrine of separation, if it is remembered at all. The apostatizing mainstream "evangelicals" in our day have long since jettisoned treasuring and proclaiming the truth, and therefore the New Calvinists do not seem to be New Evangelical in the aspect of truth as compared to the "Evangelicals" nowadays. However, this has not been the case. The early New Evangelicals like Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell treasure the truth [2] and desire that biblical Christianity experience a revival in the land. Trying to have their cake and eat it however, the New Evangelical strategy of infiltration backfired and it was the world that turned the church upside down instead of the other way round. But it must be remembered that the early New Evangelicals do treasure the truth and were appalled by the fruit of their compromise [3].

The desire to be loving and positive, both New Evangelical traits, have never been repudiated by the New Calvinist movement, a successor of the conservative wing of New Evangelicalism. In fact, these twin related traits manifests themselves in the blogosphere in New Calvinist Tim Challies' blog post attacking so-called watchbloggers [4]. In his highly inflammatory post, Challies utilizes zero Scripture to support his case and through analogy with the secular world accuses watchblogs or discernment blogs as utilizing evil as entertainment, merely because such watchblogs act as watchmen in portraying the errors within the professing visible Church. The irony that Challies is, in this one post of his, doing exactly what he accuses the watchblogs as doing (portraying the errors within the professing visible Church) is seemingly lost on him, as it has been written:

Take note of the irony here: what we just read was a blogger concerned about watchbloggers watchblogging, issuing a very pointed criticism against watchbloggers in general, but in point of fact was watchblogging about other watchbloggers on his own blog. [5]

Phillip R. Johnson [6] and Steven J. Camp [7] have both responded to Challies' article rather well, and it is not our desire to repeat their good arguments against Challies. What is more of concern here is to note that Challies' article betrays his New Evangelical tendency, in his desire to be loving and positive. In his initial attack piece, Challies labeled all Discernment ministries without any distinction and attacked all of them. Being taken to task especially by Phil Johnson, Challies in his follow-up article Fighting Fire with Fire [8] softens his absolutist stance and says that there is "a time and place to expose sin and even to expose sin publicly", but this as we shall see is mere cosmetic change.

The first warning sign that Challies has not in fact changed his view on positivity, on having an infatuation with being positive, comes from the title of the blog post itself "Fighting fire with fire". Taking the example of a forest fire, Challies likened doctrinal error to a forest fire, and the actions of watchbloggers as smaller fires started with the intention of preventing the creation of larger fires. While this may seem to convey his stated point that "negative watchblogging" is sin and cause destruction probably on par with the spreading of doctrinal error, what it also conveys is that both are destructive in the exact same way and degree. That such a bold claim is made is nothing short of astonishing. Does Challies know even one bit of Church history? The most "negative watchblogging", which focus on persons, can do is destroy individuals, which is highly unlikely in the first place. Heresy however attacks the truth and thus permanently destroys individual souls, churches, and denominations, and that destruction continues through time. The former deals with people, the latter with the Truth! It is a symptom indeed of Challies' view on positivity and his myopic view of reality that both are to be regarded as equally bad.

Having sullied the idea of discernment by his inappropriate analogy, Challies continued by poisoning the well. Challies opined on the type of feedback he has received and phrased it in such a way that the impression is given that he has received a lot of hatemail confirming the correctness of his first post, through the use of the phrase "learned more about those watchblogs than I have wanted". Challies is a good writer, and he skillfully uses his words to give the impression that the hatemail he received confirmed that many "watchbloggers" are indeed people who regard evil as entertainment. Even if the majority of emails rebuking Challies are harsh, it is logically fallacious to infer that therefore these same people are treating evil as entertainment. There is simply no causative relationships between the two, unless of course one believe in the principle of positivity as an axiom.

To support his so-far non-existent argument, Challies placed up a couple of links. The first one links to an article by James McDonald [9] about the idea of the gift of discernment used in the flesh. The whole argument is suspect however, for the very issue at hand is taking criticism from other Christians. Are we to suppose that any and ALL criticism equates to the use of discernment? Is McDonald, and Challies by extension, saying that criticism from others equals the use of the gift of discernment albeit in the flesh? It seems that one does not have to be a Christian in order to have this gift! Whether rightly or wrongly, criticism comes to all of us, and to attack the act of discernment and discernment ministries themselves because criticism occurs is utterly fallacious. In fact, since Challies is discerning the watchblogs here, why isn't this act of his done in the flesh?

The second links to New Evangelical Frank Turk's article [10] that discernment is to be exercised within the local church. Since discernment ministries are meant to inform people of error and in so doing contributing to the Great Commission by warning the flock of possible soul-destroying error, Turk's peculiar ecclesia localis centrism logically leads to the conclusion that evangelism is to be done only within the Local Church! This is simply untenable, and therefore Turk's view of the Local Church is in error. The early church came together for worship, prayer, fellowship and sacraments, and went out to reach the world for Christ. The focus always was outward. No doubt we should treasure the Local Church, but ministry is not limited to the Local Church: Evangelism for example should be always done without to reach lost souls for Christ. The early church in Acts also did not know of Turk's peculiar emphasis on the Local Church, and there never was a situation whereby Christians refuse to minister together or to accept each other's ministry because they were not of the same Local Church! Last of all, it will suffice that Turk is violating his own advice since this article of his is not posted within the context of the Local Church anyway, not to mention Turk is not a pastor or elder so he has disqualified himself on his own principles!

Challies finished by basically repeating the essence of his initial post. In his own words:

But a blog that has as its bread and butter exposing error in the church, and especially error that is completely decontextualized and irrelevant to any of its readers, is a blog I think we ought to avoid [11]. A Christian’s thoughts ought to be dominated by “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). As I said last Monday, “Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church, when such things happen thousands of miles away, among people I will never meet and in places I will never be? Such news is plenty entertaining, but it is useless to me. It does nothing to further my faith or to cause me to grow in godliness.” [12]

The problem with Challies which can be seen here is that he has attacked the idea of discernment ministries in general, in his bid to be positive. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the responsibility of the readership, an issue which must be kept totally separate.

Now of course, is there nothing to Challies' complaint? Of course there is! There are so-called "discernment" blogs that I personally do not exactly want to be associated with. But to attack "watchblogs" in general and state that the problem is that they are "doing discernment in the flesh", or are using "evil as entertainment" attacks the very actions of discernment itself and is a judgmental statement on the state of people's souls. How does Challies know whether a person is operating a watchblog because he is concerned over others, or because he wants to destroy others or entertain others with evil? He doesn't! Also, we shouldn't confuse the motives of the writers with the motives of the readers. If people read it because they want to be entertained by evil, the blame should be placed on the reader not the sharer of information, unless it can be proven that that was the motive of the sharer in posting it also.

The proper biblical response to inappropriate "discernment" ministries is to lovingly reach them and call upon them to be loving as well as discerning. Most of these people are doing such because they are concerned over what is happening in the churches, not because they delight in entertaining people with evil. Instead of attacking them, they should be given loving guidance. In the case of inappropriate judgments, we should correct them in love and if they reject it, to stand firm in the truth. If rebukes are required, the offending parties are to be named, their errors shown biblically and specifically, and they are to be called to repent. Such people are wrong because they have no love or they make a wrong judgment, not because of their action of discernment.

Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened [13]. Just like New Evangelicalism historically, such an infatuation with positivity will slowly but surely destroy the Church. Will we reject this infatuation with positivity? Of course, this does not mean that we extol negativity; we should not strive to be either positivist or negativist, but to be biblical and embrace both in antithetical living. As it is written:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Tim. 4:1-5)

Note the pattern here: Verse 1-2 are "positive" verses, which is followed by a "negative" verses in verses 3-4, and capped with a "positive" statement in verse 5. Such patterns are in fact found throughout the Scripture, and this antithetical teaching and lifestyle should characterize the lives of Christians. We are to be positive and negative; positive towards godliness and truth and negative towards ungodliness and error. New Evangelicalism threw out the need to be negative, while Fundamentalism in general tend to throw out the need to be positive. Biblical Christianity is both, and may we therefore embrace both.

REFERENCES:

[1] Earnest D. Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC, USA: Bob Jones University Press, 1994), p. 8

Early New Evangelical leaders took great pains to emphasize the fact that fundamentalists were too much "again" and not enough "for". Their plea was "Let's be positive and not negative". While this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative — it is for some things and against others. We must strive for that same balance.

[2] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 20

[3] Pickering, pp. 78, 96-97

[4] Tim Challies, Evil as Entertainment, Blog post dated April 6, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/evil-as-entertainment.php)

[5] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry, Blog post dated April 8th, 2009 (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/04/blogging-watchblogging-meta-and.html)

[6] Phil. R Johnson, Turning a Blind Eye to Evil is Evil Too, Blog post dated April 9th, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/turning-blind-eye-to-evil-is-evil-too.html)

[7] Steven J. Camp, Blogging, Watchblogging and Ministry.

[8] Tim Challies, Fighting Fire with Fire, Blog post dated April 13, 2009 (http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/fighting-fire-with-fire.php)

[9] James McDonald, Great Damage: The Use of the Gift of Discernment Used in the Flesh, Blog post dated March 2, 2009 (http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1527 )

[10] Frank Turk, Establish Elders (3), Blog post dated April 8, 2009 (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/establish-elders-3.html)

[11] Note that Challies' positivity criteria would function to throw a watchblog like Chris Rosebrough's Museum of Idolatry (http://www.alittleleaven.com/) under the bus, a blog site which Phil Johnson defended as serving a valid function.

[12] Challies, Fighting Fire with Fire

[13] One just need to glance at the meta of Challies' two posts to see Warren apologist Richard Abanes and Chris Lyons of the anti-Christian watchblog CRN.info praising Challies and attacking the watchblogs, to see the damage Challies has done.

Article: Shall the Sword devour forever?

My friend Mike Ratliff with some pertinent words for those of us who engage in theological apologetics aka discernment here. Let us leave the character assassination and slander tactics of the world to the unregenerate, heretics and the deceived, but let those of us who claim the pure faith of Scripture as expressed in the Reformed confessions live in light of that high calling of ours, and not to return in kind evil for evil.

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Eph. 4: 25-32)

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. (Prov. 26:4)

Satire: If Galatians was a contemporary article published by CT

The Sacred Sandwich has came up with an interesting satirical article showing the highly possible comments Christians nowadays would have if the book of Galatians is published today. From the letters to the editors section in the February 2009 issue of the flagship New Evangelical magazine Christianity Astray Today:

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

————————————————————————

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

————————————————————————–

Dear CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA

—————————————————————————-

To the Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO

—————————————————————————-

Dear Christianity Today:

The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.

William Zenby; Richmond, VA

——————————————————————————

Kind Editors:

I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.

Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey

——————————————————————————-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.

Allow me to add one more possible feedback:

Dear Editor,

I agree that it is not right of some of the Jews to impose their views on the Galatian church, but it seems that Paul Apostle is unduly harsh in his criticism. Especially when he insinuates that they are preaching a false gospel and recommending that they should undergo castration. Who is he that he should be made the authority on who is or is not a true Christian? After all, he is not even one of the twelve and yet have the cheek to place himself above Cephas, a dear brother in the Lord.

Paul Apostle does a good job in hiding behind his pen, but that doesn't make him right on everything. After all, is he an authority on Cephas or the Judaizers? Where is the proof for his so-called apostle-ship anyway? In case you dimwits have forgotten, he was busy persecuting us Christians in the time following our Lord's resurrection and Pentecost, so why should we listen to him now?

Since the Jewish missionaries have arrived, the churches of Galatia have been growing by leaps and bounds as multitudes turn to Christ. I personally know of a pagan friend who was previously hostile to the Christian faith but have since through their ministry accept Christ. A few of my former Gnostic friends have similarly renounced their Gnosticism because of their evangelistic efforts. Who is Paul Apostle to attack the work of the Lord? Even Cephas and the others of the twelve have not condemned the Jewish missionaries from Jerusalem with such manifest hatred as Paul Apostle, who evidently just loves nothing better to see these godly Jewish missionaries burn in hell!

Paul Apostle's brain is about the size of a pea sometimes and it's about as narrow as one also in his category of Christianity. I believe in many cases he is neither pastoral submitted in many of his writings nor humble enough to do so.

Please remove me from your mailing list as I am sick of seeing godly ministers and their work attacked. I have no wish to read more of the gossip Paul Apostle writes regarding other godly ministers.

Kamin Netashin, Lystra, Turkey