Against the slander of Owen Strachan by "Reformed" people and leaders

pic.twitter.com/GZKnTSRb81

— John of the Postmil (@johnandrewwords) March 30, 2022

Dr. Owen Strachan is a Calvinistic Baptist who has not only refused, but has also doubled down on the contended teaching of Eternal Functional Submission (EFS). As a former president of CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), he also focuses on the need for proper gender roles and functions. The first antagonizes the Thomists, and the second many Americans. It is foolishness to think that even in supposed conservative Reformed circles in America, the taint of liberalism has not taken hold. After all, the feminist Aimee Byrd came out from one of the most conservative Presbyterian denominations in the US, the OPC. Having studied in America and watched as America went down the toilet on maintaining any semblance of morality, I can almost confidently say that conservative Americans (in other words, all but the most ultra-conservative Americans) are by and large more liberal than moderates outside the West. It has been astonishing for me to see how LGBTQ issues for example are tolerated even within conservative Christianity in the West, but I digress.

Jesus said we are to love each other. Evidently, when it comes to Dr. Strachan, that commandment does not apply. After Strachan posted a perfectly fine tweet, uncontroversial in most places outside the Western world, some smart alec 'Reformed' guy decided to attack it, making changes to the sentences in his effort to "correct" them. Now, I do not know whether John Reasnor is the one who has created this hack job. But he tweeted it, and evidently think this is some knock-down argument against the supposed 'Pelagian heresy' of Dr. Strachan.

It is perfectly clear by anyone who has passed reading comprehension in high school and college that Dr. Strachan is talking about it in the context of human society. To use theological jargon, the context of what he has tweeted is in the area of Practical Theology or Pragmatics, on the same level as the household codes. In other words, these are sentences meant to be applied in interpersonal relationships. That this is true is confirmed by the author himself as follows:

Another way of saying this:

Christ is the spiritual foundation of everything and men are the anthropological foundation of all these institutions.

In Christ, men hold fast to--and are head of--one wife & family; men lead the church as elders; men must lead in public (Is. 3:12).

— Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) March 30, 2022

It is abundantly clear what Dr. Strachan has said. Anyone with even the slightest amount of comprehension skill should be able to pick up on the context of the tweet. However, this is to misjudge the opposition. It seems that for many people, lying is a perfectly legitimate tool when it comes to fighting who one deems the enemy. Unfortunately, this includes John Reasnor, who through his "edits," made it seem as if Strachan is claiming that Man, the male species, is the foundation and savior of the human race. To make such an obvious error of comprehension smacks of malice, because it is just impossible for anyone to read what Strachan has said and think he is talking about salvation. This is especially so for John Reasnor, who is "founder and editor" at a website promoting Theonomy (LambsReign), and "is a former cohost of the Cross and Crown Radio podcast and has contributed his writing to Christian worldview websites such as The New City Times."

I find it hard to believe anyone who claimed to have done theological podcasts and contributed articles on theological topics has a lower reading commprehension level than a 12 year old. Whether through idiocy or malice, what Reasnor has done is a sin. It is a violation of the 9th commandment. Now, does this mean that Strachan is beyond correction, or that one is to agree with him on all things? No, but the bare minimum for Christian engagement is to tell the truth. Disagree with Strachan as you please, but lying about what he has said, and doing so when it is abundantly clear what Strachan meant, is despicable. Those who created this libelous edited picture, as well as those who share them, are to repent of their lies against another Christian brother. Again, you are NOT asked to agree with Strachan's view, but at the bare minimum, tell the truth!

As for John Reasnor, I find it interesting that Lambs Reign is essentially the "ministry" of "public theologian" Joel McDurmon. I have not examined enough about the issues, but for some time now, something smells real bad on Theonomy mountain (that is, besides the obvious error of Theonomy). I truly wonder whether theonomists think that breaking the 9th commandment is acceptable when done "against the enemy."

Truth, (Mis)representation, and John MacArthur's stance concerning the opening of churches

Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. (Prov. 23:23)

Recently, Pastor John MacArthur posted an article entitled "Christ, not Caesar, is Head of the Church." The article caused a firestorm from accusations that MacArthur is endangering people, that he is trivializing the pandemic, and that he is violating Christian liberty by forcing people to stake a stand on whether to disregard all safety measure and not wear masks or practice social distancing. With all the accusations, one really wonders whether anyone has actually READ the article instead of reading what they think is present in the article.

What does the GCC (Grace Community Church) article actually say?

The article by John MacArthur and the elders of Grace Community Church asserts the following major propositions:

1. Christ is the only head of the church
2. Christ therefore determines how Christians ought to worship.
3. Physical corporate worship is essential and commanded by God ("A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms")
4. Civil authorities are to be obeyed in matters not pertaining to the worship of God
5. Each of the three God-ordained human institutions (family, church, government) has its own distinct sphere of authority.
6. Civil authorities have no right to dictate how God is to be worshiped, as "God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church" (Italics original)
7. When one institution has exceeded its authority, "it is the duty of the other institutions to curtial that overreach."
8. Government intrusion into Christian worship is a form of persecution and should be rejected.

The minor propositions (in the addendum) state thus:

1. GCC obeyed the initial lockdown due to love for neighbor
2. The elders of GCC in their personal opinion believed that the pandemic is not so severe that it necessitates the continual closure of the church.

What the article does NOT say

Before we address a few misunderstandings, we can see from Phil Johnson's (an elder at GCC) tweets what the article does not say. First, it does not say that ALL Christians and all churches must reopen church in the exact same way as GCC.

Some are claiming that GCC was calling upon all churches to gather and insinuating that those who don’t are sinning. Multiple leaders at GCC have made it clear that this isn’t the case. But I asked @MikeRiccardi_ to clarify this once again. I found his response to be spot on: pic.twitter.com/S5AJ4Ctar6

— Tom Buck (@TomBuck) July 29, 2020

Second, it does not say anything about masks or social distancing. These words are not found in the entire article. Third, it does not say that one must agree with GCC's assessment of the pandemic. That is why it was in the Addendum and not the main article. That it was in the Addendun under the beginning words "The elders of Grace Church considered..." indicate that this was the elders' particular application of the principle of Christ being the head of the church to the situation of GCC.

The article and its critics

From these, it can be see that many of the critiques of GCC have little to do with the article. Jonathan Leeman of 9Marks in his response totally misunderstood the purpose of the article's clause asking people to sign on the statement, a fact he later learned.

Micah, if you're telling me they are NOT saying this isn't the only way of faithfulness, WONDERFUL! I'd encourage them to clarify and offer less conscience-binding language, because many people have shared my misunderstanding. Blessings.

— Jonathan Leeman (@JonathanLeeman) July 27, 2020

Sadly, misrepresentations continue. Taking offence at one of MacArthur's remarks, Gary Ortlund asserts that MacArthur is saying that churches that do not reopen like GCC are not really churches and thus in sin. But that is NOT what MacArthur has said. Mark Lauterbach repeated Leeman's misunderstanding and also Ortlund's misunderstanding. On top of that, Lauterbach has apparently read into the article that GCC is equating their situation to full-scaled persecution. But that is NOT what the article has said. It merely asserts that government intrusion into the worship of God is a form of persecution, NOT that it is persecution like that suffered by the persecuted church around the world! Lastly, Lauterbach fails to recognize the major statements from GCC's particular application of her beliefs to her situation, which is sittuational, as Mike Riccardi has publicly stated!

The problem in American Christianity today, as seen in the blatant misrepresentations by Leeman (initially), Ortlund, and Lauterbach, is a disregard for the truth. What MacArthur and GCC has actually stated does not matter. What matters alone is what they THINK MacArthur and GCC are saying. Except for Leeman, Ortlund and Lauterbach have not retracted their blog posts and corrected their errors, although I can surely hope they do so. The problem of truth is not limited to the Liberals but also the Conservatives, both "Big Eva" and "Big Reformed." Besides the Covid-19 virus, the aversion to truth is truly endemic throughout American Christianity. How else can we explain why misrepresentations are seldom retracted, lies about people or ideas or things refuse to die, and there are absolutely no consequences or at the very least penitance from those who have engaged in violations of the 9th Commandment, both American Evangelical and Reformed pastors and theologians alike? The Genevan Commons fiasco is one such example where the 9th Commandment is routinely violated by Reformed pastors, for example. The churches in America have become just like the world, believing her own lies when it suits her!

Apart from God, there is no hope for the churches of America. She has imbibed the culture's aversion to truth, and refuses to repent of her craven idolatry, pastors and parishioners alike. Lord, have mercy!

How we should speak of sin

Aaron O'Kelley has a great article on the issue of speaking about sin, especially in light of the growing tolerance for vile wickedness at Christianity Today. An excerpt:

Polite discourse minimizes and, over time, neutralizes the instinct of moral revulsion. While moral revulsion alone is not enough to sustain ethical practice over time, it is an important community-shaping element. Healthy communities express moral revulsion at that which is truly abominable, and the healthy effect of such revulsion is a natural deterrent toward said behavior within the community. People who are socialized into being appalled at what is appalling to God have the blessing of a moral compass shaped according to truth.

It is not enough to say something is sin if we trivialize it. When God made divisions in sins calling some abominations, such ranking is meant to shape our discourse and understanding of life such that certain sins are to be considered so vile that they are to be treated with absolute disgust. Moral revulsion is a good thing, and it is sad that such an obvious point needs to be even mentioned in the first place.

[P.S.: Just remember, Christianity Today has also asserted (without proof) that voting for Donald Trump is a great sin. So evidently, for these "Evangelicals," voting for Donald Trump is a greater sin than flirting with "polyamory" or adultery]

CT on Polyamory

As if signs of apostasy in the American Evangelical church were not clear enough, Christianity Astray Today decided that an article about polyamory (what used to be called fornication and adultery) is acceptable to be published by them. While the article does assert that polyamory is sin, it also says this:

Another important pastoral step is to distinguish elements of polyamory that are in violation of God’s will from elements that are simply culturally unfamiliar to us. When we want to lovingly call people to repentance, we should be precise about what needs repentance and what relationships or elements can and should be sanctified in Christ. For example, the notion of kinship in polyamory is a secular echo of the way Scripture calls the church to function as a new family. In cultures that idolize individualism (but actually isolate individuals), polyamory’s focus on relationship, care, and affection can have a powerful pull. And in churches that idolize marriage and the nuclear family, polyamory’s focus on hospitality and community can be an attractive alternative. We can acknowledge that many of the elements that draw people to polyamory—deep relationships, care for others, hospitality, and community—are good things.

Whereas Scripture says:

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (1 Cor. 6:18)

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. (Eph. 5:11-12)

The problem with this article is less about the issue of trying to "redeem" elements from something that is so obviously sinful, but rather that this article has to be even written at all! As Jesus revealed in Ephesians 5:11-12, some evil are just too depraved that it is even shameful to be speaking about them, and the immediate context of Ephesians 5 is about sexual sin. The world has slowly desensitized even believers such that something so depraved can be treated as a legitimate topic of discussion, as if we are talking about ways to "redeem" food.

The sad thing is that this type of article was used to desensitize Christians on the issue of LGBTQ+, and now in certain circles of professing "Presbyterian" circles, calling LGBTQ according to its biblical category ("abomination") is grounds for rebuke by the pastor! Substitute polyamory with LGBT in any of the arguments that have been used by many liberal Christians (inclusive of "Side B" proponents aka Revoice), and the form of the arguments are identical in every way. When will Christians wake up and realize that we are being manipulated into tolerating sin?

It is grievous that Christians by and large have lost the vision of the holiness of God. We fail to recognize that what God says is the truth, period. We fail to recognize that what God says about sin is what sin is, and "abomination" is indeed "abomination." We are not given the liberty to alter God's Word and make God "kinder" than He really is. If God says something is an abomination, then the only right response is detestation and a holy hatred of that sin, and woe to the pastor who thinks himself smarter and kinder than God! Exactly who does he thinks he is, to go against the words of the Almighty God?

The sordid state of American Reformed Christianity on Twitter

On October 11, 2019, I had posted a response to Todd Pruit's tweet attacking a paragraph written by Douglas Wilson. In response to this, as I had previously commented on, Dr. Clark decided to block me on Twitter:

So as it can be seen, there are some against the FV who are factionalists. But what about the opposite side? Well, I decided to attempt to engage Richard Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministries on Twitter, in a thread as follows:

Because FV is not just about infant baptism but about doctrine of salvation?

— puritanreformed (@puritanreformed) November 19, 2019

My somewhat sketchy screenshots of the entire thread is as follows:

Despite my attempt at genuine conversation, Pierce decided that he has no wish to engage, slandered me as an "inquisitor" alongside my "inquisitor friends," and blocked me.

I guess I should not be astonished any longer, but I am astonished that Christian leaders on Twitter are now behaving like the world. I assert that one must be truthful even about Douglas Wilson, and I get blocked by one side. I attempted to reason that Federal Vision is a heresy attacking the faith, and I got blocked by the other side. Is there any Christian leader left on American Reformed Twitter that has some semblance of maturity, instead of behaving like children in a schoolyard!? How is all such refusal to actually engage the issue helpful for the truth? Both sides are like two kids screaming at each other from opposite sides of the hallway, refusing to engage. And these are our pastors and theologians?! God help us.

"Evangelical" racial SJWs and their deception

In light of the so-called MLK50 Conference, heavily promoted by the New Calvinists, and which claimed to be all about "racial reconciliation" but seemingly ended up causing a whole lot of confusion and division within the church, Dr. James White had posted a response to one strongly worded article by TGC council member Thabiti Anyabwile. In response, Anyabwile posted an article stating that "there can be no reconciliation where there is no truth-telling first," to which Dr. White responded in his Dividing Line podcast here. Essentially, Dr. White's first response argued that in Scripture, all our creaturely distinctions are eclipsed by the Cross of Christ, and there is where we should go to find Christian unity. Anyabwile's response to that is to state that truth-telling is the prerequisite for reconciliation, while Dr. White's second response is to show how Anyabwile has not really dealt with the biblical text (namely the book of Colossians and especially Colossians 3-4). Anyabwile's final response thus far is to claim that his critics have been committing an "Evangelical Gnosticism," which focuses on the spiritual while neglecting the creational distinctions still present while we live as embodied human beings on earth.

Now, I happen to think that both sides are right in their criticisms, mainly because the two sides are not really talking to each other but at each other. This goes for Dr. R Scott Clark's articles on racism as well (here, here, and here), which, while true, does not really deal with what seem to me to be the main SJW argument. On the one hand, the SJW racialists, Anyabwile included, have not really done their exegesis neither have they thought about what biblical reconciliation before the Cross implies for all within the church. They have not, to my knowledge, actually answered any actual arguments their critics have put forward to them except to advance their own arguments in return. On the other hand, Anyabwile's main argument does not seem to be addressed. We are indeed ensouled bodies, truth-telling is indeed necessary before we can talk about reconciliation, and putting forward an argument from Colossians 3-4 on Christian unity, while not addressing his arguments, is in my opinion not a very helpful thing, from an apologetic viewpoint.

The foundation of Anyabwile's arguments, and that of the SJW left, is their flawed idea of justice and their refusal to accept any narrative that does not line up with what they know, a priori, to be "the truth." Facts are sadly not important for the SJW. Now, I have no idea what is the truth regarding the supposed police shootings of black people, although I have read both sides. But first, the facts are disputable and it seems a strong case could be made that they are not actually evidences of police brutality and discrimination against blacks, as is argued in for example here (written by someone who is leaving The Village Church over Matt Chandler's racialism). But secondly, the SJW left is totally incapable of knowing the difference between equality, equity and fairness. They are NOT the same. In my interactions with certain left-leaning people, before all this racialism became such a big thing, none of them could discern the difference between these three concepts, probably even if their lives depended on it! Equality of outcome (Equity) was seen to be evidence of systemic discrimination! That, is classic Marxism! On a macro scale, such confusion of equality and equity will lead one to claim injustice and systemic racism anywhere so-called "people of color" (which almost always excludes Asians) are not doing as well in society as whites in America.

Thus, Anyabwile is right that, if there is any real racism and injustice, calling for unity while ignoring such sins is to put the cart before the horse. That is why I think that we need to address Anyabwile's Marxism first. Yes, there is no reconciliation without truth-telling. But what, Thabiti, is the truth? You think you know the truth, but you don't. You have been fed lies, and you promote lies, the lies of Critical Race Theory (Racial Marxism). That IS the problem which must be dealt with, for without dealing with the sea of lies the "evangelical" SJWs are soaked in, both deceived and deceiving others, there can be no getting through to them. They have a different paradigm, an anti-biblical paradigm, which they are using to interpret the Scriptures and the world. They know a priori what "justice" is, absent from the Scriptures, for the world with its distorted ideas of justice have polluted their thoughts.

The key dividing issue is not what constitutes "reconciliation" or "Christian unity," but rather, what constitutes "justice." And the sooner we start to realize that justice is not about fairness, the quicker we can start to address what biblical justice actually means.

The Gospel Coalition just has to prove its critics right

I think it goes to the whole structural problem in the whole young, restless and reformed thing, and that is, the guys at the top decided who was going to be allowed to make criticism, who they were going to listen to, and who they were going to ignore, and you end up, when you decide that, right at the start, you end up with a terribly, terribly potentially corrupt system. .. The truth is so rarely actually spoken into these guys' lives -Carl Trueman (10:45-11:14)

Kevin DeYoung recently wrote a hit piece attacking "internet criticism," and basically claimed that these guys aren't worth listening to. As if to prove my point, any posted criticism of DeYoung's article "miraculously" disappeared off their FB page. Now, just compare their action with what Dr. Trueman said about the entire YRR movement. Time and time again, we have been proven right, and over and over again, none of them want to listen. They rather blunder and abet more Mark Driscolls, more James MacDonalds and so on, and the train wreck continues. I had "prophesied" the train wreck, not because I possess the *gift* of prophecy, but because it was so obvious what was going to happen. Yet they ignored their critics and what we warned about came true.

This hit piece was written by Kevin DeYoung. Remember, this was the guy who hasn't apologized at all for insulting single men. When he talks about "internet critics," he means he can critique and attack anyone he wishes to, but the same is denied to those who push back against him. Evidently, to the YRR establishment, all they want is an echo chamber. Applause and accolades are welcome, but critiques are most certainly not welcome. Why they even bother with keeping up the facade of engaging in social media is anyone's guess, unless by "social media," they mean "I talk, you listen."

So here continues the New Evangelical Calvinism train wreck, coming to a town near you.

Mark Driscoll, Steven Furtick and Christian maturity (ADD)

It is no secret that people like Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick are not exactly nice to their critics. Driscoll likes to attack young men especially in their 20s as cowards and berates them to grow up. He furthermore attacks critics as bloggers living in their mother's basements blogging while wearing pajamas. Steven Furtick attacks his critics as "haters" who need to grow up. Both of these "pastors" while rather different do not hide their manifest disgusts at their online critics and young men.

It is the case that there may be some substance behind some of Driscoll's critiques. What I want to focus here however is to examine these men according to the true biblical criteria of what maturity is. As they attack others for being immature, are they actually mature at all?

What exactly is maturity? Is maturity defined by being married, as Driscoll puts it? Then the Apostle Paul is certainly immature according to Driscoll's standard.

There are different types of maturity: for example physical, intellectual, emotional, relational and spiritual. Since we are speaking of supposed "pastors," we would look at the pastoral epistles which specifically define the maturity required for leaders of the church.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3: 2-7)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

All pastors are elders of some sort, and thus are expected to be mature with the qualities exhibited. Most certainly we are not perfect, but these qualifications are not meant for only perfect people to qualify. One does not have to be perfect for example to not be a drunkard.

We start first with Mark Driscoll, the recent author of the salacious book on sex. How does Driscoll measure up to these attributes? Well, Driscoll is certainly the husband of one wife, and probably not open to the charge of debauchery and insubordination. He is however not above reproach, not self-controlled, and not a lover of good, and is not dignified. He also does not hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, with his blasphemous pornographic "visions" being a violation of Scripture and basic common sense. Compared to the standards of Scripture, Driscoll does not qualify as being mature.

Steven Furtick is much worse. He is not above reproach, definitely not well thought of by outsiders (and instead attacks his critics as "haters"), not self-controlled, not a lover of good etc. He attacks the sheep who want to go deeper into Scripture, certainly behavior more like a butcher just waiting to have lamb chops for sale than a shepherd.

According to the standards of Scripture therefore, both Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick are not mature. In their attacks against the supposed "immaturity" of young men and/or critics, they therefore have absolutely no authority whatsoever. It's worse than a pot calling the kettle black, because at least the pot does not take to itself the sacred office of the pastor.

Therefore, next time Driscoll or Furtick rants against immaturity, ignore them. They are basically over-age immature playground bullies. None of them are fit for the office which they illegitimately take hold of. Ironically, while deploring the immaturity of others (real or imagined), they are poster boys for the perpetual adolescence of boys who refuse to grow up. In other words, their very behavior manifests the pathology in today's adolescent culture.

This applies also to all who follow them. Shouting and berating others even for a good cause is not a sign of maturity. The kind of pseudo-masculinity paraded by Driscoll and others gives those of us who are complementarians a bad name, as if biblical masculinity is supposed to one that is interested in violence, "fight club," beer and sex (lots of it). Instead of letting the Bible defines what masculinity is, Driscoll defines masculinity as the almost total opposite of the effeminized cultural norms, as if the extreme opposite of an error is always the truth.

Let us therefore reject the examples of people like Mark Driscoll and Steven Furtick. Their examples only lead to more immaturity and a continuance of the pathological state of the perpetual adolescent culture. Instead, follow the examples of true godly men. Look to the examples of the pastors and elders of your local church (assuming it's a true biblical church), who though little known faithfully care for the flock without much recognition, honor and glamour. Such people despite their flaws are much more mature than Driscoll and Furtick can ever be, unless they repent.

Addendum: Just as to prove me right, Driscoll decided that calling British pastors cowards was an excellent thing to do.

James MacDonald, TD Jakes and the New Calvinist error

Recently, the blogosphere has heated up with the news first of James MacDonald's interview of "pastor" Perry Noble, and then his invitation of the Sabellian heretic TD Jakes to the same Elephant Room. After rightly taking flak for his invitation to Jakes, MacDonald attempts a defense of his actions, while Tim Challies, Dr. Carl Trueman and Phil Johnson have responded to the news accordingly.

The key issue that has been the focus of discussion is Jakes' orthodoxy or the lack of it. MacDonald has centered his defense in his incredible opinion that Jakes is not a Sabellian. Even if we make the incredible concession that Jakes is merely unclear about the Trinity, doesn't this fact alone disqualifies him as a Christian leader of any sort? Imagine the following:

Person X is unclear about the Deity of Christ, but he is a great Christian leader.

Person X is unclear about Jesus being the only way to God, but he is a great Christian leader

Person X is unclear about the need to be saved from sin, but he is a great Christian leader

It is astonishing that the New [Evangelical] Calvinists have devolved at such a frightful rate. Back in 2009, I wrote an article, which was later submitted to the CREDO500 conference, on the New Evangelical Calvinism as Colin Hanson's book and the formation of the Gospel Coalition around that time made it all the vogue. At that time, there were already worrisome signs of the devolution of the "New Calvinist" movement in the invitation of Federal Vision heretic Douglas Wilson to the Desiring God conference 2009. The invitation of Purpose Driven pope Rick Warren at DG'10 was a shocker as Warren denies the biblical Gospel. Now it seems that 2011 has just broke the 2 year record of YRR compromise with the watering down of evangelical distinctions such that even the doctrine of the Trinity, something even Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox believe in, is being thrown to the wind.

Note what James MacDonald, a council member of the Gospel Coalition, says in his defense. He states that "I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might." Imagine what would happen if the sentence was "I do not require Arius or anyone else to define the details of the deity of Jesus Christ the way that I might." Can we see the absolute mess the latitudinarian view of confessional doctrine brings us to? What is more fundamental than knowing WHO is this God we profess to worship? Does a husband say that he does not require that his wife knows his name before he marries her? If we cannot agree on who is this God we are worshiping, then why can't we just worship an idol while thinking we are worshiping God? Oh wait, that is called the Golden Calf incident and we know what does God think about THAT!

There are those who say that nobody will be de-converted just by listening to the interview. That may be true, but note that the compromise and damage is already done. Whether TD Jakes is a Sabellian as such has already faded in the background. Evangelicals, and YRRs especially, are being taught by this invitation and MacDonald's defense of it that how one defines or denies the Trinity is simply irrelevant for whether someone is a Christian. In other words, how one understands God is irrelevant to being a Christian. In 2009, YRRs are taught by John Piper that how one understands justification is not important to being a Christian, in 2010 it was the Gospel, and in 2011 James MacDonald tells us that how one understands God is not relevant to being a Christian. Is there no end to this New Evangelical Calvinist madness? What's next? An interview with David Yonggi Cho, the pastor of the largest "church" of the world? Maybe the YRRs can incorporate some of the name-it-claim-it rhema formulas taught by Yonggi Cho into their devotions! After all, MacDonald has already said that he is "also excited to hear him [TD Jakes who is a prosperity Gospel teacher] state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring [the] reformed world."

In that article on the New Evangelical Calvinism, my last point was on the issue of Christians as ambassadors of Christ. As I have written:

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.

... 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. ... 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.

As ambassadors of Christ, our job is not to be nice or to reach out to heretics via interviews. What do ambassadors do? They promote the agenda of the leadership in their countries. They are not to mediate as a third party between the leadership of their country and that of another nation! Rather, their interaction is pictured as them representing the leadership of their country. [Which is why the Libyan ambassadors around the world are heinous in their conduct during the Civil War] If they disagree with the policies of the countries they represent, they have no right to change the policies when they represent their countries, but must resign immediately!

So similarly, it is not the job of any Christians, much less pastors, to try to build bridges with those outside the faith. Again, it is not the job of Christians to build bridges with those outside the faith. You Christian, you pastor, are an ambassador for Christ. You have no right to write policies! You have no right to dictate the rules of conduct! You have no right to make judgment calls on who is inside or outside the kingdom of God except by applying the truth of Scriptures in this regard! You have no right to proclaim that TD Jakes is a brother since Scripture has already condemned him as someone who believes in another God! Shame on you, James MacDonald! Traitor to the faith and your calling!

May God grant MacDonald repentance for his compromise, or failing which, to remove his lampstand from his place (Rev. 2:5). Amen.

New Evangelical Calvinism: Rational and Lifestyle consistency

[continued from here, here and here]

---

Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency?

The inclusion of two emerging-leaning pastors in The Gospel Coalition, Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, creates cause for concern as to what degree this Gospel-centeredness extends to. Will we aim for rational and lifestyle consistency even in our profession of the Gospel, or will we settle merely for outward compliance to the Gospel and perhaps agreements on the major flashpoints of the culture wars like homosexuality, complementarianism, racism and missions? What makes these flashpoints more worthy of contending for as compared to the other doctrines and practices of Scripture?

In terms of rational consistency, Keller is on the record of supporting the error of Theistic Evolution [25], an anti-biblical theory which undermines the Gospel [26], [27], especially in its belief in death before the Fall, thus falsifying the biblical teaching that death is a consequence of sin (Gen 2:17; Rom. 5:12) and destroying the foundation of the Christian faith. The internal evidence for the historicity of the Genesis account of Creation is so strong and the dependence of other parts of Scripture on the historicity of that account, including our Lord's teaching, that to deny its historicity is to severely undermine the authority of the entire Scriptures[28]. As Dr. Robert Reymond has said:

Scripture in its entirety regards the Genesis account of man's early beginnings and doings as reliable history. The Genesis account of creation is referred to many times elsewhere in the Old and New Testament Scripture ... To call into question the historical reliability of Genesis 1 and 2 is to call into question the trustworthiness of the entirety of Scripture testimony on the issue of origins. The fall of Adam is referred to in Job 31:33, Isaiah 43:27, Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:12-19, Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Timothy 2:14. Cain's murder of Abel is referred to in Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51, Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12 and Jude 11. Finally, the Genesis flood is referred to in Isaiah 54:9, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5, 3:6. To call into question the historicity of Genesis 3-11, then is to call into question the trustworthiness of a great deal of later Scripture testimony..[29]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which Keller is supposed to believe in since he is in the PCA, states:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good (WCF, Chapt IV, Of Creation, Para 1. Bold added)[30]

Keller is rationally inconsistent in his belief in Theistic Evolution. At the same time, what he believes is contrary to the official creed of his denomination, which incidentally brings up the issue of confessional integrity but we should not digress. Since Keller is obviously a leader within the New Calvinist movement, this is a serious issue to be considered. This is so especially in light of the call to be Gospel-centered, and the insistence that such would not lead to being Gospel-only. But if the claim is made that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness because the implications of the Gospel precludes such, then the willingness to be rationally consistent is necessary since that argument (that Gospel-centeredness precludes Gospel-onlyness) assumes logical and rational consistency. The example of Keller in compromising the doctrine of Creation however should give us pause to ask the New Calvinists whether they will practice what they preach, or the proclaimed fidelity to being Gospel-centered is mere lip service than actual belief and commitment, and only has bearings on certain flash-point subjects while neglecting the other essential areas of the Christian faith and practice.

The issue of lifestyle consistency would come to the fore in the case of Mark Driscoll, the most controversial figure in American Christianity nowadays due to his penchant for inappropriate language. Just a cursory look at one of Driscoll's book [31] would be sufficient to cement on most people's minds the reputation of Driscoll as being crass, and Pastor John MacArthur's series on Pulpit Magazine[32] complete with actual links to and citations of Driscoll's sermons on the Songs of Solomon confirms it. Scripture calls us to be holy, as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16). What is the point therefore of professing orthodoxy when our lifestyles do not match our doctrines?

In both of these leaders in the New Calvinist movement, we have seen both rational and lifestyle inconsistencies which undermine the Gospel they claim to believe in, not to mention the authority of Scripture over all of life. Will the New Calvinists therefore strive to be consistent in both these areas, and not just pay attention to their profession of the Gospel and the flash-point issues they want to focus on?

References:

[25] Tim Keller, The Reason for God — Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, New York, USA: Penguin Group, 2008), p. 87-93

[26] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR, USA: MAsters Books, 1987)

[27] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashveille, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 116-126

[28] Ibid., p. 118

[29] Ibid., p. 118

[30] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (3 Vol.) Volume 3, as accessed on e-Sword.

[31] Driscoll, Confessions.

[32] John MacArthur, The Rape of Solomon's Song: Part 1 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4168), Part 2 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4169), Part 3 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172), Part 4 (http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4174), The Shepherds' Fellowship Pulpit Blog

On Driscoll and the New Calvinist movement - A response to the NYT article

The New York Times has came up with a hit article on Mark Driscoll, the controversial pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington. CRN, Tim Challies, Pyromaniacs, Steve Camp and even the Reformation21 blog have taken note and some have commented on it. While a little late, here are my two cents on the article.

First of all, before commenting on the article proper, the New York Times has previously shown itself to not being credible with its bias reporting, most especially seen in the coverage of the US election and the current counter-terrorist operation in Gaza. In my opinion, the New York Times [and almost all mainline newspapers also] has little or any credibility left, and anything written in it must be filtered to remove the liberal spin on whatever topic it is presenting, knowing that whatever it says is almost always one-sided and tailored to support the liberal agenda — in other words, propaganda. Therefore, whatever the article says must be critically examined and deconstructed instead of taking it as objective truth. [I so love deconstructing the liberals and their post-modernist offspring]

The article by Molly Worthen takes pot shots at two aspects of Mark Driscoll — his theology aka Calvinism, and his language usage. Her dislike of both is clearly evident throughout the article, though to her credit she tries to be factual and objective.

We will return to the Calvinism issue later, first focusing on Driscoll's propensity for crass and scatological speech. It is disturbing that Phil Ryken calls Driscoll's language usage, among others, masculinity. Our concern can be seen in this quotation from the article:

An “Under 17 Requires Adult Permission” warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: “Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?”

Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: “I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ ” The audience bursts out laughing.

Somehow I don't see what masculinity has to do with this sort of sexually degrading foul-mouthed talk. Or how about this even more shocking example from Driscoll's blog [Warning: Graphic language utilized]:

Question #21: Can I perform anal s-x on my wife?

Answer: The body is not well suited for this so make sure your wife is agreeable, do your homework, be careful if she is willing, and do not go from this to normal intercourse since you will infect her with bacteria. When you discuss the issue, it would be helpful for both of you to express why you do or don’t wish to participate in anal s-x and then pray about it for a time if there is disagreement. Most people are either for or against it, and very few people are neutral. Many wives are not agreeable to this so do not force it on your wife as she will be tense and that will cause her pain; if you love her you would not seek to shame her or cause her pain. Thus, anal s-x is technically permissible, but for a host of reasons may not be beneficial. We do not endorse everything on this website, but if you want to read some commentary on the issue from Christian married women, you can go to Christian Nymphos.

Ugh!

Now, is masculinity defined by being the exact opposite of the culture as being effeminate, such that men are to behave the exact opposite of what is considered proper and respectable conduct in society, including bringing the perverse influence of pornography into the church with such titillating language? Just because the effeminate institution calling itself the [visible] Church is about, to quote Driscoll, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.", dos this therefore mean that true biblical Christianity is the exact opposite? Why can't we let the Bible define what biblical Christianity and true masculinity is rather than being reactionary against the inroads of Feminism?

I do not think that it is hard to see what the Scriptures teaches regarding Driscoll's smutty language (cf Eph. 4:29). Since when has being doctrinally orthodox means that the way you live your life is not important? In fact, since a good tree brings forth good fruit and vice versa (Mt. 7:16-20), can such a chimera with sound doctrine and worldly living ever truly exists ( in fact not in appearance), except probably as a transitory phase?

Worthen claimed in the last sentence that "Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents." Before touching on the issue of Calvinism, I would like to submit that Driscoll's "New Calvinism" is not true Calvinism or Reformed at all. It may be Calvinism in the TULIP soteriological aspect, but what kind of Christianity is it that is so comfortable with the world such that worldliness enters the church with inappropriate R-rated public discussions on private issues such as s-x, and even homosexual-style s-x! As it is, Driscoll's words and actions especially in the capacity of a pastor drags the Lord's name through the mud with such unbiblical and repugnant behavior.

Phil Johnson chooses to focus on the Calvinism aspect especially in the last statement written by Worthen. I agree with Mark here that such seems to be "airing dirty laundry" in public. In this effeminate post-modern age, any form of confidence and certainty in the truth would surely be thought of as pride and arrogance by the "loving" and "tolerant" crowd (both within and without the visible Church btw). Those who like to talk about the "proper", "civilized" and "Christian" manner of discourse ought to peruse the Scriptures and Church History to see what true Christian discourse on such matters have been like before even utilizing the word "arrogance".

Back to the statement. Calvinism, contrary to Worthen's claim, does not embolden Christians. Rather, it is Christ that emboldens Christians. Like the prophets and believers of old, Christians today are emboldened to speak the truth with confidence and certainty because Christ is personally real to them. Those who know Christ will be changed by Him, and part of that lies in the confidence and certainty of the truth in Him. Being something that is at its root spiritual, it cannot be discerned by unbelievers though they can grasp it cognitively. Yet such is foolishness to them because they know not Christ nor have His Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14).

With regards to the statement as it is applied to Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, I think Steve Camp's statement here hits the nail on the head

Boldness for the gospel comes from the crucible of humility; and is not marked by the obscene and frivolous, but by what is reverent, holy, and Christ-exalting. Even in Seattle.

Amen.

For more, see this article Grunge Christianity? by Pastor John MacArthur

Sermon: Ten Indictments by Paul Washer

This is a message from Paul Washer that was preached Wednesday, October 22nd at the Revival Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Paul Washer delivers a urgent appeal to the Christians and Churches in North America (which is applicable to many in Singapore and around the world too) that many have been believing a false gospel and have false assurance of their salvation. He lists 10 indictments against the modern Church system. The first 9 that I can catch are:

1. A practical denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.
2. An ignorance of God.
3. A failure to address man’s malady.
4. Ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
5. An ignorance of the doctrine of Regeneration.
6. Ignorance regarding the nature of the Church.
7. A lack of loving and compassionate Church discipline.
8. A silence on Separation.
9. Psychology and Sociology have replaced the Scriptures with regards to the family.

You may download the sermon here

Incidentally, it is heartening to hear of Paul Washer's own testimony of the growing Reformed resurgence. Though it has its flaws, it can be seen that God is moving in the midst of the death throes of Evangelicalism and creating a new movement to advance His Kingdom. This has given me new impetus to start something here even in Singapore. Let us sacrifice our all for the sake of His Kingdom, and count all things but loss for the expansion of the glorious Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. While it is still day, let us work, and may God be merciful to the Visible churches in Singapore and grant us a new reformation and revival — to turn the entire Christendom in this region upside down!

[HT: Word and Verse, Lane's blog]

P.S.: While I do not agree with his assessment of infant baptism, the rest of his sermon is good and a needed indictment against the many false gospels and false doctrines circulating in our times. Also, it is also my opinion that certain forms of Covenantal Theology are more "theological" than the Scriptures. When your view of Covenantal Theology makes you devalue the necessity to call upon children of believers to personally repent of their sins, and devalue the need to call upon them to examine their lives to see if they are truly of the faith (and not they can assume they are Christians because they are brought up and instructed in Covenant homes), then there is certainly something wrong somewhere. It does NOT need a person to be sufficiently conversant with the intricacies of Covenant Theology to realize that such teaching is wrong. In fact anyone with a good grasp of the biblical Gospel can do so, no matter how "logical" it may seem to be when developing the theme of the Covenant. In fact, may I suggest that if your view of the Covenant logically necessitates such a view of children in the Covenant, perhaps you may need to re-evaluate your theology of the Covenant to see whether it actually conforms to Scripture, or it has become an intellectual and "reformed" yet pseudo-biblical framework which you use to eisegete the texts of Scripture? For Scripture DOES NOT contradict itself. If it seemingly does, then one or many parts of your theology is not biblical.

Driscoll orthodox?

This article casts legitimate doubts on the growing sentiment of believers about Mark Driscoll's orthodoxy. Not to mention Driscoll's manifestly inappropriate speech in the promotional video for the upcoming sexuality 'Song of Solomon' conferences, which probably sounds more like soft-porn I guess. (Yeah right, striptease dances by wifes to their husbands is biblical... Why hasn't anyone seen this before?...)

Honoring elderly heretics?

The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prephesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds. Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel, who hae been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? ...

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you sheherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I willl rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. (Ez. 34:1-10)

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers have killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this geneation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the alter and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. (Lk. 11:47-52)

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. " (Lk. 14:26)

I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts. (Ps. 119:99-100)

I have just recently received an interesting comment with regards to a post in which I exposed some of the heretics present in Singapore, and I am of the opinion that the reply merits a post of its own, since it touches on a certain issue very prevelant especially in Singapore: conditioning by culture. I would like to first present the comment as it was made, followed by my reply to it.

Dear Daniel

I am very glad that you have such an informative blog which allows me to discover and reflect on many issues regarding church and christianity. However, these are a few things i just want to share with you.

I truly admire and envy your knowledge in the word of God. However, do take note that sometimes, we do not let knowledge rule our heads. You always like to call people heretics, and these people are senior pastors who have probably read the bible more than the amount of rice you eat, what gives you the right to call them names? Even if the docrine is wrong, even if it is blasphemy, out of respect for elders, we should honor them. Remember the 5th commandment? Would the children of pastors who practice wrong doctrine be righteous if they call their moms and dads heretics or apostates? I believe not just to parents, but also to elders we should give honour to also. What's more, at the very bottom line, these people are doing God's word more than you do, they preach more than you, they lead people to Christ more than you, and you are not even a pastor, why be so critical?

This comment reflects a fundamental mindset very prevelant particular among Asians, who have been brought up to honor their parents and their elders NO matter what. Anyway, I would tackle this topic first, before answering each of the points he posed one by one.

The idea of honoring your elders is very prevelant in Asian cultures, and definitely to a certain extent, the Scriptures do emphasize this. The 5th commandment, for example, does tell us to honor our fathers and mothers. However, the problem is that in such cultures like my own, the 5th commandment is ripped out of its context, distorted, and moulded to fit the societal norm. As a corrective to such a distortion, we could look to passages such as Lk. 14:26 where Jesus says that if we cannot hate our fathers and mothers to follow Him, we cannot be His disciple. Obviously, this is talking about comparative hatred; that is, compared to our love for Christ, our love for our parents should be like that of hate. In other words, what the Bible actually teaches is that we are to esteem God more than our parents. Between honoring our parents or elders and honoring God, all Christians are to do the latter rather than the former.

With this established, let us look as to what God would ask us to do first before we actually talk about honoring our elders.

As I have demonstrated earlier in articles on whether we should judge people and of the judging of heretics, heretics are to be judged, and this is the responsibility of all Christians, not just special "elite Christians". Such heretics are also to be named. Scripture teaches all this, and thus an obedient Christian must obey His Word and agree to and do all the above.

The problem supposedly lies when the heretics are elderly, or at least older and higher up in position than us. First of all, I explicitly reject and deny any qualitative difference between the so-called clergy and the laity. Whoever wants to make such a difference is in effect creating a "Christian" caste system. Scripture, however, mentions that we are all priests before God (1 Peter 2:9) and thus there is no caste system within true orthodox Christianity. Yes, in Old Testament times, the Levites, and especially the Aaronic priesthood, were a special breed of people who ministered before God and were the only one allowed to do so. However, with the coming of the New Covenant, the curtain in the temple was torn in two (Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), symbolizing the fact that now all of us are allowed to minister before God as priests without the need of intermediaries (because Christ acts as our eternal intermediary; the one mediator between God and Man). Therefore within the community of Christians, no one, even if he is older, a Pastor or an Elder, is more 'infallible', more 'above reproach', or have a higher status than any other Christian. Just because a person is a pastor does not make the person less prone to temptations and to heresies either, and it certainly does not make him a pope! Also, the pastor does not become more and more 'infallible' with increasing number of people joining his church, unless your idol is 'church growth', of course.

The problem is actually easy to solve when we look at Scripture. Since where in Scripture is it stated that elders have a license to promote error? Is age somehow a mitigating factor? I don't see that in Scripture. Jesus was a relatively young person humanly speaking (30-33) when he pronounced woes on the Pharisees (Lk. 11:47-52), who were the religious leaders of his day and definitely some if not most were older than him. Yes, on hindset, we say that He is the Son of God and God Himself in the flesh, thus He is somehow given divine sanction to do this. However, we must look at the cultural context to see that His being the Son of God mattered little in the pronouncing of woes, except that He could do so infallibly. In the eyes of the Pharisees and the Scribes, here is an unschooled, young itinerant preacher, not trained in any of the rabbinical schools, yet challenging and pronouncing woes on them. Does it sound as if Jesus was honoring them because they are elders?

Let us move on to others, to show that Jesus as the Son of God was not the exception. How about the prophet Ezekiel? In Ez. 34:1-10, Ezekiel pronounced judgment upon the entire priesthood in Jerusalem because of their apostasy, and definitely there would be some that are older than him. Ezekiel wasn't a priest anyway. Or how about the prophet Amos, who was a simple herdsman and 'a dresser of syncamore figs' (Amos 8:14) before he was called to be a prophet. He was rebuked by the learned and elderly Amaziah the priest of Bethel (Amos 8:11-13), certainly a member of the clergy in Old Testament times when the clergy/ laity divide still held. Amaziah was in turn severely judged by the Lord as he was wrong (Amos 8:17). From the Scriptures, isn't it plain that God is no respector of age, nor of 'status'? Those who err, regardless of 'how many times they have read the Scriptures' (as if that equates to how spiritual they are), are to be judged, seniority playing no valid mitigating factor in the equation.

Having established this, should we then honor our leaders, elders etc.? Yes, the Scriptures did tell us to do that. However, how are we to honor them? Certainly, from what we have seen so far, excusing heresy or failing to judge heretics is NOT scriptural, and would constitute rebellion against God. How we honor them can be through expressing love and concern for them, and that we should listen to what they say UNLESS what they say is heresy. Also, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt (1 Tim. 5:19). However, if they have been proven to sin or are embracing heresy, they MUST be rebuked. For those who are ministering publicy like Elders, Pastors etc., they are to be rebuked and punished severely and publicy (1 Tim. 5: 20). Honor given to Man must always be subservant to obedience towards our Lord Jesus Christ and His commands expressed through His Word.

With all this stated, I would like to cover the points made by the commenter one by one.

You always like to call people heretics, and these people are senior pastors who have probably read the bible more than the amount of rice you eat, what gives you the right to call them names?

A heretics must be called a heretic; we call a spade a spade here. As I have said, seniority matter little in the Kingdom of God. The number of times a person has read the Bible does not neceessarily translate into the level of spiritual maturity and knowledge of God's truth. Witness the case of theological professors in liberal seminaries, especially in the US with groups such as the 'Jesus Seminar', where the professors do not even believe in Jesus Christ as being God. Yet are you going to dispute with these professors the number of times they have read the Bible?

A very pertinent passage to correct this madness and obsession with senority in service and years of being a Christian is to look at the Word of God itself. In Ps. 119:99-100, we have a very interesting look at what the Scripture says about spirituality and the Word of God. As we can see, those who meditate and keep God's Word are more knowledgeable than those who just merely read it (or don't read it but just progress in years of being called a Christian and serving God in some capacity). By meditating on God's Word, we can be more learned than those who are supposed to our teachers also; time is of little value here. Therefore, if I abide by the Word of God, I have all the right and authority to proclaim God's Word and apply it to all these senior pastors who have embraced various heresies.

Even if the docrine is wrong, even if it is blasphemy, out of respect for elders, we should honor them.

I have answered this previously. And the answer is no, we shouldn't.

Would the children of pastors who practice wrong doctrine be righteous if they call their moms and dads heretics or apostates?

Judging by the Scriptures, especially Lk. 14:26 for this matter, the answer is that they will be unrighteous if they do not do so. Note that I am not saying that you should condemn and hate your parents if they are heretics or apostates. You should say the truth in love, which involved doing BOTH, not loving them without telling them the truth (which is not true love anyway).

I believe not just to parents, but also to elders we should give honour to also.

Same answer as above.

What's more, at the very bottom line, these people are doing God's work [sic word] more than you do, they preach more than you, they lead people to Christ more than you, and you are not even a pastor, why be so critical?

Well, preaching and promoting heresy is not doing God's work. And if what they preach is wrong, or just plain shallow, it matters little how many sermons or how long they have preached. Better one sermon that has truly changed lives to live for God rather than many sermons that only serve to 'help' people improve their lives (self-help sermons) or worse still, sermons that promote heresy.

Regarding leading people to Christ, please kindly inform me how many of them (not their members) actually do lead people to Christ after they have embrace heresy. I have no desire to know of how many people they have led to Christ before they embrace heresy; that's irrelevant. And by leading people to Christ, I do not mean that these converts pay lip service to Him and be a regular worshipper. I am talking about true believers in Christ who are thus also disciples of Christ and obey His word, whatever the cost.

With regards to the fact that I am not a pastor, kindly do enlighten me what is it about a pastor that gives them a elevated 'immunity' status with regards to accountability. I'm sure you are well aware that many of Singapore's well known megachurch pastors do not have formal theological education, nevermind the issue of ordination. If being able to start a church by drawing members count as being a pastor, then almost anyone with the business acumen could potentially be a pastor also.

In conclusion, I hope that this missive of mine would help in answering the issue of honoring elders with respect to the whole issue of judging, and of judging heretics. As for me personally, I know enough church leaders who have way too much pride in them, and have bought into the entire Asian culture at this point, that I for one can honestly say that I have a very dim view of the leaders in the churches in Singapore. The arrogance coming out of their nostrils totally stinks!

The 'gospel' of Inclusion

Here is a video of a former black pentecostal pastor changing his mind regarding certain issues, including his idea of sin and specifically, homosexual sin. His explanation reveals quite a lot, like his basic trivialization of sin. It is my opinion that such a low view of sin is pandemic among modern-day evangelicals, and the reason why they can find it easy to criticize things like homosexuality is less because it is sinful and an abomination to God (as it should be the case) and more because it is a safe sin to demonize. Once they know of people whom they love being homosexual, that's when their conviction will put to the test. Carlton Pearson obviously fails the test. Instead of realizing the sinfulness and depravity of all mankind, and the fact that most people who call themselves Christians in America are that in name only and are probably unregenerate, which is partly his fault for not preaching the full counsel of God, he turned the other way into heresy and call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20). Let's pray for our leaders that they will convicted of the holiness of God against sin, and thus not fall as this leader had.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Virgilicious...

Look at the video clips found in here. If such "satire" rap is the humor that conservative Lutherans can come up with, then I have nothing much to say. Some parts look sexually improper also.

Check out the feedback here.

Emerging leaders....

Here is an article regarding the 'new breed' of emerging leaders. Guess 'being authentic' knows no bounds...

Article: Why many of today's evangelical pastors are cult-like

This is a good article by Brannon Howse on the reality of the nature of many of today's church leaders in general, and the gullible sheep who follow them. May God save us from such leaders.

Purpose Driven Blasphemy

Guess that there is no end in sight in the Purpose Driven Madness. A rap show has been produced by Minus media for the 2006 Purpose Driven worship conference which is nothing short of total blasphemy! You can watch the vidoe yourself here and read Slice of Laodicea's post here and Ingrid Schlueter's column on the subject here. The lyrics and the way the rap was done show a total mockery of God and His Word. Slice it whatever way you want, but, considering the lyrics and the rap in total, can anyone honestly tell me that this rap is not blasphemous and is genuinely worship?

Oh yah.... notice that the man said in the rap that 'My boss... his name is Rick Warren'. Guess that sums up the entire rap. Following Rick Warren, not God.

Addenum: Here is the page on Rick Warren's website where the video is promoted.

Excellent sermon...

Here's an excellent, superb sermon by Paul Washer from the HeartCry Missionary Society, and a missionary from the Southern Baptist Convention.. It seems that he was asked to preach at a youth event of about 5,000 youths, and the sermon that was preached was SO biblical that it SHOCKED all who were present, such that he offended the leadership and was never invited back again. I heard the sermon and it was very, very good, and it drove me to tears over my lack of perseverance in pressing on in disciplining myself towards consistently doing God's will. Here is the sermon. God bless Pst. Paul Washer and may God be pleased to raised up more preachers like him in this generation.