Category Archives: Current Issues

A Review of Jesus: His Life (Part 1)

Posted by Dan C. on

March 27, 2019 – Pastor Gabe Hughes

This is a Review of the first episode of Jesus: His Life by Pastor Gabe Hughes of Junction City Kansas, which he posted on his blog here. I read the article and then watched it myself. I found that this to be a highly credible article concerning the production. There is one thing he did not mention that I noticed at the end of his article. Without further comment, here is Pastor Gabe’s review.

Each Monday leading up to holy week, the History Channel is airing a docu-series called Jesus: His Life. The show awkwardly mixes in dramatic reenactments of the story of Jesus with commentary from an assemblage of (mostly liberal) Bible scholars.

The trailer to the show says that this is the life of Christ “told through the eyes of those who knew Him best.” History has never done very well with the story of Jesus. Their mini-series The Bible (more accurately termed The Bobble) was terrible. In addition to biblical inaccuracies, it just wasn’t entertaining. Jesus: His Life is equally dull. The mix of drama with commentary doesn’t work. The thematic scenes fail to be captivating, and the theotwits do not add any life to the program.

Given that the show is flat and fallacious, I don’t know why you’d want to bother with it enough to even read my review. But I offer this up anyway! The following is a play-by-play of the first episode, examining the life of Jesus though the eyes of Joseph. The time stamps are according to the video stream I watched on History’s website, sans commercial breaks. And away we go!

1:00 — Oh, hello Joel. Yup, Joel Osteen is the executive producer of this little number, so he’s one of the “experts” who will be popping up every now and then.

2:00 — The introduction is very “This is the story of how Jesus changed the world.” This is not going to be about how Jesus was sent by God and died as an atoning sacrifice for those who will believe in Him. This is going to be about how Jesus bucked the status quo and brought about a revolution of social change. This show will not present the gospel. Phrases like “Savior of the world” might come up, but they’ll never be explained. They’ll be framed in a social context, not a gospel one.

6:30 — Aside from some questionable theotwits, the information so far has been factual for the most part.

7:45 — (Edit) There’s a line I totally missed and someone pointed it out to me. When Gabriel appears to Mary, he says, “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. If you choose to accept His plan, you will conceive in your womb and give birth a son.” Not only does this make the announcement to Mary staunchly Arminian, it’s also pro-choice! Mary got to choose to have a baby. In Luke 1:31-32, Gabriel said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus.”

9:00 — Mary asks Gabriel, “Why has He chosen me?” Gabriel replies, “You are pure of heart and soul.” According to the story in Luke 1, Mary did not ask that question, nor was Mary told that the reason she was chosen. Gabriel said to her, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” When Mary was troubled, Gabriel said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” She was favored because God chose her, not because she merited worthiness.

9:30 — James Martin says, “Notice that when she says yes to the angel, she doesn’t ask her husband or her father. She says it on her own. So this is a very strong woman.” The feminism is strong with this one.

11:00 — Dr. Otis Moss III says, “When Mary says, ‘I’m pregnant, and you’re not the father,’ Joseph probably reacted in a typical male fashion. That’s why I love the story because it does not sugar-coat it as making Joseph holier than thou.” That’s why you love the story? Because of your own conjecture? Not because it’s about the birth of the Savior of the world? The show then portrays Joseph losing his temper, breaking stuff apart and throwing it around the house he had been building for him and Mary.

13:00 — Several teachers are cited as saying that if Joseph outs Mary publicly as having sex outside of wedlock, she could be killed under Jewish law. “Adultery is a crime punishable by death,” according to Dr. Robert Cargill. That’s true (Deuteronomy 22:20-24), but it’s unlikely Mary would have been put to death. The Jews couldn’t exercise capital punishment without permission from Rome. The Bible gives us no sense that Mary’s life was in danger. The only people being stoned to death at that period of time were those who would preach the gospel (Acts 7:59).

13:30 — Ah, Michael Curry, the Love Bishop.

14:30 — Joseph is seen cleaning up the house he trashed after his rage fit. I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will actually quote the Scripture itself. No one has. Matthew 1:18-19 says:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Being a “just man,” he knew what the law said concerning unfaithfulness. Being “unwilling to put her to shame,” he was not going to make a public spectacle of Mary. He knew the law was on his side. Rage-trashing his house is not divorcing her quietly.

16:30 — An angel speaks to Joseph in a dream and tells him the child in Mary’s womb is from the Holy Spirit. When Joseph goes back to Mary, I have to admit, I found the interaction between them rather touching. But then it was interrupted by commentary…

I covered this in my book 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says. There are no problems with the census in Luke. The explanation is simple. Luke does not give an exact time reference to when the census took place. He said, “In those days,” which is an unspecific period of time, and “this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” All Luke is pointing to is that these events were part of the same drama, not that they all happened at exactly the same time. There was no reason to use “a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.” Matthew didn’t use such an explanation in his gospel.

The dates often used by historians for the Christmas story are based on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. But sometimes Josephus was off by as much as a decade. Why are scholars so quick to villify Luke but justify Josephus? Luke under the appointment of the Holy Spirit is spotless in the telling of the gospel. Oh, and contrary to Dr. Cargill’s claims, people did return to their lands when a census was taken.

21:45 — Ben Witherington III says, “[Joseph and Mary] barely got [to Bethlehem] before it was time for Mary to give birth.” Not true, but that’s a minor point. I appreciate that the show does correct the myth that Jesus was born in a barn. He wasn’t. He was born in a house filled with family.

23:30 — Professor Nicola Denzey Lewis says, “Millions of women died in childbirth.” Millions of women in Judea died in childbirth?

25:00 — Shut up, Joel.

25:30 — Whenever an angel appears to someone in this show and says, “Do not be afraid,” they’re just kind of like, “Who are you?” No one is actually afraid.

27:30 — The show continues the myth that there were only three wise men. Except they made the black wise man the lead guy now instead of the token sidekick.

28:00 — Right before the commercial break, Dr. Cargill says of the magi, “Meeting Herod the Great must have been terrifying.” They probably had no idea who he was. But gotta keep the viewers in suspense!

29:00 — The show has the magi arriving at night. There’s no commotion in the city. Yet the Bible says they came to Jerusalem asking, “‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him.’ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:2-3). The number of magi and the size of their caravan were enough to alert all of Jerusalem and earn the magi an audience before Herod. This was a big deal. In fact the question they asked, “Where is the King of the Jews,” was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate over 30 years later.

30:30 — The magi say, “We followed a star. Our charts tell us it heralds the birth of a messiah.” No, they knew the star was leading them to the Messiah because they had the Jewish Scriptures.

32:30 — Joseph tries to refuse the gifts of the magi. That was weird.

33:00 — The Love Bishop says love things.

34:00 — Right before the commercial break, Joseph rebukes the magi for coming because they’ve put Jesus’s life at risk. Oh, good grief.

35:30 — The Love Bishop says, “Joseph keeps getting these dreams in Matthew’s gospel. He gets the dream that tells him the child is a miracle of God. Then he gets the dream telling him to flee Palestine and go to Egypt.” Joseph wasn’t listening to dreams. He was obeying God. Matthew 2:13 says, “An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy Him.'” The show doesn’t depict that. Instead, the show portrays Joseph having a vision of Herod giving the order to kill baby boys in Bethlehem.

39:30 — Joseph and Mary barely elude the guards and get Jesus out of Bethlehem during the massacre of the innocents. Oh, the drama. (I really thought I’d done a WWUTT video on the massacre of the innocents. Apparently not. I’ll get on that for next Christmas.)

40:30 — Joshua Dubois, Faith Advisor to President Obama, says, “The holy family become refugees.” These comments are always more politically loaded than they are biblically accurate. A refugee is someone forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or have been displaced because of a natural disaster. Yes, Joseph and Mary fled Judea to escape the wrath of Herod, but they never left the Roman empire. They would have gone to the Jewish settlement in Alexandria, Egypt. There they were quite secure among their own people, and they had the gifts from the magi to pay for their stay. This was not like we would consider a modern-day refugee.

41:00 — Dr. Moss points out that Joseph protected his wife and a child who was not his own. “Joseph becomes a beautiful model for fatherhood today. Where would we be if we had more men who operated like Joseph?” I appreciate the sentiment. But the question is better asked, “Where would we be if more men obeyed God?”

Part 2 examining the life of Jesus through the eyes of John the Baptist coming at a later time… Maybe.

_____________________________________

Dan’s Note:

Missing in the angel/Joseph dialogue was the statement by the angel that “you shall call his name ‘Jesus’ for he will save his people from their sins.”, which was the main purpose in Jesus coming – to save his people from their sins! Will this series fail in presenting a clear and concise message that Christ died for the sins of men, as Pastor Gabe suggests in his critique?

Should Christians Not be Known for What They are Against?

Posted by Dan C. on

by Eric Davis, The Cripplegate

You’ve heard it said. “I don’t want to be known for what I am against, but what I am for.” “Christians should be known for what they are for, not against.”

It sounds good and noble. After all, a ministry or person that only speaks of what they are against is missing out on much of the content and emphasis of the Bible. Often these are self-proclaimed discernment ministries who do little more than step on others as they stand higher. In so doing, they have veered from Scripture. Pastors are to preach the inspired, inerrant text of Scripture. We will have to twist, avoid, and misinterpret much Scripture if we only speak in terms of opposition.

But more to the point. Should Christians avoid being known for what they are against? Here are a few thoughts for consideration.

  1. That’s not the way to wisely approach life in general.

Imagine a mom who takes this ideology. “Yeah, kids, I don’t want to be known in my mothering for what I’m against. So, you know that Twinkie-Koolaid-Cheeto diet you keep mentioning? I don’t want to be known as against that anymore. Go for it. Oh, and I don’t want to be known for being against you running out into the street, having to come home before dark, and taking indiscretionary time on the internet, so, go ahead.”

Consider a salesman who did not want to be known for what he was against in his job. “Hi Mr. Client. I don’t want to be known for what I’m against, so, honestly, all of the inferior products out there are excellent too. Just invest in whatever one. I am for all of them.”

Imagine an oncologist who did not want to be known for what they were against. “Well, I don’t want to be known for what I am against, Mr. Patient. So, I’m not going to take a firm stance against tumors, metastasis, and cancerous growths. I want to be among the oncologists who, instead, are known for what they are for.”

A post Genesis 2 society requires that we be known for what we are against. Faithfulness, generally in life, requires being against things. To be faithful, a mom will need to be against things. To be a faithful salesman requires being against things. Faithfulness as an oncologist necessitates being known for being against things. In every sphere of life, the goal is faithfulness. That is generally how we seek to operate. That will mean sometimes being for things, sometimes being against things, and always faithfulness to God and love for people in the task.

2. To construct and conduct a good, stable society, we must be known for being against things.

To promote and propagate a loving, flourishing society, we must be against things. And it should be known that we are against things, as a society.

Loving people means we need to be against rape and murder. Recognizing God’s image-bearing means we must be against racism and prejudice. It means we are against unnecessary war. Value for human flourishing means that we are against anarchy and stealing. To construct and conduct a good, stable society, we must be known for being against things.

3. The person who wants to be known for what they are for is also known for what they are against.

The guy who wants to be known for what he is for is known for being against things. He is known for being against being known what he is against. Perhaps he is known for being against other things. Maybe he is known among his friends for being against vegetables that do not have the organic label on them. Or, he may be known in his spheres for being against not working out four days per week, a certain political view, and other ideologies. Perhaps he is also known for being against those who would be against him.

Whatever the case may be, the person who wants to be known for what they are for cannot escape that they are known for what they are also against. The difference could simply be that it is more socially fashionable in certain sub-cultures to be known for being against the particular things that they are against. So, the real issue is not that they want to be known for what they are for, so much as it is that they want to be known for being for a particular subset of currently trendy ideologies.

4. There are things that God wants us to be known for being against.

The God of the universe wants to be known for being against things. Take the Ten Commandments, for example. Eight out of the ten involve an explicit command to be against something. God is against other gods and the worship thereof (Exod. 20:3, 5). God is against making objects which represent him (Exod. 20:4). God is against carrying his name in an unworthy manner (Exod. 20:7). God is against murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting (Exod. 20:13-17). And regarding those commands stated in the positive, we can conclude that God wants us to be known for the contrary of those things. In other words, God wanted his people to be against forsaking the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8). He wants us to be known for being against dishonoring our parents (Exod. 20:12).

A look into Leviticus explains many more things that God’s people were to be known for being against (e.g. Lev. 18-20). “Well, these are only commands against something. That doesn’t mean that we are to be known for being against them.” Israel, the original recipients of these commands, was to be a holy people to the nations. They were to be known for their differences, which meant being known both for things they were for and against.

The New Testament instruction is similar. The apostle Paul indicates that the Ephesian church was to be against things like living as unbelievers (Eph. 4:17, 22), falsehood (Eph. 4:25), stealing (Eph. 4:28), unwholesome speech (Eph. 4:29), grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), bitterness (Eph. 4:31), unforgiveness (Eph. 4:32), immorality, impurity, and greed (Eph. 5:2), and “filthiness…silly talk, or coarse jesting” (Eph. 5:4). Paul instructed them to be against “unfruitful deeds of darkness” to the point that they would “even expose them” (Eph. 5:11).

Paul wanted his people to be against false doctrine to the point of exposing and eradicating it (1 Tim. 1:3, 4:1-4, 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:25, 4:2). In fact, elders are commanded to “exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9), which will mean being known for being against those contradicting doctrines. In the case of unsound teachers and teaching, Paul commands church leaders to “reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). There, Paul calls out specific doctrines and beliefs that he was against, and that Titus and the men he trained were to be against. Later, Paul exhorts Titus similarly, “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). Obeying that command would mean, in part, Titus being known for some things both that he was for and against.

Peter also assumes that God’s people would be known for what they were against in their hostile, first century Greco-Roman culture. “In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you” (1 Pet. 4:4). Apparently, Christians there were known for being against things in pop-culture to the point that the unregenerate were amazed that they were against them. And that was a good thing according to Peter.

Does this mean that God only wants his people to be known for what they are against? Of course not. We are to be known for loving our neighbor as ourselves, glorifying God, and studying the Bible. We are to be known for the unregenerate putting faith in Christ for salvation. We are to be known to have a zeal for good works in the name of Christ (Titus 2:14).

5. The ministries of godly men in Scripture were known for what they were against.

If God’s people are not to be known for what they are against, then the ministries of men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, and John the Baptist were in disobedience to God. If that’s the case, then their ministries were outside of God’s will.

6. Jesus was known (and hated) for what he was against.

Jesus was hated by many people in his culture because of what he was known for being against. He was against an attitude which could not receive correction. He was against the idea that we should not make waves but just keep everything smooth and calm. He was against the demeanor which could not handle rebuke, reproof, and confrontation of sin. He was against the attitudes of self-promotion, self-actualization, and self-glorying (Matt. 23:5-6).

In what way was he known for being against such attitudes? Those attitudes characterized those against whom Jesus often spoke; the scribes and Pharisees. They could not stand it when Jesus confronted their sin (Matt. 21:45-46, Mark 12:12, Luke 11:45-46).

The reason they plotted his execution is because he was against those aforementioned ideologies which characterized them. Jesus was known in his decadent, self-indulging culture as someone who was against many such things. And they hated him for it.

7. Much of the content in the NT epistles is against something.

Many of the New Testament books were written specifically to oppose and correct some teacher and teachings. The Holy Spirit could have inspired these letters under many different circumstances. Several of those circumstances involved a letter where both the divine and human author (and by extension, the true NT church) was to be known for being against things. Those letters have now made it into the most widely selling book in history. Those who read the book with eyes to see understand both that there are many things that God, and his people, are known for being for and against.

For example, the letter of 1 Corinthians informs the world that God’s people are to be against self-promotion and self-aggrandizement (1 Cor. 1-2), self-ambition in ministry (1 Cor. 3-4), bragging (1 Cor. 4), refusing to carry out church discipline (1 Cor. 5), inter-Christian lawsuits and sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6), unbiblical divorce and aimless singleness (1 Cor. 7), self-centeredness in liberties (1 Cor. 8-9), and unintelligibility in corporate worship (1 Cor. 14).

Similarly, Galatians is written to let all know that God’s people are to be against the idea that one could be acceptable before God apart from justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Colossians was written to let all know that God’s people are to be against ideas that Christ was anything less than truly God and truly man. At the same time, God’s people also say that we are emphatically for the opposite of the aforementioned errors, namely, the truth.

In Peter’s dying words in 2 Peter, he spends 22 verses showing how much he is against false teachers and teaching (2 Pet. 2:1-22). John and Jude do similar in their epistles.

Much of the content in the NT is explicitly against something. Therefore, it is an inaccurate and myopic motto for God’s people to say, “I only want to be known for what I am for, not against.” Such a motto will have to depart from the Holy Spirit’s work in much of the New Testament. To stay consistent with the content and force of Scripture, one will have to, at times, be known for what he is against.

8. A desire to not be known for what we are against can come more from culture than Scripture.

The idea of, “I want to be known more for what I am for, not against,” seems to originate from outside Scripture. It sounds ominously like king Ahab’s ideology: “There is one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1 Kings. 22:7-8). Ahab only wanted someone in his midst who was known for what he was for.

Perhaps this ideology is an indicator that we have become more like culture than Christ. Decadent postmodernism is really at an all-time high these days. It’s hard to not get wet when we’re in the water. So, for some who say, “I want to be known more for what I’m for,” here is what has happened: they are culturalized to the point where any type of correction is loathed. Correction and a polemical edge are like nails on a chalkboard. When an individual or ministry is not speaking against something, it gets a pass. However, when someone is needing to be against something, they cry foul. The underlying self-actualizing, decadent attitude fuels a hatred for necessary correction. This then colors the individual’s perspective. The result is that they can, and will, only see the individual in terms of the thing they hate, which, in this case, is being against something.

9. We should ask ourselves our motives for not wanting to be known for what we are against.

Let us ask ourselves, “What is my deepest motive for not wanting to be known for what I am against?” Complete the sentence as honestly as possible before God: “I really don’t want to be known for what I’m against because I really want ____.” What fills that blank?

The human heart can be so deceptive. We can take good things and make them idolatrous things in an instant. A desire to be loving can quickly degenerate into the gross idolatry of loving that people know that I am loving. A desire to love sinners can swiftly mutate into the idolatry of lusting that people know that I am different than those stuffy Christians; I am accepting, cool, and tolerant. A mind to simply love people can transform into the ugly idol of craving that people know how diverse my friendship base is. The human heart is truly wicked. In an instant we make idols such as love for praise, lust for approval, and craving to be known as fresh and new.

Could it be that the ideology of, “I don’t want to be known for what I am against,” has some gross idolatry fueling it?

10. God’s goal for us is neither that we would be known for what we are for or against.

The Bible does not command us to not be known for what we’re against or for. God’s goal is broader. “Do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person” (Eccles. 12:13).

Neither is there a command to be balanced. Rather, the command is to obey God for his own glory. Better than thinking of being balanced is being obedient, comprehensively so.

Conclusion

Love to our neighbor and God require a measure of being known for what we are against. Love to our neighbor and God also require a measure of being known for what we are for. But, the goal of the Christian life should be neither. I should not preach to myself, “I need to be known for what I’m against,” nor, “I need to be known for what I am for.” God’s word does not favor either.

Instead, Scripture gives a plethora of commands for the church to carry out. They all fall underneath the great anthem, “Do all to the glory of God.” Being known for what we are for is not more in line with glorifying God than being known for what we are against. Inherently, neither is more attached to glorifying God. There may be situations where being known for being against something is more glorifying to God (e.g. false doctrine, prosperity gospel, arrogant pride in the church). And there may be situations where being known for being for something is more glorifying to God (e.g. loving our neighbor, evangelizing the lost, the sinlessness of Christ, the substitutionary atoning death of Christ, the grace of God abounding to sinners). For preachers, we are for obedience to God in faithfully preaching the next verse. In doing so, that might look like being against something, depending on the text. For all Christians, things like cultural sins and doctrinal aberrations may also require being against something.

So, next time a brother or sister speaks against an issue, consider an alternative to thinking, “We need to be known for what we are for, not against.” Consider instead something like, “We need to be known for faithfulness to all of God’s word. That is going to mean being for and against think, depending on the situation.”

Social Justice | Think on These Things

Posted by Dan C. on

(Volume 24, Issue 6, December 2018/January 2019) Of the hot-button issues circulating right now, in both society and the church, nothing has drawn more interest
— Read on tottministries.org/social-justice/

In my opinion, an excellent analysis!

Lauren Daigle and the State of Contemporary Christian Music

Posted by Dan C. on

A little over a month ago Christian Daigle , award winning Christian singer (on secular and Christian charts) appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show and sang one of her songs from the album “Look Up Child”. She was bashed for even appearing on the show. My question was whether or not a clear presentation of the gospel was anywhere to be found. My assumption was ‘probably not’, given that her host was crazy about her.

What I did do is download all of the lyrics to all of the songs on the “Look Up Child’ album. And gather some statistics using several key words, which could at least tell me if a clear gospel message was present in any of her songs. Here are the numbers for the 11 songs from the album:

  • The word “sin” appears 1 time – “O’er us sin no more hath dominion” in a line from the song “Turn Your Eyes on Jesus” she did NOT even write. but was written in 1922 by Helen Lemmel  Like many others Ms. Daigle just re-styled it and called it her own.
  • “God” appears 1 time in one song.
  • “Jesus” appears in “Turn your eyes on Jesus” (she didn’t write it)
  • “Savior” 3 times
  • “Lord” 1 time
  • “You/your” as reference to God/Jesus 40+ times
  • “Saved” is used 1 time (You saved me, but no mention of from what

Sadly, the above lyrics reflect the tenor of a LOT of today’s so-called worship music. One article expressed the state of things rather well. It was called “32 Lyrics From Lauren Daigle’s ‘Look Up Child’ That Will Put You Squarely In Your Feels”.

These days ‘worship’ is all about our ‘feels’. Whether it’s the lyrics and presentation (Lauren has a tremendous voice!), the rock style music with loud whining chords and pounding drums (that actually drown out the lyrics, or the concert atmosphere, it’s all about the ’feels’.And when the lyrics can be understood, they seem to lack any clear presentation of a solid gospel message, very little actual theology with much of it really BAD theology (God’s love is ‘reckless’?).

The saddest part of all, is the sheer number of professing ‘Christ followers’ who have absolutely no issues with Ms. Daigle or the myriad of other CCM artists just like her. Must be the ‘feels’.

So much for my little rant. There’s nothing personal directed at any particular CCM artist, it just is what it is.

Heavy sigh…………

Dan C.

Social Injustice and the Gospel by John MacArthur

Posted by Dan C. on

This is the first of several articles Dr. MacArthur plans addressing an important issue concerning the evangelical church.

Social Injustice and the Gospel

by John MacArthur

Monday, August 13, 2018

Scripture says earthly governments are ordained by God to administer justice, and believers are to be subject to their authority. The civil magistrate is “a minister of God to you for good . . . an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:1–4). But it is also true that no government in the history of the world has managed to be consistently just. In fact, when Paul wrote that command, the Roman Emperor was Nero, one of the most grossly unjust, unprincipled, cruel-hearted men ever to wield power on the world stage.

As believers, “we know . . . that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), so worldly power structures are—and always have been—systemically unjust to one degree or another.

Even the United States, though founded on the precept that all members of the human race “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” incongruously maintained a system of forced slavery that withheld the full benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from multitudes. Many generations of people from African ethnicities were thus legally (but immorally) relegated to subhuman status. According to the 1860 census, there were about four million in the generation of slaves who were being held in servitude when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War and the abolishment of slavery did not automatically end the injustice. A hundred years passed before the federal government banned segregation in public places and began in earnest to pass legislation safeguarding the civil rights of all people equally. Until then, freed slaves and their descendants in Southern states were literally relegated by law to the back of the bus and frequently treated with scorn or incivility because of the color of their skin.

I got a small taste of what it felt like to be bullied and discriminated against in the American South in the 1960s. I spent a lot of time traveling through rural Mississippi with my good friend John Perkins, a well-known black evangelical leader, preaching the gospel in segregated black high schools. During one of those trips, as we drove down a dirt road, a local sheriff—an openly bigoted character straight out of In the Heat of the Night—took me into custody, held me in his jail, and accused me of disturbing the peace. He also confiscated (and kept) all my money. He ultimately released me without filing charges. I suppose he considered the money he took from me an adequate fine for doing something he disapproved of.

In those days any appeal to higher authorities would have been fruitless and possibly counterproductive. All I could do was try not to antagonize him further.

I was again ministering in Mississippi with John Perkins and a group of black church leaders in April 1968 when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis. One of the men leading our group was Charles Evers, head of the Mississippi NAACP. (His brother Medgar had been killed in 1963 by the KKK.) When news of Dr. King’s murder broke, we drove to Memphis—and literally within hours after Dr. King was assassinated, we were at the Lorraine Motel, standing on the balcony where he was shot. We were also shown the place where James Earl Ray stood on a toilet to fire the fatal shot.

I deplore racism and all the cruelty and strife it breeds. I am convinced the only long-term solution to every brand of ethnic animus is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christ alone are the barriers and dividing walls between people groups broken down, the enmity abolished, and differing cultures and ethnic groups bound together in one new people (Ephesians 2:14–15). The black leaders with whom I ministered during the civil rights movement shared that conviction.

The evangelicals who are saying the most and talking the loudest these days about what’s referred to as “social justice” seem to have a very different perspective. Their rhetoric certainly points a different direction, demanding repentance and reparations from one ethnic group for the sins of its ancestors against another. It’s the language of law, not gospel—and worse, it mirrors the jargon of worldly politics, not the message of Christ. It is a startling irony that believers from different ethnic groups, now one in Christ, have chosen to divide over ethnicity. They have a true spiritual unity in Christ, which they seem to disdain in favor of fleshly factions.

Evangelicalism’s newfound obsession with the notion of “social justice” is a significant shift—and I’m convinced it’s a shift that is moving many people (including some key evangelical leaders) off message, and onto a trajectory that many other movements and denominations have taken before, always with spiritually disastrous results.

Over the years, I’ve fought a number of polemical battles against ideas that threaten the gospel. This recent (and surprisingly sudden) detour in quest of “social justice” is, I believe, the most subtle and dangerous threat so far. In a series of blog posts over the next couple of weeks, I want to explain why. I’ll review some of the battles we have fought to keep the gospel clear, precise, and at the center of our focus. We’ll see why biblical justice has little in common with the secular, liberal idea of “social justice.” And we’ll analyze why the current campaign to move social issues like ethnic conflicts and economic inequality to the top of the evangelical agenda poses such a significant threat to the real message of gospel reconciliation.

I hope you’ll see that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25)—and that’s never more true than when we are talking about the strategy God has chosen for the spread of the gospel and the growth of Christ’s kingdom.

Source

Robert Gagnon: Concerns With the upcoming Revoice Conference and “Spiritual Friendship Folk”

Posted by Dan C. on

This article is courtesy of Pulpit & Pen

Concerns with the upcoming Revoice Conference and Spiritual Friendship Folk

By Dr.Robert Gagnon

While I am glad for the fact that persons at the upcoming Revoice Conference (July 26-28, St. Louis, in a PCA venue) and those who align with the “Spiritual Friendship” program want to refrain from engaging in same-sex intercourse and thereby uphold this part of the orthodox witness, I have seven consequential concerns about their views.

1. Inadequate engagement with the need for “renewal of the mind” as regards homosexual desires. Is there any asking of: “What is the false narrative that gives these impulses particular strength? Why am I viewing a person of the same sex as a sexual complement or counterpart to my own sex? Why am I aroused by the distinctive sexual features of my own sex, by what I already have? Am I thinking of myself as only half of my own sex? What kind of strategies for renewing my mind can I use to counter this false narrative beyond ‘washed and waiting’?” Instead, the benefits of a generalized “gay” perspective (minus the sex) are celebrated or lifted up. Even if one’s attractions may not change with such an evaluation, they can be disempowered by exposing the lie that lies behind attempts to gratify same-sex desire or (for “transgenders,” so-called) to deny one’s biological sex altogether. There is more to be addressed here than refraining from homosexual sex.

2. The adoption of terminology for self-identity that cannot be sanctified and inevitably brings in the whole “LGBTQ” baggage (“sexual minority,” “gay,” “transgender”). This terminology is normally associated with self-affirmation rather than sin and switches the obligation of the church from a call for repentance and restoration to a call for inclusion and diversity that celebrates what should be mortified. The fact that evangelical proponents of the “sexual minority” language are unwilling to use it of those with a pedophilic or polyamorist orientation should tell us all something.

3. A greater focus on a victim mentality than on the need for disengagement with the LGBTQ agenda (hence their refusal to sign the Nashville Statement). It is more important for them to say that the church has treated persons with same-sex attractions in an ungodly way throughout its history (painting with a broad brush) than to say that those who promote homosexual practice and transgenderism in the church are committing heresy. Indeed, they usually reject the heresy charge and any arguments made from Scripture that homosexual practice is a particularly severe violation of God’s standards for sexual ethics. Many cast entering into homosexual unions not as egregious sin but rather as something less than the maximal “flourishing” that God has for us. Self-critique generally doesn’t go further than a non-moral disability model. This in turn often leads to favoring church membership (without church discipline) even for self-professed Christians actively engaged in homosexual relationships.

4. Support for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that lead to the persecution of Christians and the erosion of the church’s own standards (since indoctrination in the sphere of the state affects the views that people carry into the church); even general support by some of, or at least strong sympathy for, “gay marriage.”

5. An apparent aversion to any thought of developmental influences on any homosexual attraction and discouragement of any who seek help for reducing the intensity and direction of same-sex sexual attractions. Indeed, the idea of some Christians who shift on the Kinsey Scale in the direction of less homosexuality is viewed as a virtual betrayal of the benefits of being “gay” and a threat to those who have not experienced any orientation change. They not only assert that such change is not possible for them but also appear to want to close the door for all others. Granted, a change in the experience of same-sex attractions is not requisite for being a strong Christian; God can declare “my grace is sufficient for you” without removing said attractions. Yet doesn’t God also at times remove or significantly ameliorate the deprivation or difficulty (see numerous Gospel miracles)?

6. A formulation of spiritual friendship that looks an awful lot like marriage minus the sex: viz., a promise of lifelong commitment to one person of the same sex viewed as one’s “significant other.” 

7. A greater affinity to “gay Christians” who are in, or looking to be in, a committed homosexual union (the Justin Lee “Gay Christian Network” type) than with Christians involved in Restored Hope Network who operate with ex-gay transformation ministries (Stephen Black of RHN had his registration money for the Revoice Conference returned and his attendance revoked) or even with Christians such as Rosaria Butterfield who are not big fans of reparative therapy. Does this show that their “gay” identity means more to them than their Christian identity? That they really do feel a deeper partnership (koinonia) with those violating Scripture’s teaching on homosexual practice?

A good distillation of quotations from key figures in the Revoice Conference can be found here.

Many Christians of younger generations are now turning to this “LGBTQ-lite” movement as a way of running for cover against charges that they hate “gays” and “transgenders,” as though this were the only show in town. A bit more critical reflection is in order. It is just possible that the Spiritual Friendship people can learn something from those who have gone before them and who have had a longer track-record of being faithful to the cause of the gospel. 

I do not say that they are “heretics.” They are brothers and sisters in the Lord. However, I do believe that they have significant room for correction. I also think that a number of their views will be used by other Evangelicals, now and in the future, as a transitional stage for a much greater embrace of “LGBTQ” ideology and agendas. Those leaders in the group experiencing same-sex attractions may even be putting themselves at higher risk, through multiple accommodations in theology and behavior, of taking the route of others (like Julie Rodgers) into full departure from orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I trust that they would argue that the exact reverse is the case; my concern remains. Let us pray that they will be firm in the faith, not deceived by ungodly notions emanating from a desire to legitimize same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion and benefiting from the insight of others beyond their close-knit circle.