Libérez enfin!

post deleted at writer's request

2011-11-02T13:40:00.004-05:00

RE: Backsliding is Not a New Testament Message

2011-10-09T17:27:00.004-05:00

I hardly ever comment on blog posts, but I did on this one. My guess is it won't get through moderation, so I'll post my comment here.

The post I am responding to is Backsliding is Not a New Testament Message

October 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Eileen says:

This post is a great example of “Do as I say, not as I do.” You scold people for letting the Old Testament inform their interpretation of the New Testament (which I was taught is a good idea), and then you let your Calvinist “once saved, always saved” dogma color your interpretation.

If I get your explanation, the Hebrews passages are hypothetical. If that’s true, they also are meaningless and irrelevant, to both people who have been saved and those who have not. Believers can’t fall away, and the unsaved certainly are in no danger of it. That must be why there are so many warning passages in the New Testament.

If not backsliding, what do you call it when a genuine believer gets “caught in trespasses”? And what if backsliding and falling away are two different things? No, you can’t be saved, turn your back on Christ and be saved again. That’s the point of the passages. But if a genuine Christian can’t turn his back on Christ and be lost, what’s the point of all the warning passages? Who can regard as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, except someone who has been saved?

Throughout her entire history, the church has had a doctrine of apostasy. Then John Calvin twisted the meaning of perseverance and his followers decided a major historical Christian doctrine was nonsense. Today, we have pulpits declaring the impossibility of apostasy, and a Bible that warns believers there are serious dangers in the land.

Yes, a person is either saved or lost. There is no middle ground. But if it is not possible for a genuine believer to turn his back on Christ and be lost in eternity, then a great many passages in the New Testament make no sense at all.

The GCRTF 'progress' report

2010-02-23T22:02:00.014-06:00

Oh, where to begin?

The Southern Baptist Convention's "Great Commission Resurgence Task Force" delivered a "progress report" to the denomination's Executive Committee on Monday evening. Chairman Ronnie Floyd, who is pastor of a mega-church in Arkansas, spoke for the task force, which was commissioned last summer with finding ways for the denomination's churches to be more effective in accomplishing the "Great Commission," which is Jesus' command to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 29:19-20).

The GCR committee was created, ostensibly, to rescue the denomination from what some predict will be a slow, painful death. Membership growth is not what it ought to be and baptisms are not happening in the kind of numbers you would like to see in a healthy church family. Committee member Danny Akin, president of a SBC seminary in North Carolina, said a new generation of pastors would not support the SBC unless it decided to no longer be a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.

Delegates to the denomination's meetings this past summer voted overwhelmingly to create the committee (Southern Baptists love to create committees!) and a young pastor at an early GCR listening session urged task force members to "bring the crisis to the table next year [in Orlando] and absolutely blow it up."

I am pretty sure this "progress report" does not constitute "blowing it up." One wonders what that young pastor, Patrick Payton, senior pastor of Stonegate Fellowship in Midland, Texas, thinks about the report and whether it even constitutes progress.

There are so many questions swirling in my head, I hardly know where to start.

I will not rehearse the content of the report. Baptist Press posted a perfectly adequate article about the report and the press conference that followed. There is also a good article about comments made before the presentation by Executive Committee head Morris Chapman.

But like I said, I can think of so many questions this report raises, and I know practically nothing about how the Southern Baptist Convention works. I have got to believe the very intelligent members of the committee asked lots of very good questions during their deliberations. Yet they still bring forward a report like this?

First, let me say a couple of things positive.

One, Ronnie Floyd opened his presentation by talking about the lostness of the world and the selfishness of local churches and their members. There is no need to argue about the world being massively lost, but Floyd quoted research that indicates the average church member gives only 2.56% of her income to the church. Churches are famous for keeping 94% of their receipts for themselves. And only a tiny fraction of church members engage in any kind of ministry, much less evangelism. Complacency and selfishness stifle passion for the Great Commission, both at the individual and church levels.

Two, the vision and values proposed by the task force are wonderful. The Baptist Press article reports: The "missional vision" is "as a convention of churches, ... to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations." The eight core values are Christ-likeness, Truth, Unity, Relationships, Trust, Future, Local Church and Kingdom. What a great list! Who could take issue with any of them?

But it also raises the first of my many questions. How many Southern Baptists would say those values already guide their mission? How many would think task force leaders did not do such a great job of modeling values like Unity, Relationships, and Trust when they harshly criticized denominational leaders? Floyd declared, "The disunity in our churches and in our denomination is so wrong and sinful. ... With rhetoric we bemoan our dismal baptism numbers, our declining and plateaued churches, and our economic selfishness. The casting of criticism has resulted in a caustic cynicism that just adds to our rhetoric and writings. ... The rhetoric needs to cease and the repentance personally and corporately must begin. We need to repent of our sins and return to God." Do the Reverends Floyd, Hunt, and Akin plan to set an example by confessing the disunity they have caused with their rhetoric and criticism? How great it would be for the pot to practice what it is preaching to the kettle! (Yes, I love mixing metaphors.)

A few of the other questions that occur to me:

How does carving the North American Mission Board into seven regional operations constitute a move toward streamlining and efficiency? How would that not result in multiplying professional and support staff? Why does a national agency need to be "closer to the churches"? Is that not why Southern Baptists have local associations and state conventions? Do state conventions not have staff that focus on the same issues the NAMB focuses on?

The task force proposes a 1% increase in funding for the SBC's International Mission Board, calling it a "symbolic and substantial" step toward penetrating the massive lostness of people groups that have yet to hear the Gospel. That amounts to about $2 million, which is a drop in the bucket for an organization with an annual budget in excess of $200 million. "Symbolic," no doubt, but "substantial"? Hardly.

The report also proposes moving responsibility for promoting the Cooperative Program and educating people about biblical stewardship away from the national Executive Committee to the individual state conventions. The money that has gone for those ministries would go toward the extra money for international missions. That means the state conventions, whose budgets are already seriously strained, would not be getting any funding to help create those offices. Where will those state offices get the money? Perhaps by sending even less money on to the national convention? Would that not mean the IMB is getting 1% more of a pie that could be 10% smaller?

The task force also is suggesting that, over the course of four years, the NAMB be "released" from "cooperative agreements" with the state conventions to give the agency more money to focus on a truly national evangelism and church planting strategy. I am pretty clueless about those agreements. Apparently it involves a state sending church donations to the NAMB and then getting part of it back to help with evangelism and church planting strategies in the state. By reducing the amount sent back by 25% each year, the NAMB has more money to use for its own national strategies. But what keeps the state convention from simply keeping that portion of money in the first place? Do they not decide how much money will be sent on and how much will be kept in the state for their own mission needs? This move, plus giving them the responsibility for "CP" and stewardship, almost guarantees they will see a need to keep a larger percentage in the state. Why does the IMB's slice of the pie not get smaller still?

Denominations are living organisms, not machines. Like humans, denominations start out young and simple and get more complex as they grow older. Sometimes they get frail and have a hard time remembering why they are here. But fixing a denomination is not as simple as disassembling a machine and putting it back together.

What the GCR Task Force is attempting is not rearranging the parts of denominational machinery. It is more like strapping a mega-church pastor to a gurney with the intention of rearranging his parts. Perhaps he suffers from Cranial-Rectal Inversion Disorder and the intention is to put his head back in the proper alignment. Or perhaps the noble desire is to accomplish greater efficiency and effectiveness in an organism that is not functioning as well as it used to.

The danger, of course, is that mucking around with the internal organs of a living organism might result in a successful surgery ... and a dead patient.

New names for old games?

2009-07-09T23:01:00.001-05:00

In the Southern Baptist Convention, is "Great Commission" the new "Inerrancy"?

Didn't "Resurgence" once mean "Takeover"?

GCR leaders and the 'Cooperative Program'

2009-07-04T22:19:00.009-05:00

From a friend of a friend of a friend, one more thought about the "Great Commission Resurgence Task Force" committee:

The chairman of the committee, Ronnie Floyd (pastor of a megachurch in Springdale, Ark.), has already been rejected by Southern Baptists for his pitiful, disgraceful Cooperative Program giving. I use the strong word 'disgraceful' because he attempted to become our president while giving 1/3 of 1 percent to our cooperative work. Why do we keep putting these guys in such key leadership positions!?

The Cooperative Program is the unified approach Southern Baptist churches take to jointly fund large-scale projects (like missions and seminaries) that they could not accomplish separately. I seem to recall reading that megachurch pastors like Rev. Floyd and Rev. Johnny Hunt chafe at observations like the one above because their churches - virtual denominations unto themselves - invest large sums of money into direct missions while sending small percentages to the "CP." I seem to recall that some megachurch pastors, in fact, have complained that their missions spending "outside the structure" of the Cooperative Program is not given enough weight in evaluating their commitment to the Southern Baptist cause.

I can understand that concern. Any pastor who is leading a congregation to invest in missions activity what for them is a large sum of money ought to get credit for such visionary leadership.

My friends who are Southern Baptists, however, tell me that it was the creation of the Cooperative Program that freed individual congregations from a constant barrage of fund-raising requests brought by visiting representatives of missionary societies. The more persuasive fund-raisers raked in the dough for their causes; the less glamorous causes struggled. Small congregations were torn, unable to respond meaningfully to all the pleas for money. The decision to pool resources for missions causes - and ignore pleas from societies - set loose one of the greatest engines for Christian missions the non-Catholic world has ever seen. Most Southern Baptist churches measure their commitment to cooperative missions by the percentage of their budget they donate to the CP.

No doubt the proponents of the "Great Commission Resurgence Task Force" committee want to see renewed passion for the missions mandate among Southern Baptists. Any believer with a heartbeat wants to see that.

Given the track record of some of the GCR leaders, however, a person couldn't be blamed for wondering whether they aren't actually hostile to the Cooperative Program approach to doing missions.

And if you aren't a Cooperative Program Southern Baptist, what makes you a Southern Baptist at all - as opposed, say, to an Independent Fundamental Baptist? Could this committee be used to dismantle the Cooperative Program framework or at least do serious damage to it?

Just asking. What does an outsider like me know anyway?

Oh, good! A committee!

2009-07-02T21:43:00.010-05:00

The boys in the new club - the Southern Baptist "Great Commission Resurgence" Club - are so excited that delegates (sorry. "messengers") to the annual meeting voted for their committee. Everyone knows that the best way to spark renewed passion for the Great Commission is to appoint a committee to study the situation and bring back recommendations.

What a bunch of Baptists.

If you want to see real change in Southern Baptist churches, you can start with about two-thirds of their members getting saved.

Then you need to talk to the backsliders about lordship.

Then you should to talk to the superficial Christians about discipleship.

Then you ought to get everybody on their knees at the altar, confessing their sins and righting wrong relationships. (The Calvinists should set the example for the "weaker brothers" and be the first to apologize - for being arrogant know-it-alls.)

Then you should get each member to pick five unsaved people with whom to develop Kingdom relationships and pick five new believers to disciple.

Then you should all get on the church van and head over across the tracks and see how things are going in the real world.

Then some of you get on a bus and head cross country to help start a new church. And some others get on a plane and fly overseas to sit with people dying of AIDS.

Then everyone meet back here one year from today and we'll talk about all the great things God did while the GCR Committee was spending buckets of money, deliberating how to keep God's Southern Baptist Kingdom out of the crapper. (Mark Driscoll told me it was "missional" to use that word in this context.)

These boys make all kinds of noise about passion for the Great Commission. Then they form a committee to talk about reorganizing the denomination.

Oh, yes, that ought to work. I mean, it worked for Jesus, right?

A few more GCRD questions

2009-06-09T18:54:00.007-05:00

It appears to be a cause for celebration in some circles that the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration now has 3,374 signatories.

That is out of how many Southern Baptist church members?

And how many of those signatories are students at Southeastern Seminary or members of Woodstock Baptist Church?

And how many of those 3,374 will actually be delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting? (I'm sorry. Messengers. I've been told there is a difference.)

Southern Baptists and their GCRD

2009-05-27T16:10:00.009-05:00

It has been almost a year since I posted but there just hasn’t been anything that piqued my interest. Until now, anyway.

I have been reading about the Southern Baptists’ Great Commission Resurgence Declaration (GCRD) in Baptist Press and on the blogs. While I agree wholeheartedly about the need for Southern Baptists to rediscover a passion for Christ’s mission in the world, there were some things about the GCRD conversation that struck me as being a little off.

So some friends and I have been talking and we have come up with a few questions that we would like to have answers to, if we were going to be delegates to the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (which we are not).

The GCRD asserts the SBC has a problem with growing bureaucracy. Just saying so, however, does not make it so. What is the evidence for the assertion? Can anyone provide numbers that demonstrate inappropriate growth in Southern Baptist agency staffing?

And if it turns out there has been significant growth in staffing, how does a person tell the difference between bureaucratic enlargement and growth necessitated by ministry advancement? Is all growth in staffing by definition an enlargement of bureaucracy?

As long as we are at it, let’s also talk about church staffs. When would the growth of a church's staff count as bureaucratic enlargement? Are the issues of misplaced mission priorities illustrated at least as well by how churches spend money on themselves? What does a church that keeps 98% of its dollars at home have to say to a state denominational office that keeps 55%?

Which is the bigger problem for the enlargement of Christ’s Kingdom: the percentage of dollars kept by the local church and not sent on to mission causes, or the percentage kept by a state denominational office for state missions?

Among the leaders at the local church level who are calling for the denomination to make better use of the people's offerings, do we have examples of pastors with misplaced priorities? Are large building and salary budgets a good mission use of money given by the congregation?

GCRD leaders have complained that critics have zeroed in on their Point #9 (which criticizes the growth of denominational bureaucracy and calls for reorganization at all levels to “streamline”), but other than #9, which elements of the GCRD would anyone actually disagree with? Is it irrelevant that the GCRD's most practical call for specific change is focused on denominational structures, not the local church?

If the GCRD really is directed at the churches, not the denomination, what exactly is the challenge it poses to the churches? In what way do they need to change?

Is there any point in the GCRD that a church member would say does not already characterize their church?

If we believe these points already describe our church, how does affirming them ignite a “Great Commission Resurgence” (GCR)? Did the “Conservative Resurgence” happen because everyone in the SBC affirmed a high view of Scripture? Did the Protestant Reformation happen because Martin Luther posted 95 Points of Agreement on the church door?

When a church readily affirms the elements of the GCRD but does not live them out in practice, what do you do next to spark a GCR?

We also were put off by the original tone of the GCRD as put out first by Dr. Danny Akin and then by Rev. Johnny Hunt. The language was sharply critical of denominational agencies without offering any documentation for the assertion about bureaucracy. We have addressed that above.

We were even more concerned, however, by the tone Rev. Hunt struck in his subsequent media interviews. It seemed to us that it was arrogant for him to lecture denominational leaders about speaking down to pastors and churches. He declared that “the church is king” and said that when churches speak to the denomination, they speak as kings to princes. The point is that denominational leaders should listen and cooperate, not presume to give directions.

That is all well and good. In Southern Baptist polity, churches are indeed king. But someone may need to point out to Rev. Hunt that the SBC therefore has more than 40,000 kings, not one, two, or twenty. It also ought to be noted that it is therefore the churches that are king, not the pastors. A pastor may not appreciate a denominational leader speaking down to him, and that's understandable. But does the fact that the church is king justify a pastor speaking down to a denominational leader?

Some of the SBC’s leaders have asserted that if a GCR is going to happen, it will require the partnership of all people at all levels of the denomination. How can a spirit of partnership prevail if a pastor speaks to convention leaders the way a king would speak to princes?

We also are curious about another polity issue. Southern Baptists say they are not connectional. That means no level of denominational organization has authority over any church or over other levels of organization. The churches directly control each of the levels of organization with which they choose to relate.

That being said, on what basis would a national SBC task force presume even to discuss -- much less make recommendations about -- Southern Baptist reorganization at state and local levels? If the churches are king, would not they take up those discussions themselves in the appropriate venues? Is it not a little ironic that a local church leader who diminishes the role of national agencies would then call for a national task force to tell state and local leaders how to reorganize their affairs?

I doubt any of the big shots who run the big churches and big agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention have any interest in what nobodies have to say. But it seems to us nobodies that a group of people who claim they want to spark renewed passion for the Great Commission are going about it more like a bunch of religious bureaucrats than a band of passionate followers of Jesus Christ.

A note from Richard Abanes

2008-08-04T09:13:00.011-05:00

Richard Abanes was kind enough to leave a comment responding to my post on Ken Silva and the CRN. I felt it was substantive enough that it needed to be brought up to the top level of the blog:

Greetings,

I appreciate your thoughts and perspective. This Open Letter to Steve Camp article outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva's ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the "Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes" controversy, including:

1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed (1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18),
2. the actual contents of my email to Silva's ISP,
3. observations about the current state of the church,
4. an indictment of today's so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.

My open letter should answer most questions being asked in cyberspace about this issue. The article herein linked is my final official word on the issue -- although I continue to make short comments on blogs. I believe that those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.

Proverbs 18:13 reads: "He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame."

Proverbs 18:17 tells us: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."

Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix

And Reverend Ken Silva was kind enough to respond with a correction. I mistakenly said the Christian Research Network site was taken down when it was in fact the Apprising Ministries site.

Same difference. These guys have a network of blogs that cross-post material and then they comment on each other's posts to make it look like there's fire when actually it's only smoke. Lots of smoke. With a slightly sulfurous odor.

But, hey, that's only my opinion.

Personal opinion about Ken Silva and the CRN

2008-08-03T21:00:00.028-05:00

Everything that follows is merely personal opinion. No representation is made that the material below is anything more than opinion. I fully believe every word of it is true, but it’s nothing more than commentary that expert legalists will tell you is protected by the First Amendment. You’ll have to check out the links below and determine for yourself whether my opinion, that said legalists are the hypocritical spawn of Satan, matches the opinion you form for yourself.

I was excited to receive a Christian Newswire press release last week that said the stupid Christian Research Network Apprising Ministries site had been pulled down by its ISP because Christian author Richard Abanes had complained about the content of the site.

But my excitement was short-lived. It took me several days to get around to trying to visit the site and by that time it was back up. I would have gotten so much pleasure in getting an Internet Explorer message that the site could not be found.

Oh, well.

Christian Newswire is pretty much a joke. They’ll send out anything submitted by anyone who has a hundred bucks to spare. A few respectable folks use it, but most of the pap they send out is nonsense cooked up by people like “Pastor Ken Silva,” or in this case “Pastor Dustin Segers,” who apparently co-leads a Calvinist hotel church in Greensboro, NC. (http://sfofgso.org/)

In classic Christian Research Nutwork style, the Reverend Segers bases his case on a frightening prospect, in this case the specter of censorship.

Under the headline Blog Shut Down by 'Christian' Apologist's Threat, Segers writes: “How safe are our blogs? That question was raised again when on the evening of July 26, 2008, a popular religious blog was shut down by an Internet service provider. A complaint filed by Christian author and apologist, Richard Abanes, claiming that one article on the religious opinion site, Apprising.org, had slandered him, caused the web host, IPower, to send its publisher, Ken Silva, a 48-hour warning to remove the offending piece or be taken down. In that the piece was not believed to be slander at all, but rather religious and theological opinion, he refused to be forced into censoring his site by Richard Abanes. The site went down.”

No details. No explanation of what Silva’s offending words were? Nothing about Abanes’ complaint? Why the quotes around the word Christian? Are aspersions being cast on the authenticity of Abanes’ faith? And what threat?

Legalists like those at the Nutwork assume people will take them at their word. They are arrogantly estimate their own insight superior to everyone else’s. They treat the rest of us like simpletons who do not deserve explanation - and would not understand it if it was offered.

Segers goes on to say: “There are serious implications here for all bloggers, regardless of what sort of blog they publish. Anyone who has a complaint about your views can claim that you have engaged in slander and the ISP Terms of Service usually allow for the companies to remove your website if you don't take the material in question down. The First Amendment means nothing in these cases. ISP's cannot and will not explore the claims of slander and simply notify bloggers to remove whatever is causing the problem.”

ISPs cannot explore the claims? Will not explore the claims? Why not? Who says? What evidence is there to support those allegations? Perhaps what actually happened was the ISP looked at the page Mr. Abanes was complaining about and decided he was telling the truth. A court wouldn't have to look five minutes at the hogwash on the Nutwork to see that it all is "a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy inside a slander." I love that phrase.

The legalists are described perfectly by 1 Timothy 6:4b-5a: “Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don’t tell the truth.” (NLT)

The post linked above goes on to say legalists “‘don’t tell the truth’ -- that strikes to the heart of the legalists’ apostasy. ... They use half-truth, misrepresentation, innuendo, name-calling, fear of conspiracy, and guilt by association to mislead trusting souls and make them twice as fit for hell as they are. (Matthew 23:15)”

You couldn’t be more spot on about the legalists’ hypocrisy. But the blog's author is mistaken about one thing. Slander is verbally communicated; only when it's published is it libel. The Holy Reverend Ken Silva did not slander Mr. Abanes. If Ken Silva published something illegal on his site, he libeled Mr. Abanes.

For a blog post to be considered libel, it would have to be proven that the blogger made the false charge with malicious intent and knew full well the statement was false. Personal opinion is protected under the First Amendment.

It’s hilarious to see Ken Silva standing in First Amendment solidarity with pornographers like Larry Flynt and liberals like the New York Times, using the Constitution to cover their naked arrogance and their lust for control over others.

Ken Silva tries to make a name for himself by unfairly criticizing successful Christian leaders. Once in a while he throws in a criticism of a real heretic to make the rest of his nonsense more plausible. Perhaps more of the people he unfairly criticizes will now follow Mr. Abanes' righteous example and drive that shriveled spirit into the cyber-darkness where he belongs.

At least, that's my opinion.

If you have the stomach for it, you can read the Christian Research Nutwork posts that mention Mr. Abanes by clicking here. Mr. Abanes' blog is here.

How long can Ben Cole resist blogging?

2008-07-22T20:55:00.005-05:00

Ben Cole, the Southern Baptist gadfly who squatted on SBC Outpost when the highly respected Marty Duren vacated the premises, announced July 11 that he was going to leave the Southern Baptist Convention and stop blogging. In one Southern Baptist tidal pool, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another great rejoicing; in the great inland sea of Southern Baptist life, however, the overwhelming response was, "Ben who?"

In Mr. Cole's final post, entitled Exit Strategy, he confessed he had only the lowest opinion of pastoral ministry and had much of the time only grudgingly engaged in his holy duties. He admitted he had engaged in a "suspension of the ethical" to do battle with his nemesis, Paige Patterson, and said politicians were superior to pastors because politicians at least were intellectually honest. And Mr. Cole's comment groupies cheered.

I've expressed my opinion on that site about how Mr. Cole's revelations and his commenters' responses confirm what many have believed all along: that Mr. Cole's spiritual condition was no better than those he criticized. But there's one thing yet to be revealed: how long Mr. Cole can resist the temptation to blog. To date, he hasn't shown an ability to hold his tongue. And people who think they know it all -- God's gift to humanity -- usually can't keep from stepping in to set the rest of us straight.

Any interest in a pool on when Mr. Cole will come back to his blog?

Or perhaps no one cares.

Legalists are enemies of the faith

2008-05-22T15:45:00.001-05:00

I was Web searching "legalism" and came across a conversation between Howard Hendricks and Chuck Swindoll in which Rev. Swindoll defined the problem with legalism like this:

"When we get into areas that are not set forth in Scripture, either in precept or even in principle. These may be such things as length of hair, tattoos and other body piercings, skirts or pants for women, makeup or no makeup. Those are not scriptural issues. Sometimes these issues are cultural, and you do have to address them when you are in that particular culture. But I think legalism begins when you do or refrain from doing what I want you to do or not do because it’s on my list and it’s something that I am uncomfortable with."

Then he gives some advice we all should take seriously:

"The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don’t mess with legalism anymore. I’m 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they’re dangerous. They are grace-killers. They’ll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don’t have any opinion! So, if I am trying to force my personal list of no-no’s on you and make you feel guilty if you don’t join me, then I’m out of line and I need to be told that."

You can read the entire interview on Ed Stetzer's blog here.

‘Why are so many discerning people so mean?’

2008-01-15T20:23:00.000-06:00

I had Tim Challies pegged as one of those mean-spirited, legalistic pseudo-Christians.

I may have been wrong, if what he told Justin Taylor is any indication.

Read more here.

Purveyors of Yeast

2007-08-05T16:20:00.000-05:00

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogant self-righteousness and presumptuous attitude of the legalists with whom I used to associate.

An excellent example of a false prophet who presumes to enlighten the rest of us, while understanding nothing himself, is the proprietor of alittleleaven.com. This fellow is so full of ... um, "understanding" that he cannot resist sharing it with us poor, darkened souls.

Catch, for starters, his rant about Mark Kelly, who has posted a very thought-provoking online book about the doctrines of eternal security and apostasy. He shows how both are based on Bible teachings and that the biblical teaching on each position is different from the common misunderstandings called "once saved, always saved" and "losing your salvation." He makes an excellent case that a person does not have to—indeed must not—choose between the teachings. Sanctification is as much a part of salvation as regeneration, and the consequences of abandoning the process of sanctification are serious indeed.

The luminaries at alittleleaven.com and ChristianResearchNutwork, however, prefer jumping to conclusions to actually reading the entire series of posts. They rant at Kelly for what one claims is "the very real contradiction that exists between the Reformed doctrine of Eternal Security and the biblical warnings regarding apostasy and its consequences." No matter that he clearly shows there is no contradiction, once a person understands what the Bible actually teaches on both subjects.

This guy wants to have his unleavened bread and eat it too. On the one hand, he criticizes Kelly for not believing in eternal security, then he minimizes that doctrine as merely a "Reformed" position, contrasted with the "biblical" teaching of apostasy. He tries to stir up the "once saved, always saved" crowd against Kelly, while all the time he does not believe in eternal security himself! The other pharisee presents himself as a Southern Baptist pastor; his accomplice's teaching appears to be closer to that of the Church of Christ.

And he understands so little that he actually chose the metaphor of leaven for his site's name—apparently clueless about the irony.

Quoting from Kelly's post on The apostasy of legalism:

"The most insidious legalism presents itself as a defender of orthodox doctrine. After all, the Church has always had to oppose false teachers who threatened to corrupt the Faith. What could be more honorable than identifying heresy to protect the faithful? As Paul reminded the Corinthians, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” (1 Corinthians 5:6 TEV)

"When Jesus used the metaphor of yeast, he was warning people about the legalistic teachings of the Pharisees. (Matthew 16:6) And while Paul’s warning to the Corinthians about yeast related to immoral living, he used exactly the same words to warn the Galatians about the danger of legalism. (Galatians 5:9)

"It’s a subtle deception indeed that sneaks yeast into the dough while warning about the danger of yeast."

The Purveyor of Yeast rants:

"Mark Kelly’s two posts contradicted each other so badly that we have no idea what he actually believes on the matter."

Presumably these powerhouse intellects would be incensed at an atheist who selects isolated passages from the Bible and uses them as "proof" of a contradiction, all the while ignoring a context that proves there is no contradiction. Somehow it is acceptable for them to pick and choose selections from a series of postings and throw them up as "proof" of Kelly's "confusion." What they have in fact done is demonstrate their own confusion—and lack of integrity.

A little advice for the Lovelorn: If you read a selection and don't understand, read the whole thing—and for Heaven's sake, don't broadcast your confusion on the Internet. Don't waste everyone's time by complaining about what someone else believes that you don't understand because you are too lazy or dishonest to read what he has written; take a position and explain what you think the truth is.

A man of godly courage meets untruth with truth, not with carping and criticism.

Venom is produced by the Snake

2007-05-28T11:39:00.000-05:00

Even if you are hard-hearted enough to think partial-birth abortion is not a crime against humanity, you still should have been appalled at the editorial cartoon produced by Tony Auth of the Philadelphia Inquirer to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the federal law that bans the procedure. Coming from an artist who would consider himself open-minded, tolerant, and enlightened, it was a grotesque example of bigotry against people of faith.

In fact, "grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry" is precisely what Chuck Colson and a raft of other prominent Christian leaders called Mr. Auth's work when they released a statement condemning the cartoon this past week.

In addition to Mr. Colson, the list of leaders signing the statement included prominent conservatives whose doctrine is beyond reproach: Gary Bauer of American Values, Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

But if you think Mr. Auth's doodle represented bigotry, you should consider the venom spewing from Ken Silva at apprising.org. Legalists never miss an opportunity to miss the point, and Mr. Silva is the master. Rather than raise his voice in support of the ban on partial-birth abortion, instead of taking a stand against gross prejudice on the basis of religion, Mr. Silva chose to rant about how the statement supposedly endorsed "apostate Roman Catholicism." Somehow Mr. Silva thinks these leaders (including Mr. Silva's favorite whipping boy, Rick Warren) are endorsing the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when they protest the prejudice of Mr. Auth's cartoon.

The "Not Grace" Party can always be counted on to change the subject and distort the truth if it serves to draw attention to their "look at me! look at me!" blog sites.

Nothing in the statement remotely endorses Roman Catholic doctrine. There are many points at which people like Mr. Colson and Mr. Warren would seriously disagree with RC teaching. But if you have to agree with everything one group believes and does before you defend them, Mr. Silva better hope a lynch mob doesn't show up on his doorstep. His neighbors will pull their blinds. One wonders what injustices he would allow, what courageous stands he would criticize, simply because it suits the self-serving agenda of his messiah complex.

It took me half a lifetime to realize this basic fact of nature: Venom is produced by the Snake, not the Lamb.

Free at last!

2007-05-20T13:19:00.000-05:00

I grew up in an independent, separatist fundamentalist environment. I didn't know that was what it was until Joseph Zichterman gave me those words. We just called ourselves "the true church."

As far as we were concerned, every other church had fallen into one grievous doctrinal error or another. The only people we were sure about going to heaven were those in our own church -- and some of them were doubtful. The other independent church across town? Not sure about them. Denominations? We wanted nothing to do with hell-bound compromisers.

We were always fighting. If we were not fighting the doctrinal error at other churches, we were fighting among ourselves. We saw it as a badge of honor, as proof of our holiness before God and our zeal for pure doctrine. When "error" crept into our congregation, we drove it out. If we could have forced the other churches to shut down, we would have been proud to do that. Since we had no power over them, we condemned them as evidence of the End Times Apostasy.

Then an e-mail shows up in my inbox. All it contains is a quote and a link to a blog. The words cut like a knife:

"There are two sides to religious self conceit; one is where the soul mostly contemplates its own superiority; ... and the other side is where the soul mostly contemplates the defects of others .... The censorious man belongs to the latter class, for while spiritual vanity is a part of his make-up, yet spiritual inquisition and severity with others constitutes the major part of his life. There are many who think that mere power to detect evil is a proof of holiness, and that growth in grace itself shows itself by an increasing aptness to ferret out the weaknesses and shortcoming of others." (George Watson)

Light pierced my darkness. Jesus died for me because I cannot, but he could -- and did! His perfect life and saving death purchased for me what I could never earn on my own! God's amazing grace! I am free at last -- libérez enfin!

I am still struggling to understand whether I was a Christian all those years or have just been born again. I feel like a new person. When I look back at my old life (and my old church), I do not see much evidence of Galatians 5:22-23: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." I do, however, see lots of Galatians 5:19-21: "immorality , impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing." Maybe not all of those, but most of them.

In retrospect, I see the irony of it all. Have you ever noticed that sometimes a church's name gives you a clue to what is really lacking in the church? One of our fights forced out some members, which organized a new church that called itself "Unity Baptist Church." Another fight created "Fellowship Baptist Church." And our name? "Grace Baptist Church." Grace is what we proclaimed most loudly, but it was what we were missing most.

God has done a new work of grace in my heart. It is like a heavy load has been taken off my shoulders. I feel so light, I think I could fly! I have been overwhelmed by God's grace ... the real thing, not the empty word used so often from our pulpit. All my life, church leaders loaded two heavy burdens on the people -- living perfectly moral lives and believing perfectly correct doctrine. All we ever really learned was that we could not behave and believe perfectly -- no more than the "apostates" and "heretics" we constantly condemned. The list of what you could not do and could not believe just kept getting longer and longer.

In any case, I want to share the joy that comes from realizing I am accepted and loved in Christ and I do not have to put others down to justify myself. I have been made righteous before God, not by my own perfect belief and behavior, but by the blood of Jesus!

I hope this blog helps other modern-day pharisees escape their "yoke of slavery." I hope it helps others not fall into that slavery. But most of all, I hope it helps all God's children -- inside church and out -- find the freedom Jesus paid for with his life.