Category: bad theology

Categories
bad theology Church News SBC

Obfuscation Escalation: JD Greear Pleads Innocence on the Grounds of Unclarity

The job of a pastor is to speak articulately and clearly. Yet for the Sold-Out Shepherds highlighted in Megan Basham’s best-selling book, Shepherds for Sale, their defense seems to be a brash admission of their inarticulate past. Combined with self-victimizing, these pastors appear angry as hornets that Basham had the audacity to report their words, cite their sermons, and publish their affiliations.

Walking the tightrope between signaling a softer (to use their own adjective) evangelicalism and tapping into the deep pockets of the traditionalistic believers that provide the bulk of financial giving in their congregation has proven to be a circus act that can be done, but not forever. It’s not been easy for some of America’s biggest names in Evangelicalism to parade their virtue among the pagans while convincing their parishioners and financial donors that they remain a bulwark of biblical fidelity. Claiming that ‘only their language has changed,’ but not their positions, remains a trick so cheap that many are beginning to see it. And in response, some have levied serious attacks against Megan Basham and her book, Shepherds for Sale.

Slander. Hate. Bigotry. Journalistic malfeasance. Poor research. Needlessly Provocative. UnChristlike.

In reality, Basham has only cited their own words, quoted their own sermons, referenced their own tweets and lectures, and chronicled their self-described positions. These shepherds seem not upset at a recalling of their intellectual offerings, but rather seem upset that their own congregations are becoming aware that something more sinister is at play.

Several responses from those covered in Basham’s book with great, painstakingly accurate receipts draw upon a number of offensive attacks (mentioned above: slander, hate, bigotry, etc) but only one primary defense. These same men who have become famous for their supposed adeptness at articulation claim that they said it, they wrote it, but they didn’t mean it like that. Watching their stuttering, stammering, stigmatizing responses in recent days has one wondering at first why, after years of these accusations being made known, they are giving a public relations response that appears to have been sketched out on a Waffle House napkin at 2 AM between sips of coffee and checking for X updates.

We jest. These types of men do not eat at Waffle House.

Relatively little, if anything, that Basham reports in Shepherds for Sale is new except, perhaps, that they are now atop the New York Times Best Sellers List. These men have had years to levy thoughtful responses – certainly more thoughtful than what they have provided thus far – to countless sources that Basham cites in her book. But back then, their critics were ‘just bloggers,’ involuntarily celibate men in their basement typing away on Cheeto-stained fingers (as they characterized many of us), and responses (so they thought) would never be needed. They were, like Wall Street, an institution in evangelicalism. But to their horror, a plucky blonde woman who happened to work for The Daily Wire, a juggernaut in news and publishing, just so happened to be inclined to give a megaphone to the tens of thousands of small church pastors and faithful attendees in the pew who have been shouting from rooftops that many evangelical leaders had not only drifted left but were actively swimming there. In the end, Big Eva (as it came to be called) made the same mistake as the Political Left, if there is any distinction left between these two at all. They thought that because they had shored up their support in legacy publications like The New York Times and Christianity Today, they would never have to answer. It turns out that God Almighty has had other plans.

Now, they’re answering…poorly.

We have no desire to match word-for-word JD Greear’s mid-length novella he posted yesterday in defense of himself, and neither do we claim such lengthiness is unwarranted on his part. He has ignored all warnings, great and small, up until now, no matter how many thousands of Christians preceded Basham’s book. There is a lot to defend. He made an attempt. That’s the best summary that can be provided of his ten thousand word essay. An attempt was made. Bless him.

Entitled An Open Response to Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale, Greear lays out six issues that he claims need correction, despite no correction of substance being provided. A correction, in journalistic terms, is issued when a quotation is misquoted, a fact misstated, a citation in error. None were offered. But after a lengthy introduction, or series of introductions, Greear admirably and repeatedly confessed to the various accusations Basham levied.

For example, Greear wrote, “I addressed the issue [on gender dysphoria] again in 2022, explaining how my thinking had (I hope) matured and grown clearer…”

One wonders if Greear missed the forest for the trees, trying to frantically discover nits that could be picked somewhere in the margins of Basham’s book. But that’s the point. Why does a pastor, theologian, and evangelical thought leader need to have his positions on transgenderism ‘mature’ or grow ‘clearer’? Is the issue not as simple as the ordinarily unlearned, unwashed masses of evangelicals understand it to be? And why does someone as articulate as JD Greear have to (as you will see) repeatedly apologize for his lack of articulation on – and only on – the hot-button issues in the political and cultural realm?

“I addressed the issue [on gender dysphoria] again in 2022, explaining how my thinking had (I hope) matured and grown clearer…”

JD Greear

Again, Greear admits a failure of clarity on what is arguably the most important dividing line between orthodoxy and apostasy today, an affirmation of Genesis 1:27, “In the beginning, God created them, both male and female.” This very much gives the typical evangelical “blind guide vibes,” which is the crux of the problem. Protestia covered Greear’s backpedaling on this issue at the time, but suffice it to say, he was for bearing false witness via pronouns before he was against it. It’s similar to his backpedaling on his assertion that “the Bible whispers about homosexuality,” which, of course, it does not (homosexuality is used in the New Testament repeatedly as the benchmark of human depravity).

The list of progressive positions held to – at least at one time – by Greear is too multitudinous to mention in great detail. These include promoting identity politics in the Southern Baptist election process, comparing conservatives to Pharisees and terrorists (long before January 6, 2021), promoting “gender justice” at The Gospel Coalition, joining an organization funded by George Soros to promote leftist causes, or doing what Janet Mefferd characterized at the time as, “playing footsie with an imam who’s promoted jihad against Israel.” Except for laughing and celebrating with his church being the recipient of Pulpit and Pen’s Worst Christian of the Year Award in 2019 for overseeing the leftward departure of the SBC, there has never been a straightforward response from Greear like anything he provided in a rebuttal to Basham.

But the list could easily go on.

He told us that voting Democrat could be a great option for Christians. He claimed that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. He insinuated that greed and homosexuality are moral equivalents. He promoted the views of an “evangelical” lesbian. He tells his church to give more money and ‘spread their privilege‘ around. He hosted Obama’s campaign strategist to lecture about social justice. He made Jesus’ sacrificial death about a social justice kind of privilege.

Again, the list could go on. But instead, we’ll merely point out that Greear provided a list of six – count them, six – non-corrective ‘corrections’ to Shepherds For Sale.

Before getting to his list, Greear makes another admission, “Basham is asking many vital questions. Personally, I need them. If ‘love of this present world’ corrupted some of the Apostle Paul’s companions, it can certainly happen to me, too. As iron sharpens iron, challenging questions help us see where we lack courage or fail to communicate with clarity. I believe this can be done while honoring truth and treating one another with charity, befitting the Savior whose name we bear.”

While Greear might receive bonus points for comparing himself to the Apostolic entourage, the points must be stricken from the record for being insufferably dishonest. Look at the cited sources and hyperlinks above. Click the articles, and do your own research. Most of this mountain of evidence of Greear’s unabashed liberalism didn’t even make its way into Basham’s book, lest it be a book all unto itself. The claim from Greear that he is only guilty of being ‘unclear’ is an insult to the intelligence of every Christian who has been paying attention and screaming our warnings into the abyss long before Basham wrote her book. She’s just not the little people he can ignore any longer.

The claim from Greear that he is only guilty of being ‘unclear’ is an insult to the intelligence of every Christian who has been paying attention and screaming into the abyss our warnings long before Basham wrote her book.

It is sufficient – in discounting Greear’s six claims as spurious – that none of them contradict the facts presented by Megan Basham. Not one. They are, rather, attempts to obfuscate, to explain away a tiny fraction of the overarching, undeniable accusations against him of working against the mission of Christ within the Body Politic. Regarding his “The Bible whispers about homosexuality,” Greear merely argues, “I acknowledged that faults in communication are almost always the fault of the communicator and that I was guilty of using unwise and unhelpful words.” That’s weird for a self-styled Master Communicator, right? It feels like we all got into a time machine back to 2015 to hear Karen Swallow Prior – an English professor – confess to poor wording over and again whenever her liberalism was betrayed and outrage ensued. Pray-tell, Greear defenders, how is it Basham’s fault that she took Greear’s words at face value, even if we were to believe they were hastily and sloppily inadvertent?

On his second contention, regarding his (well documented) support for Critical Theory and racial politics, Greear complains she took excerpts from ‘virtual addresses’ as though, in his universe, his spoken words don’t matter as much as his written ones. It is a novel approach to criticizing a well-researched journalist and might be the first time the attempt was ever made. But the attempt was made. Referring to his choice to sloganeer the phrase Black Lives Matter, Greear writes, “I understand that Basham (and others) may question whether it was wise to even use the three words “black lives matter,” given that many may confuse affirmation of those words for support of the movement.”

In the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, Greear would have us believe that his use of the phrase was merely coincidental. Interestingly, he has never used the phrase “Make America Great Again” and claimed it had nothing to do with conservatism. This is a game, and everyone knows it. Again, we should all feel our intelligence has been insulted, if not molested. But this aside, Greear again claims his words could maybe have been better chosen.

Greear shifts his focus away from his own professed unclarity to obfuscate through accusation. Regarding Basham’s citation of his reference to conservative critics as “demonic,” Greear explains that he was only referring to “attacks from people who refuse honest dialogue, who walk with a divisive spirit, or put primary emphasis on secondary issues.” Considering that he characterized Basham in these exact same ways, we can only presume that he considers her demonic and probably feels that way toward anyone who reads and recommends her book. This is hardly a correction but a doubling-down on the schismatic division that he has ultimately caused by his “lack of clarity.”

Greear also engages in another kind of obfuscation – duplicity. This type includes listing quotations appearing to be contrary to his other statements on, for example, Critical Race Theory. It is true, as Greear suggests, that numerous times he has said that Critical Race Theory is an “important discussion” and has “inherent dangers.” He does not, however, categorically reject it (how could he, considering he advocated it as a “helpful analytical tool” at the Southern Baptist Convention?). This is important to understand; saying two contrary things about a subject depending upon your audience does not make the one citing your words a slanderer; it only makes you a two-faced, forked tongue, ear-tickler who at best is “unclear” and at worst is a theological chameleon changing shades with your surroundings.

This is important to understand; saying two contrary things about a subject depending upon your audience does not make the one citing your words a slanderer; it only makes you a two-faced, forked tongue, ear-tickler who at best is “unclear” and at worst is a theological chameleon changing shades with your surroundings.

Another kind of obfuscation is used in his fifth contention on immigration, in which he defends being a part of George Soros’ Evangelical Immigration Table. Never mind, ye plebes and deplorables, that Greear previously denied any tie to progressive Dark Money. After listing other signatories, Greear quite laughably says, “Hardly a list of woke progressives boasting George Soros tattoos.” Here, Greear tries to tie himself to the celebrity of other signers, some of whom, contrary to his claim, are, in fact, woke progressives. But what Greear fails to realize in his celebrity hubris is that an attempt to tie himself to such a horde to exonerate himself only exonerates Megan Basham’s claim that the problem is systemic and the infiltrators are many. Curiously, Greear leaves out the fact that some original signatories, like Eric Metaxas, left the Evangelical Immigration Table in 2013 after it became known that it was a Soros front group. And yet, Greear not only remained a signatory but 11 years later, still defends it. Greear is hedging his bets on being declared innocent by the company he keeps and the general ignorance of his reader.

Again, it appears lowly, non-connected evangelicals could use a #MeToo Movement for our intelligence because it is clearly being abused.

Greear’s list ends with a final admission of error, which was to act in ignorance with regard to evangelical elites (himself included) accusing FBC Naples of racism for choosing not to hire a pastor on the far left of the political spectrum. But that doesn’t count, Greear argues, because it was done in ignorance.

Cutting through the clutter, it is evident from Greear’s rebuttal that it was no rebuttal at all. It was an admission of guilt that he repeatedly spoke unclearly, his views needed to be refined, he needed to mature, and he often acted in ignorance when taking public positions. Obfuscation aside, Greear’s guilt in the matter is far worse. He has pled to a misdemeanor so as to not be guilty of a felony. The evidence will show, carefully collected by thousands, published in various places by hundreds and notably by dozens, that Greear is guilty of exactly what Basham has claimed; he has sold out.

In his lengthy, finger-wagging preface, Greear comments, “I want to state upfront and unequivocally that our church has never received funding from any political groups, and I have never received any financial incentives to take a particular position. The book never charges me with that specifically, but since that is part of its overall thesis, I want to be clear.”

Although organizations steered by Greear certainly have received funding from leftist organizations for the purpose of propagandizing the Church, it may or may not be true that Greear is innocent of taking any filthy lucre personally. For the rest of us, we may very well be left wondering if Greear’s sell-out was akin to Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, or if he merely sold out Christ for the applause.

Categories
bad theology News Op-Ed Politics SBC

Shepherds for Sale: The Definitive Review

The online pushback and downright vitriol directed towards Daily Wire writer and reporter Megan Basham in advance of her book Shepherds for Sale demonstrate one very important reality: There is an entire industry (dare we say “mindustry?”) invested in suppressing the information in her book. It is one thing for the mainstream of Christian culture to dismiss discernment/polemics websites as fringe for cataloging the awfulness of the Evangelical Industrial Complex (also known as “Big Eva,” “Evangelicalism Inc.” or my favorite “Evangelical Intelligentsia”), it is another altogether to read a comprehensive treatment of these characters engaging in the kind of rank hypocrisy and compromise that makes it obvious to the saved and the lost alike how truly awful the industry of Christianity has become.

Yet this is exactly what Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda does. To be sure, Megan Basham is much nicer than we are at Protestia. The bad actors she might call “compromised” are the same ones we will gladly remind you are, at best, useful idiots and, at worst are godless interlopers of the highest order. Our conference-disqualifying ways have always been blamed on pugnaciousness, lack of “gentleness,” or some other vague, emotionalized label, yet the similar attacks faced by Basham for her straightforward, undeniable cataloging of Big Eva’s seedy underbelly demonstrate yet again that it is the message they hate, not the messenger or the messenger’s verbiage.

In contrast to traditional churches, the Evangelical Industrial Complex funds itself on influence, celebrity, and institutional connections with the world. It looks and sounds just like the world because, at its core, it is of the world. It presents itself as bigger than the church, superior to the people it influences (often institutional climbers and/or “servant leader” pastors with no real ideas of their own), and tasked with offering Jesus-branded fulfillment for the desires of the godless world – usually by partnering with it. As the book anecdotally demonstrates, this has been long suspected (and regularly experienced) by regular pew-sitters who are too nice to simply ask why their pastors are going with the flow of culture rather than paddling furiously against it.

Much of Shepherds for Sale‘s content will be familiar to regular readers of Protestia. This website (along with its progenitor Pulpit and Pen and allied sites, podcasts, Youtubers, and writers too numerous to mention) has been busy exposing and cataloging this downgrade in conservative Christianity for years). Yet Megan Basham has provided an invaluable service to faithful pew-sitters and pastors everywhere through this tightly organized, deeply researched, and smoothly written book. She wields her words with the serrated precision of the strongest polemics bloggers yet deftly draws upon impactful real-world stories to make clear how the players, organizations, and motivations behind each issue have brought abuse and harm to the pews. She hits hard at every major leftist social and political priority, explaining in detail how our churches wound up with the Jesus versions of radical climate change ideology, open borders chaos, “pro-life” industry, media knockoffs, critical race theory, MeToo feminism, LGBTQ capitulation, and COVID “vaccine” and lockdown tyranny. Any faithful evangelical Christian uninterested in reading what, according to John MacArthur, “may just be the single most important book on modern Evangelicalism in recent years” is either unserious about the exercise of their faith or is too invested in the business of Christianity to risk pulling their head out of the sand.

Following is a list of topics covered in the book, with links to additional (and sometimes predating) information as chronicled by Protestia and others.

Climate Change Cult

Basham tees off on what Protestia calls the Christianization of the Climate Cult, featuring characters like Jonathan Moo, who along with his father Douglas Moo, pusher of so-called “creation care” as a form of “biblical social justice, Al Gorean prophetess to the seminaries Katherine Hayhoe, and the weak-kneed, compromised leaders like Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary president Danny Akin, who, to this day, allow the climate cult to dig its claws into seminary students under the guise of being “creation lovers.”

Open Borders and Illegal Immigration

In unpacking institutional evangelicalism’s support for open borders and lawless immigration policies, Basham draws on the personal experiences of individuals like Maureen Maloney, whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant. The funding and political motives behind the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT) and its connections to left-wing organizations are comprehensively detailed. Of course, these include the George Soros connections leftist evangelicals bend over backward to deny, but which Pulpit and Pen and Protestia have been reporting on for years.

The “Pro-Life” Movement

Shepherds for Sale describes the ongoing effort of feminism-compromised evangelical leaders to redefine “pro-life” to include social welfare (womb to tomb, anyone?), and avoid holding women responsible for murdering their unborn children, with she-wolves like Karen Swallow Prior and Beth Moore using the overturning of Roe v. Wade into opportunities not to celebrate a victory for life, but to remind the world that abortion is mostly blamed on a lack of redistribution of wealth to mothers.

Christianity Astray

Basham offers an excellent treatment of the woefully and disgustingly compromised Christian media complex, using Russell Moore’s Christianity Today and the Trinity Forum as prime examples of leftward drift, influenced by leftist funders like the Lilly Endowment. Christianity Today’s staff and writers, as Basham has previously reported, donate exclusively to liberal Democrat candidates, parroted the church-shaming COVID lockdown narrative, and produce what is, at best, a cheap, Christian-veneered knockoff of Time Magazine.

COVID Spiritual Abuse

Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and their band of COVID propaganda-pushing evangelical ghouls like Russell Moore and Ed Stetzer are exposed in chapter five, along with evangelical mainstays like Tim Keller, Rick Warren, JD Greear, David French, pushing now-debunked government COVID demands into churches via the spiritually abusive application of “love your neighbor.” Collins famously called evangelicals murderers for not masking up while singing in church.

Kingdom Diversity

The divisive push of critical race theory (CRT) is laid at the feet of Ibram X Kendi, Jemar Tisby, and world-pleasing stooges like Summit Church’s JD Greear and Village Church’s Matt Chandler. The Southern Baptist Convention’s twisted adoption of the infamous Resolution 9 in 2019 (originally an anti-CRT resolution that became a doorway for its adoption) is recounted, along with the near veneration in evangelical circles of George Floyd as a martyr for systemic racism.

Abuse Inc.

Chapter seven of Shepherds for Sale, detailing the MeToo calamity that overtook evangelicalism (particularly the SBC) is perhaps the most controversial and important in the entire book. To this day, many pastors and pew-sitters are convinced there was and is an ongoing sex abuse crisis in the SBC akin to the priest pedophilia scandal that rocked Roman Catholicism in the early 2000s. Led by pied piper Rachael Denhollander and a predictable stream of cowardly bureaucrats like North American Mission Board president Kevin Ezell, the total lack of a systemic abuse problem in the SBC remains largely unknown by regular churchgoers.

LGBTQ “Christians”

Andy Stanley’s Embracing the Journey conference (as comprehensively exposed by Protestia—we were there for it) is part of Basham’s thorough examination of anti-biblical compromise on sexuality that has overrun mainline denominations and Roman Catholicism and made measurable inroads into conservative evangelical circles. Stanley’s unabashed compromise and willingness to “accommodate” the gay preferences of the culture has been enough to wake up many pastors (Ryan Visconti being a discussed example), who are now seeing the devil behind the curtain of world-sensitive marketers like Stanley.

Megah Basham’s book is thorough, easy to read, and well worth the time of every Christian – whether you are familiar with its topics (because you wisely read Protestia), or are simply wondering why your pastor is refusing to side with obvious biblical truth on the world’s pet issues. Pick it up today, or gift it to someone you know who needs to be equipped to fight evangelicalism’s leftist disease.

Categories
bad theology News Op-Ed

The Season of Bathsheba

It’s that time of year again – March madness! No, not the NCAA Tournament (as unpredictable as it’s proven so far). Instead, it’s the season when every oppressed Karen of both biological genders on social media takes a break from marching in circles around Grace Community Church to once again pledge allegiance to the Patron Saint of Shevangelicalism, Bathsheba the Raped.

Arriving each year on the third Sunday after Shepcon (or fifth if Julie Roys sees her shadow being abused), the season features many traditions. Some of the most popular: The Feats of Strength (where women remind everyone via touchscreens how they can totally lift more than men), the Simpathon (where middle-aged men try to see how long they can play White Knight for their online feminist gal pals before their wife finds out) and of course the costume party featuring an endless parade of women dressed up like pastors.

The name of the holiday is thought to have come from the combination of “bath” (the routine cleaning Shevas and their pet beta males penitently deny themselves) and “Sheba” (the favorite food of all twelve cats living in each Sheva home). In any case, the primary purpose of the festivities is to declare with one voice that, in the same way there is no possibility that Bathsheba was anything less than entirely innocent in her sexual encounter with King David, all women who enjoy anything less than full authority in any relationship with a man can cast their cares on Bathsheba, who cares for them as no man ever could.

During this not-at-all-unhappy time, faithful Shevas remind one another that any woman who runs back to her rapist at the first sign of trouble, is trusted by him to keep the rape a secret, and is willingly comforted by said rapist after he murders her husband can now look to Bathsheba, Patron Saint of #notme, for reassurance God understands that women (despite their undeniable agency and infallible selflessness) sometimes have no choice. Doing what is right must never subject a godly woman to risk. It must never cost anything. God knows she was just doing what she had to do.

The Bathsheba Season is also an opportunity to reiterate that, contrary to the archaic, biblical teaching of submission of women to their husbands at home and in all churches of the saints, the modern church has finally figured out that God’s actual design was for women to exercise co-headship (apparently like some kind of spiritual Chimera), just as the enlightened modern church is clearly co-head with Christ. Bathsheba’s acolytes remind the church that, rather than “neither male nor female in Christ” (Galatians 3:28) being about equal spiritual standing and value unto salvation, it really means Jesus has finally done away with whatever God’s outdated purpose was in creating them male and female (Gen. 1:27). While Shevas remain unsure about why Jews, Greeks, and various other stations in life are still around, they give thanks to Bathsheba that at least the male/female distinction described by Paul via Genesis (1 Tim. 2:11-14) has finally disappeared. Shevangelicals give praise to Bathsheba that the church can finally have peace by declaring that the modern, godless world has been right about gender this whole time.

Sadly, the Season of Bathsheba still has its opponents. Every year, the festivities are disrupted by misogynistic, power-hungry men (and their brainwashed wives) who insist on quoting scripture like somehow God was able to iterate universal, lasting principles for his Church that still apply in our modern, enlightened times. These has-beens point to the calamitous consequences of the breakup of the nuclear family, the infiltration of sexual perversion into the culture and culturally-submissive churches, and how the lack of protective fathers and husbands leads to abusive ministerial relationships as some sort of evidence against the clear moral superiority of God’s new gender-flattening standard.

Fortunately, Bathshebian shevangelicals can count on their allies in the LGBTQ+ world, who are happy to take a break from the push to cut the breasts off of children to join hands against the Bible-thumping common enemy of patriarchy.

Yet the work is not done. Despite every vocal Sheva clearly ruling over their own husbands and households, the original sin of patriarchy will only be eliminated from the world once all differences between men and women, advantages and disadvantages, and outcome disparities are eliminated – just as Christ intended this side of glory. The systemic injustice of male headship must be met with perpetual female headship in order to keep the scourge of masculinity from once again taking dominion over the world. Each Bathsheba Season is a chance to remind the church that the push for female headship is not at all like a car-chasing dog that will be run over if it ever gets what it wants. Rather, gynocracy is the path to utopia in and out of the church, and there is no chance old-fashioned, male-led civilizations around the world will see this as a weakness to exploit.

Categories
bad theology News

Filthy Keller Center Describes Jesus as ‘Penetrating the Church’ with the ‘Seed of the Word’

Consistent with the awful hermeneutic and pandering cultural relevancy the site has become known for, the Gospel Coalition’s Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics published an article about the similarities between sexual intercourse and the church’s union with Christ.

We wish we were making this up.

Arizona pastor Josh Butler, author of the 2016 book The Pursuing God: A Reckless, Irrational, Obsessed Love That’s Dying to Bring Us Home, told readers in his recent article that sex is designed to point us to Jesus:

Sex is an icon of Christ and the church. In Ephesians 5:31–32, a “hall of fame” marriage passage, the apostle Paul proclaims, “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church” (NIV; I’ve translated proskollao as “cleave”).

And later:

Paul says both [leave and cleave and becoming one flesh] are about Christ and the church.

And just to put the grossest imagery out there:

…what deeper form of self-giving is there than sexual union where the husband pours out his very presence not only upon but within his wife?

Setting aside for a moment exactly what Butler means by a husband “pouring out his presence into his wife,” there is no biblical indication that the self-sacrificial, agape love that Christ has for his church and is emulated by husbands (Ephesians 5:25) is in any way analogous to the sexual union between man and wife (eros). Yet not to be deterred, Butler takes his intercourse metaphor to its disgusting and absurd end:

Christ arrives in salvation to be not only with his church but within his church. Christ gives himself to his beloved with extravagant generosity, showering his love upon us and imparting his very presence within us. Christ penetrates his church with the generative seed of his Word and the life-giving presence of his Spirit, which takes root within her and grows to bring new life into the world.

You read that right – the Keller Center for Cultural Compromise Apologetics is teaching that Jesus penetrates his bride and delivers his seed – his “generous gift within her.” This is a parody-level, overbroad interpretation of the bride of Christ metaphor – something the Babylon Bee might cook up if it wasn’t blasphemous and borderline pornographic.

At Protestia, we have a pretty strong gag reflex. But this article is one of the grossest things we’ve ever read, and we’re having a hard time not throwing up.

Categories
bad theology Evangelical Stuff Op-Ed

“Not Heterosexuality, But Holiness” Is An Unnatural and Unbiblical Compromise

It is still being peddled in seemingly orthodox evangelicalism: “The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it’s holiness.”

Or plagiarizing pastors sling this line: “Do you know how I know homosexuality doesn’t send you to hell? Because heterosexuality doesn’t send you to heaven!”

Consistent with the special exception in modern Christianity carved out for ontological homosexuality, a slightly narrower exception has been carved out by formerly identified homosexuals (and pragmatic enablers in evangelical pulpits like SBC pastor and EC trustee Dean Inserra) for a new brand of Roman Catholic-lite “holy celibate.” This person may or may not identify themselves as a homosexual, but they decry the notion that they are in any way obligated to nurture or seek so-called heterosexual orientation to mortify homosexual inclinations they have faced or may face in the future.

Notably, this concept is only applied (and seemingly only applicable by its proponents) to the sin of homosexuality. Theologians, authors, and influencers are not promoting similar ideas for other sins. We never hear things like, “The answer to stealing is not paying for your goods, it’s not procuring goods at all!” or “The answer to bearing false witness is not telling the truth, it’s not saying anything at all! Do you know how I know lying won’t send you to hell? Because telling the truth doesn’t send you to heaven!” Rather, it is only the natural, sexual urges of the flesh-bearing human being (Genesis 1:28, Isaiah 45:18, Psalm 127:3-5) that are described as if they can be and often should be neutralized.

More pointedly, the redeemer former homosexual has already demonstrated that they do not possess the gift of singleness described in 1 Corinthians 7:1, 7:8, and Matthew 19:10-12. This person – rescued from a deadly lifestyle obsessed with sexuality – has not only been tempted but has fallen into sexual immorality (1 Cor. 7:2, 7:9) and should cultivate heterosexual desires culminating in marriage as the Bible clearly instructs. Much like the redeemed former alcoholic will flee from the sin of being drunk with wine by avoiding wine and the redeemer gambling addict will avoid Las Vegas, the redeemed former homosexual (apart from abanding human relationships entirely) will follow the Bible’s clear instructions for how to avoid burning with passion (1 Cor. 7:9).

This kind of teaching, promoted by many well-meaning but compromising Christian pastors and teachers, presumes a Gnostic-flavored disconnect between the natural and the spiritual man, where a person can effectively place on ice the design God has woven into their humanity physically, emotionally, and spiritually, and this behavior can strangely be credited to him as righteousness.

The Bible does not teach the existence of a “homosexual” as understood by modern culture, nor that a person can be “gay” or “straight.” But it clearly condemns homosexual behavior under the presumption that human beings are straight by nature (Romans 1:26) – a presumption so clear that special revelation is not needed for it to be obvious (Romans 1:19-20). Our bodies were designed by God to work according to his intent, and the purposes of men and women (outside the rare and supernatural gift of singleness for the purpose of ministry) are designed for sexual union with one another in the bonds of marriage.

While holiness is the overarching proper and righteous pursuit for all Christians, this does not stand somehow in opposition to God’s gifts of marriage, children, and proper sexual intimacy as part of his plan of obedience for his children. The notable absence of this plain truth from the teaching of people pastors like Inserra – ignored in order to placate our culture’s pet sin – is patently unbiblical and must be exposed as the sinful error that it clearly is.

Categories
bad theology News Worship Music

Bad Stuff to Good Stuff: Theological Song Review of Graves Into Gardens

For readers who have seen prior theological song reviews here at Protestia, it may seem like most reviews result in a failing score. This is true – most do fail. This is because we insist on a high doctrinal standard for extra-biblical materials, and because the current state of affairs in Christian music is one where the contemporary Christian music industry has shifted its focus almost entirely to corporate worship. These reviews are specifically with regard to a song’s suitability for corporate worship. We will be endeavoring to highlight some worship service-worthy songs, but I’m afraid they will be few and far between.

The song Graves into Gardens was part of Elevation Worship’s live album of the same name, released in May, 2020. The song was certified platinum by the RIAA, won Billboard’s Top Christian Song of 2021, and the Gospel Music Association Dove Award for Worship Recorded Song of the Year.

Note: For a full explanation of the rubric and a primer on our scoring methodology, click here.

Doctrinal Fidelity and Clarity: The prosperity gospel that the song promotes was admitted by Chris Brown of Elevation Worship in an interview in 2020. Brown said that the song was sourced from a Steven Furtick sermon entitled “The Mystery of Potential,” in which (according to Brown) Furtick taught that the miracle in 2 Kings 13 showed that, “Elisha still had a resurrection miracle left in his bones.” Brown said, “God is still in the business of bringing dead things back to life. If we’ll trust God even with the seemingly dead areas of our lives, if we’ll believe in the power of God, if we’ll declare resurrection power over everything we sow, nothing will be wasted.

Brown does not mention the resurrection miracle of salvation, instead he indicates that in the same way resurrection was in Elisha, believers can “declare resurrection power” so that God will apparently not allow the “dead areas of our lives” to be wasted. Yet the miracle of the resurrection of the dead man who touched Elisha’s bones was done to indicate that God’s visible and miraculous power was uniquely attached to his chosen prophet Elisha (a type of Christ), not an indication that we have some sort of “resurrection power” we can apply to whatever area of our life we are dissatisfied with. The account of this miracle in 2 Kings 13 is no more evidence of the general “name it and claim it” taught by Steven Furtick than the resurrection of Christ Himself. Any connection between the song lyrics and the Bible that is beyond mere platitude is unfortunately a clear twisting of the applied passages. 5/25.

Doctrinal Specificity: The song is a masterclass in fill-in-the-blank worship. The chorus is more repetitive and non-specific than any song in rotation at K-Love, preferring to replace any one of dozens of specific adjectives the Bible uses to describe God (holy, righteous, perfect, etc.) with the sophomoric “better.”

The final chorus section might as well be out of a book of Mad Libs, where a worshipper could replace “you turn graves into gardens” with any other generally positive and negative nouns. “You turn bad stuff to good stuff” would function just as well. Almost as if to mock CCM’s use of this formula, the song uses “graves into gardens” (nonsensical since plants easily grow on top of buried bodies) and “seas into highways” (while likely a reference to crossing the red sea, both places of speedy travel). 5/20.

Focus: The focus of the song is predictably about the worshipper, not God, and the lyrics are full of self-referential phrases (“I searched,” My failures and flaws,” “put me back together”) and generic, fill-in-the-meaning phrases (“every desire is now satisfied here in your love,” “there’s not a place Your mercy and grace won’t find me again”) that are typical of worship songs written to have the widest possible appeal. References to God are there, but God’s praiseworthiness is cast as dependent on his utility to the worshipper, not because he is worthy no matter what. 5/20.

Association: (Copied from prior Elevation song review) Elevation Church vision caster Steven Furtick is a narcissistic, anti-Trinitarian heretic. Aside from his disqualifying association with modalist heretics like T.D. Jakes and prosperity hucksters like Joel Osteen, Furtick’s own teaching is replete with false doctrine. Furtick teaches his own brand of the prosperity gospel, in which he struts around in super expensive clothing while consistently minimizing Jesus and elevating (no pun intended) mankind to a quasi-god status. This false doctrine was made painfully obvious in May of 2021 when Furtick screamed “I am God Almighty!” and the end of a crazy, man-exalting sermon rant.

Having an easily-verifiable false teacher as one of the songwriters is the essence of dangerous association. 0/20.

Musical Value: The southern gospel shuffled waltz is written with genre-typical chordal call-and-response between the tonic and the subdominant (1 and 4 chords), which fits well in a wide array of church settings. It is a perfect musical setting for the personal testimony angle of the lyrics. In a non-corporate worship setting (album, concert), many of the lyrical objections to the song become less of a concern, as album songs have a different purpose than the corporate declaration and teaching that characterizes songs used in gathered worship. 15/15.

Total Score: 30/100. Scoring a zero in the association category is automatically disqualifying. Remember, these reviews are about a song’s suitability for use in corporate worship. Apart from the associational danger and the fact that revenue from the song’s monetization feeds a false church, the song itself (like many modern praise songs) would not be nearly as problematic outside the corporate worship context. Yet ironically it needs the corporate worship context with it’s juvenile modern standard of unspecificity to justify its existence, as the simplicity of the composition would likely render the song unpalatable next to popular secular music.

The characterization of supernatural miracles (parting the Red Sea) with God’s working through providence (getting that job you want) is both biblically and spiritually abusive. Modern songwriters count on mature believers who hear their songs to see solid theology in between the lines, while allowing the immature or lost to read their own desires into the same lyrics.

God works his sovereignty in everything, and we give thanks in and out of season. Resurrection as it applies to us is about Christ’s miraculous resurrection that secures ours, not about any and all temporal concerns of life.

Categories
bad theology News Op-Ed

Doug Wilson’s Hamartiological Orientation

Regular pew-sitters like myself have long been the beneficiaries of the unafraid, unapologetic wisdom of pastor Doug Wilson. We live in a church age where, as Wilson aptly noted in his blog post discussed below, the prizing of feminine characteristics in church leadership has created a “third sex” in evangelicalism. It is in this sea of weakling pastors that large numbers of evangelicals like myself are drawn to Doug Wilson’s brand of plain, masculine immovability – evangelicals likely to blast me for what is to follow.

The “Unnecessary” Controversy

One of the blessings of the internet (among its vast array of dangers) is the ability to keep tabs on the teaching of public Christians over time. Our current speaking and writing occur at the same time past versions of ourselves continue to teach from videos and articles we long ago forgot. Our digital expressions have no natural end, and at any time the Ghost of Teaching Past might return to remind everyone of our past errors. For the mature person, this return of the “ghost” leaves only two options: humbly repent and retract this prior error, or continue to cover it up in so much additional content that maybe no one will notice we’ve changed (or worse, that we haven’t). For Christians, the first is the only true option.

Such is the case with the recent rebuttal offered by Doug Wilson in response to a public challenge by Jared Moore on Jon Harris’s podcast (and to a lesser extent on ours) regarding the nature of so-called homosexual “orientation,” and the reemergence of old statements Wilson offered on the issue of homosexual concupiscence (strong desire) and its relationship with fallen human nature, temptation, and lust. Wilson was named alongside John Piper and Kevin DeYoung as a trusted pastor who has given ground on the issue, evidenced most pointedly by an answer he gave in a Q&A posted to YouTube in 2019 regarding whether a person could be both gay and a Christian. In his answer, Wilson indicated his acceptance of the existence of homosexual orientation and that homosexuals can avoid sinning merely by refusing to “express their sexuality in any kind of external way.” In 2022, Wilson responded to a question about homosexual concupiscence with an answer indicating he believes homosexual desire is mere temptation, which if resisted does not equate to sin.

What follows is an examination of this published response to the “unnecessary controversy,” in which Wilson starts by downplaying the seriousness of the issue before engaging in the kind of rhetorical obfuscation that is, well, vintage Doug Wilson.

A Novel Lexicon

Consistent with the “intuitive art” approach to hermeneutics popular among Federal Visionists (a label Wilson abandoned even as he claimed to have not really changed his beliefs), his response plays fast and loose with terminology (orientation vs identity, for example), is full of self-referencing and garrulous qualifications (I actually like this quirk in Wilson’s writing), and seemingly employs the same novel lexicon that found him using terms like “general equity theonomist” (as if the originators of theonomy hadn’t already defined the usage of the term).

Much like Wilson has previously taught that even Roman Catholics can be brothers in the “covenant community” merely by being subject to the civic benefits of the church, his claim that his church has “homosexuals in good standing” reveals a biblically unsupportable focus on outward works (“a sin” versus “sin”) as the arbiter of good fruit. Unfortunately, Wilson strawmans his “homosexuals in good standing” statement at Indiana University by claiming he referred to his church members as having a homosexual orientation without the identity. Yet anyone bearing the label homosexual would be considered by any modern culture – Christian or not – to be identified as a homosexual. This is categorically different from Wilson’s example of a person who steals being called a thief (a comparison he immediately undercuts by reminding readers that “thieving is not an identity”).

In case anyone doesn’t know, the term homosexual refers to someone practicing a lifestyle of homosexuality. Like the rest of us, Wilson does not get to redefine this term for his own purposes, and his identifying repentant believers in his church as “homosexuals” based apparently on their past, forgiven sin is a 1 Corinthians 6:11 error that goes uncorrected.

Later in the same paragraph, Wilson similarly employs his own definition of the word orientation, where instead of using its operational definition (natural sexual attraction to a defined gender), he redefines it as “how a person is likely to be tempted this time tomorrow” as if temptation sourced from within is not sin. Yet scripture does not talk about temptation, desire, or concupiscence with anything resembling the modern understanding of “orientation,” a concept that equivocates God’s design (heterosexuality) with its abominable counterfeits. This effectively means that when Wilson says “orientation” to a group of, let’s say “sexually broken people,” he says one thing and they hear another. A pastor of his giftedness should know that if we decide to use the term “orientation,” we cannot redefine it to our liking and get defensive when we’re inevitably misunderstood.

The One-Second Rule

Later in the post, Wilson uses the amorphous phrase “homosexual vulnerabilities”* when discussing what I will henceforth refer to as the One-Second Rule. In his example, a homosexual (by his 2019 definition) is attracted to a gay porn ad (what Romans 1:26 would call vile affections), but upon managing to reject clicking on it within a second the homosexual has managed to avoid sinning and has nothing to confess to God. His nature remains stubbornly open to this specific, unnatural sin, but he has “navigated the situation correctly” and need not be concerned with mortifying the “particular kink” that results in him seeing as good that which should rightly repulse him. According to Wilson, he passes the test if he halts the sinful continuation in one second or less, even as he laments his continued proclivity to love what God hates.

Of course, this example is comical when applied to other sins. A person who sees a stranger on the street and course corrects within one second of thinking it would be good to murder that person has still sinned at the moment they experienced any combination of thinking, feeling, or reacting as if murder is good. Adam and Eve fell in their hearts before eating the fruit, and would have stood condemned even they had managed to halt before that first bite. As modern culture has become fully LGBTQ-affirming, it is no coincidence that homosexuality is now offered a do-over on the James 1:14-15 path.

*Note: I agree that not every person is equally susceptible to the same temptations, so perhaps “vulnerabilities” is a helpful way to describe this reality.

The Impeccability of Christ

No discussion of the dynamics of sin would be complete without discussing the temptation of Christ, and unfortunately, Wilson more than muddies the definitional waters here as well. Temptation in scripture often describes trials that may or may not bring us to sinful desires or behaviors (James 1:12). These present an opportunity to sin, but are powerless apart from our fallen nature. These temptations do not equate to desire, do not refer to our internal consideration of the “benefits” of sinning (Matthew 15:19), and are separate from the sinful nature that makes us vulnerable to them (we rightly understand that Christ was not vulnerable to sinning). Yet temptation can also refer to the sinful opportunities presented by the sinner’s flesh nature, and these must be understood as the confession-worthy sin they are. Wilson’s example of the person seeing the gay porn ad as good is beyond mere external temptation – the person’s positive, natural reaction to it is itself a sin to be confessed, fled from, and mortified.

Of course, the reason Jesus resisted the devil’s temptation was not, as Wilson unfortunately insinuated, merely because God foreordained his victory. Christ’s nature was not and is not peccable (susceptible to sin in any respect) like his physical body was susceptible to injury. Rather, Jesus is God incarnate, perfectly capable of not sinning in deed, thought, or disposition. Jesus had absolutely no desire, inclination, or orientation to do anything other than the will of the Father, thus temptation (trials, deceitful claims) did not cause Him even for a moment to consider anything other than perfect obedience (even as Christ clearly experienced and expressed the frailty of his humanity). No back-and-forth battle was waged in the heart of Christ when He perfectly resisted the pathetic wiles of Satan.

Christ did not empathize with our sinful nature in his temptation (“feel the force of it,” as Wilson claims), He sympathizes with our weaknesses. That is, Christ is fully capable of understanding and having compassion for our struggle with the flesh. In no sense does the temptation of Christ indicate that He experienced fleshly temptation, as seeing the same sex as sexually attractive would be rightly understood to be. Wilson’s implication that Christ’s spiritual nature allowed the possibility of sin merely because his physical nature was breakable (which has nothing to do with sin) is a Christological error of soul-damning consequence.

Let me repeat that: Claiming that it is categorically possible for God to sin is heresy.

Concupiscence Does As Concupiscence Is

The title of Wilson’s blog response betrays an upside-down understanding of the relationship between our sinful nature and the sinful desires and actions that result from it. “Concupiscence Is As Concupiscence Does” is entirely backward and is sadly in harmony with the hamartiological teaching of so-called “Side B” (SSA) Christianity and Roman Catholicism, which both teach a particularly unbiblical point of innocence between sinful nature (sin) and its external result (a sin). In practice, they effectively combine sinful desire and the internal temptation it brings. Both teach that not only do external temptations remain in full force after our conversion (this is true), but our sinful desires that are drawn to those temptations (and birth their own) remain firmly immovable and can be properly overcome externally.

Why This is Not an Unnecessary Controversy

Does it really matter if a Christian has an enduring unnatural “orientation” so long as they don’t go any further in thought or deed? Does it matter if ” a sin” (a thought or deed) is the focus rather than “sin” (the flesh nature)? Yes, it matters. The Bible clearly establishes not that we are sinners because we sin, but that we sin because we are sinners. Our war – our repentance – must extend to all aspects of what is opposed to God’s perfection, including any and all remaining internal inclinations toward sin – whether we think we choose them or not. A pastor focusing on the external expression of sin or even the “stirring” of sin inside the heart does great damage to the essential truth that it is our nature, not our works that must be warred against.

The alternative presented by men like Wilson, Piper, and DeYoung leaves the door open for a person to recast their internal temptation to sin as being not sin so long as they keep it inside. Homosexuality is (among other things) our culture’s sin du jour, and at present SSA advocates can point to generally solid teachers to support their claim that they need not mortify their “orientation” so long as they don’t engage in (subjectively defined) gay outward expression. Making this works-based technicality the standard for obedience and sanctification is the gateway drug that leads to “covenant, same-sex friendships,” “hetero cuddling,” and every manner of effeminate perversion Doug Wilson would rightly condemn.

So what is the answer? First, we must not tolerate the usage of terms in a non-operational way. We must use terms like homosexual and orientation to describe what everyone who hears us presumes they mean. We must clearly define what the Bible teaches about temptation – its external (non-sinful) and internal (sinful) sources. Hold up claims about “homosexual orientation” to the logical light of other serious sins to see if what is then claimed even makes sense, especially because the world is demanding the church give their current pet sin a special exception (and they won’t stop there). We must insist that our errant brothers course correct, recant, and repent of their false teaching on this subject. Lastly, Christians must reinforce the truth that sinners do as sinners are, and God does as God is. There are no exceptions.

One more thing: Wilson chided Jared Moore for failing to note Wilson’s podcasts, blog posts, and commentaries on the subject. Assuming they demonstrate a different position than that which Moore has demonstrated, “I got it right other times” is not a defense for getting it wrong currently. And if these other materials harmonize with the Indiana University Q&A and the answer to Noah, they only reinforce Moore’s conclusion.

Categories
bad theology Worship Music

Theological Song Review: Firm Foundation by The Belonging Co. Ft. Cody Carnes – 35/100.

The song “Firm Foundation” was released in 2021 by The Belonging Co. (Cody Carnes and Kari Jobe’s “worship collective”) as a single. The Belonging Co. describes itself as a “church movement” that has “become known as a place to find freedom, breakthrough, and healing through God’s Word, His presence and worship.”

Note: For a full explanation of the rubric and a primer on our scoring methodology, click here.

Doctrinal Fidelity and Clarity: On a cursory listen, the song is mainly faithful to biblical doctrine. The lyrics are written around Matthew 7:24-27, where Jesus describes the difference between the house built on the sands of false belief and false hope (leading to eternal destruction) versus the house built on the rock of Christ (enduring to the end). The believing Christian will read between the lines, seeing the true faithfulness of Christ in lines like “He’s faithful through generations” and “I’m standing strong in you.” Unfortunately, the lost person or less mature believer will find plenty of opportunities to graft their own meaning on what Jesus’ faithfulness is to them, and especially what Jesus never letting them down is supposed to mean. 15/25.

Doctrinal Specificity: Despite regular references to the imagery of the house built on Jesus, the song never addresses anything specific about Jesus other than general faithfulness. This unspecificity, unfortunately, allows listeners/worshipers to insert their own meaning into what Christ’s faithfulness means – is it faithfulness to save from our sins, or might it be faithfulness to take care of whatever temporal issue concerns us at the moment? The song makes no distinction and doubles down with the lyrical self-focus typical of a Carnes song. 10/20.

Focus: As with so many popular modern praise songs, the lyrical point of view is first person, focusing on my role in my relationship with God. The song starts off with “my foundation,” my decisions, and the chorus characterizes God’s faithfulness as valid because of my perseverant decision. Out of the 28 lyrical lines in the song, 19 are self-referencing. No line in the song mentions “us” or the people of God in any way – strange for a song clearly written for corporate worship. Carnes basically gives himself credit for what should be credited to God. 5/20.

No lyrics have even been sung.

Association: Cody Carnes and his wife Kari Jobe are in partnership with Gateway Church, a seeker-sensitive megachurch that promotes New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) false doctrine. See more here.

The Belonging Co. is a charismatic “church” in Nashville that ordains female “pastors” and offers this neuchurch description: We desire encounter over entertainment, intimacy over industry, presence over presentation, people over position, and Jesus over everything.

Huh?

This is yet another unfortunate church-band combo organization that mixes (no pun intended) church and music industry together to form a kind of “emotion club” for spiritual consumers. 0/20.

Two fake pastors.

Musical Value: There is a reason that contemporary Christian praise and worship music has the reputation of being the easiest, cheapest, cookie-cutter music in the world. Because it is. And when called out for its cheap formulaic nature, the answer is usually that the music is a vehicle for the meaning of the song. The problem is that the lyrics are similarly vapid. Look at most modern worship lyrics apart from their musical context, and they look like they were generated by the Random Christian Phrase Machine™ rather than any effort to express glorious theological truth about God.

This is no less true with “Firm Foundation,” which uses the exact same repetitive tropes as every other emotionally manipulative repetition fest churned out by the brainless CCM machine, ready to give hand-raising drones the Jesus fix they have clearly become addicted to. The musical execution is clean and professional, although there is no instrumental or vocal virtuosity whatsoever. 5/15.

Total Score: 35/100. Seriously, stop playing this garbage. God deserves so much better than this.

Categories
bad theology Evangelical Stuff SBC

SBC President Signals The Egalitarian Beginning of the End for the SBC

The President of the SBC can’t or won’t defend biblically-ordained male headship in the church.

In a podcast with Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Jason Allen, SBC president Bart Barber failed to offer a biblical defense for the office of pastor being reserved for men beyond “the Bible says so” and SBC tradition, and instead recommended grace for churches who are “still trying to figure out” how to apply what the Bible actually teaches regarding church leadership as if it hasn’t been clear for 2000 years. Don’t get us wrong – “the Bible says so” is valid, but necessitates a discussion of what the Bible actually says to be an effective argument.

Barber described three general positions on the topic of the pastorate being reserved for men – churches that are full-blown egalitarian and believe there are no gender restrictions for pastors, churches that believe and practice the biblical teaching that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is for men only, and a “middle ground” where churches may refer to women working on staff at a church as “pastor” even though the women don’t hold the same functional authority as a male Senior Pastor.

While Barber makes it clear that his church reserves the office of pastor for men, functioning with a plurality of elders, he describes the reservation of the pastorate for men as a “pragmatic concern”:

And you know, in 1 Timothy 3, I believe that you have God pointing us to the need for the church to have structure, the need for the church to have members who serve in structured leadership positions – what we call the offices of the church, – and at the church needs to be careful and deliberate in the selection of people to serve in those ways. Some of those qualifications are obviously spiritual and have to do with character. And some of them just have to do with pragmatic concerns about service in those offices.

Barber takes issue with churches that call female ministers “pastor” on the basis of it being “unfair” to offer women a “bait and switch” where they will apparently think they are full-blown pastors but still be subordinate. He characterizes the debate over women pastors as a modern concern for Baptist churches, claiming that churches before the mid-70s would have only had one pastor and wouldn’t have been concerned with what to call the “luxury” of additional pastors:

And I think one thing we have to acknowledge here is how brief that history is, because for a lot of churches today, but for almost all Southern Baptist churches in say, 1965, the idea of what terminology they use with regard to your second pastor would be similar to trying to figure out where you’re going to park your second Lamborghini, the churches didn’t have more than one member on staff.

Allen suggests that disfellowship from the SBC may be the proper response to churches that refuse to conform to biblical teaching:

I think we’re on the same page here. There comes a point where if a church or even churches fundamentally are in a different place and going a different direction, theologically, we have to say, “God bless you, we love you. We’re disappointed, but you’re probably gonna be happier in a different fellowship. And we are probably going to be healthier, more unified if you’re not in our fellowship…”

Barber laments the possibility, hoping that SBC churches are actually being obedient and are perhaps not using the same terminology the same way:

…and I think this subject is one over which we may have to do that. I just hope not over many churches. Because I really think that the preponderance of Southern Baptist churches – if we’re all using the same dictionary – can come to an agreement about what we believe.

He ends the podcast with a shoutout to his church’s female missions director and children’s minister:

God has so clearly gifted and equipped her to do what she’s doing that stewardship requires her to be doing what she’s doing. And I’m thankful for all of those contributions. And not only thankful for them – dependent upon them. Desperate for them. We need the faithful work of women, both on-staff and off-staff at our churches to help us accomplish the mission that God’s given for us. But we also need to recognize that there’s a biblical office of Pastor/elder/overseer that’s reserved for men who are qualified by Scripture.

Nowhere in the discussion does the President of the SBC provide an actual answer to the simple question that egalitarians present to the male headship church model: What is the reason for this restriction? Instead, Barber relies solely on “the Bible says so,” which not only fails to bring to bear the totality of scriptural teaching on God’s design for men and women, but it implies that God is arbitrary and superstitious in what He instructs his people to do.

Barber apparently believes women should be satisfied with, “You’re essential and needed, but you don’t get to lead. Why? Because God said so.”

In truth, God’s Word makes it abundantly clear why women are not naturally or ontologically designed for spiritual leadership in the church. Scripture teaches that a husband is the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23) whom she is to submit to and respect, that orderly worship in all churches necessitates that women remain submissive and bring their questions to their husbands at home (1 Cor. 14:34-35), that she should learn quietly, and she is not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man in church (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Lest there be any confusion, Paul reminds Timothy that this hierarchical requirement is indeed ontological in nature – that Adam was formed first, and that Eve was deceived (Adam sinned knowingly, he wasn’t fooled like she was. See 2 Tim. 3:6 for further indication of female vulnerability). Eve did not overtly rebel against God, she was fooled into believing a lie. God’s design was for male headship in marriage – and therefore in the church – and we are reminded in 1 Tim. 3:4 that the husband is to be the head of his household.

Much like God designed men with superior physical capabilities to defend, fight, and win battles, He designed men with a complimentary disposition to defend, fight, and win spiritual battles. Men are commanded to lead and care for their households, and this command naturally and logically extends to the household of faith. A woman sinfully exercising the role or office of pastor has not only inverted the submissive order required in the church, but she has also inverted the order of submissiveness within her own marriage. She is giving into the curse described in Genesis 3:16 and is ruling over her husband. Men who allow this are following in Adam’s footsteps by abrogating their spiritual leadership role.

Why won’t the President of the SBC outline and describe this clear biblical teaching? Simply, because the world would be offended. His strategy is instead to pass it off as a pragmatic technicality (although he failed to explain the pragmatism behind male leadership) and hope that women will be satisfied with being told how important their non-leadership ministerial roles are. Of course, this has not worked for mainline denominations, who upon allowing woman pastors slid directly into further biblical deconstruction and eventually unapologetic apostasy. This clear historical precedent is why we are confident that a failure to biblically defend male headship in the church and home signals the upcoming end of the Southern Baptist Convention as we know it.

Absent a true doctrinal revival, it is not a matter of if, but when.

Categories
bad theology Evangelical Stuff News Op-Ed

Mike Winger, Allen Parr, and the Darker Side of Christian YouTube

Precisely because they have misled my people, saying, ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace, and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear it with whitewash, say to those who smear it with whitewash that it shall fall! There will be a deluge of rain, and you, O great hailstones, will fall, and a stormy wind break out. Ezekiel 13:10-11 ESV

The internet certainly provides a great number of teachers saying what itching ears want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3). No site makes this more obvious than the world’s second-largest search engine, Google’s very own YouTube. Viewers can watch content ranging from bizarre and obvious rank heresy all the way to solid expositional sermons from trustworthy ministries around the globe – all loosely defined within the distinct yet unceremoniously monikered “Christian YouTube.”

At the top of the Christian YouTube heap lies a perniciously dangerous breed of online teacher. These teachers boast hundreds of thousands of subscribers, millions of views, and video content on nearly every theological topic imaginable. Their content is often solidly biblical and helpful, especially for believers not steeped in the finer points of biblical discernment.

Yet time and time again, when the topic at hand would call them to risk their popularity by decisively marking and avoiding a false teacher (Rom. 16:17) with enough followers to put a dent in their subscriber base, these teachers retreat. They capitulate and play the “judge not” card – not only refusing to identify clear heretics but often encouraging the faithful to welcome leaven in the lump.

These professional video creators are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, revealing that while they may disagree with the icebergs, they aren’t prepared to tell ships to stay clear. They are collaborators – telling the faithful to let down their guard (sometimes quite literally) while convincing themselves their popularity must be maintained lest the Spirit be unable to minister within the hearts of digital seekers. Their compromise is often identifiable in the comments of their most ardent defenders, who rush to their defense with cries for unity, gentleness, and accusations based on nebulous “Christlikeness.”

In the same spirit, these YouTubers will make sure to identify and warn against other online discernment ministries who don’t hesitate to mark false teachers and therefore must have less-than-pure motives.

Allen Parr is one such popular Christian YouTuber, and (much like the false teachers he runs interference for) his channel “THE BEAT with Allen Parr” offers a good amount of true teaching along with some dangerous errors – most concerningly his belief that Christians ought to “eat the meat and spit out the bones” when sitting under Christian teaching. In a video posted in May 2021, Parr tells viewers not to focus on identifying false teachers but to be concerned with false teaching. This way – according to Parr – Christians are free to “listen to whoever you want to,” being blessed by whatever the teacher says that’s true while disagreeing with anything they happen to say that’s false. Parr describes the act of calling out false teachers as a “fallacy,” claiming that it causes others to miss out on the “blessing” and “value” of the true things the false teacher will inevitably say.

The apostle Paul, on the other hand, tells the Roman church to mark and avoid false teachers, reminds the Galatians that a little leaven (false doctrine) leavens the whole lump (spreads throughout the church), and tells the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29 that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.” Notably, Paul (and the rest of scripture) makes no mention of how properly discerning believers should avail themselves of the good parts of a wolf’s teaching.

Mike Winger is another popular Christian YouTuber who recently got into a “scuffle” with the Bible Thumping Wingnut’s Tim Hurd over Winger’s non-warning about arch-heretic Bill Johnson, “pastor” of grave-sucking, gold dust sprinkling Bethel Church. While there is no doctrinal statement on Mike Winger’s website, he is a charismatic-lite Arminian who holds to biblical authority and sufficiency – a fairly typical combination for someone coming out of a Calvary Chapel background. He is a personable guy who hosts helpful videos on a variety of biblical topics.

Yet recently the Doctrinal Watchdog YouTube channel posted clips and commentary from Winger talking with Ruslan KD about Bethel Church and John MacArthur. The video claimed that the two trashed John MacArthur and defended Bethel Church, and contains a clip of Winger claiming Bethel “has the essentials of the faith” and that he “didn’t see a false gospel in Bethel’s teaching.” In response to the Doctrinal Watchdog video, Tim Hurd the Bible-Thumping Wingnut Guy (who admittedly is a big John MacArthur fan) posted a video discussing these quotes and claiming he no longer finds Mike Winger solid. Full disclosure: biblethumpingwingnut.com is the home for the free side of the Protestia Tonight podcast.

Winger then posted a video outlining what he claimed were lies told about him by Doctrinal Watchdog and BTWN, resulting in Hurd retracting some of his claims but remaining concerned about several other issues – including some more dangerous than those originally claimed by Doctrinal Watchdog. As the old adage goes, sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, and in this case, Winger’s added context revealed bigger problems. Most troublingly, Winger made it clear that he has a different standard for what constitutes a biblical, saving Gospel than what scripture clearly teaches.

Winger discussed five supposed lies that were told about him, commented on in italics:

  1. That he was “slain in the spirit.” It is true that Winger seems to not believe in the validity of being slain ala Benny Hinn (fall over uncontrollably, or the “Holy Hadouken“), but he doesn’t see anything in scripture that would invalidate it.
  2. That he believes churches should have an official office of prophet. Winger does seem to believe that an office of church prophet is invalid, but not invalid enough to disqualify a church that employs such an office.
  3. That he supports Kris Valotton, the “prophet” of Bethel. While Winger states that he does not “support” Valotton, he has claimed that Valotton sometimes prophesied truthfully.
  4. That he “trashed” John MacArthur due to MacArthur’s teaching on modern speaking in tongues. Winger is on record stating MacArthur is a blessing and great Bible teacher, but states in his response video that “there were some things they (MacArthur) said in that conference that…kind of made it sound like half a billion Christians around the world are like not really Christians based upon your standards.”

Mike Winger’s normative discernment, practiced by online ministers, is basically a “see no falsehood, hear no falsehood” approach to other teachers – even clearly false ones. Winger helpfully sums up what it means to exercise normative discernment at 11:15:

I really do think that a lot of Christians are real Christians, even though they have major issues in their lives. Whether it’s some doctrinal things that are wrong, or whether it’s even some practical like living their life, and there’s issues and maybe I’m less confident that they’re Christians because of the things I see. But I’m not going to call them false brethren because of it. I’ve done this with several people who are even prominent teachers like Joel Osteen, who I yeah, I’ve got a reason to wonder whether that guy’s really saved or not, but I lean hopefully on the side that, you know, he does seem to proclaim the true gospel of Christ.

Yes, Winger stated that Joel Osteen “seems to proclaim the true gospel of Christ.”

Winger’s standard for the true proclamation of the Gospel appears to be whether or not a teacher directly contradicts the “salvation recipe” in their teaching – apart from what else the teacher teaches (or prophecies) or what other elements they add to the Gospel. As long as the teacher is on record somewhere, sometime, teaching salvation by faith alone in Christ, anything else taught (even substantive modifications of the Gospel) does not place the teacher outside the Kingdom.

Winger is likewise unwilling to label Bill Johnson (the functional “apostle” of Bethel) a false teacher, despite the fact that he has clearly (and by Winger’s own admission) added to the gospel. Rather, Winger sets aside the doctrine added by Johnson and only judges the “essential recipe.” This method of “discernment” is in contrast to what Paul wrote to the Galatian church: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” The purity of the Gospel was of utmost importance because it was the difference between life and death. Later in the letter, Paul reminds them that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump (5:9),” emphasizing the purity of the truth and that (particularly legalistic) false teaching corrupts the entire church.

Final Thoughts

These YouTubers are selling a “unity” based on nonjudgmentalism rather than truth, and will gladly equivocate their way around any concrete judgment that has the potential to draw controversy or overt opposition from a sufficiently large “Christian” community (Bethel, Lakewood, Elevation, etc.). Of course, any true teaching coming from an aberrant movement or false teacher (a “blessing” according to Allen Parr) should safely be found in solid churches or even (gasp) from a Christian’s own church and pastors – negating Parr’s justification for “eating the meat and spitting out the fat.”

There is never an actual need for a Christian to sit under the teaching of faraway pastors or ministries (including this one, by the way), so there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for exposing oneself or one’s family to false teaching for the sake of nuggets of truth that might be mixed in. Likewise, there is no need to expose oneself to Christian YouTubers who refuse to follow biblical instructions to identify false teachers and protect the flock from wolves merely to maintain online popularity.