Category: Op-Ed

Categories
Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Can Asbury Be A Revival When Its Theology is So Revoicey?

The most recent iteration of the Asbury “Revival” Movement has been used to attack Christian polemics and discernment ministries that call into question the doctrine that undergirds the revivalist movement at Asbury University. Scripture provides believers with a firm foundation for examining both the spirit of a movement and the doctrine from which it ascends to gain a foothold in the church. 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1

Pulpit and Pen’s Seth Dunn and many others have noted the egalitarian and emotion-driven theology of the Pentecostal Wesley Egalitarians of Asbury. The college labels itself as a “multi-denominational institution”, a label that should in no way be confused with a “non-denominational institution”, as the university is dedicated to advancing the theology of Wesleyan denominations. 

Perhaps the most controversial point of contention between those who have practiced discernment and care in not hastily declaring the movement to be a “revival”, and those who have declared no quarter for those who have genuine questions or concerns about what is going on, is the question of whether Asbury maintains a standard of Biblical sexuality. Proponents of the university and the movement have been quick to point to the university’s statement on sexuality.

While the statement contains what seems to be an orthodox position on sexuality, Asbury students who claim gay Christian identities have begun to declare the revival a victory for the advancement of queer identity in the church.

Many have claimed that the statements of LGBTQ-identifying students at Asbury do not reflect the views of the university, but a closer look reveals that the university is well-aware that it hosts a community of LGBTQ students. Many of these men and women who have chosen to cling to an identity that is rooted in their deviant sexual proclivities are planning on becoming ordained pastors and pastrixes, and the university has even brought in outside speakers to support the advancement of LGBTQ sexual minorities in the school.

On March 10, 2022, the university invited Preston Sprinkle, a staunch advocate of Side-B homosexuality and co-founder of the Revoice conference, to speak in the Asbury University chapel service. Sprinkle, who has previously stated that “The Church Needs LGBTQ People” was flanked onstage by university faculty and Elijah Drake, an Asbury student who identifies as a “celibate gay Christian”. Drake, who has defended his Romans 1-defying sexuality in his undergrad thesis, was chosen from among the student to read scripture before Preston Sprinkle was introduced to speak.

Preston sprinkled the students at Asbury with a Ted talk on his side B Homosexuality-promoting theology, claiming that he is passionate about “creating a church culture that can embody the kindness of God toward sexual and gender minorities.” According to Sprinkle, 30% of Generation Z Christians identify as LGBTQ. The ultimate goal of the talk was contained in the title “discipling the church in the LGBTQ Conversation.” According to Sprinkle, the church needs to listen to those who root their identity in sexual deviance and allow them to influence the way that ministry is done.

Side-B homosexuality advocates like Preston Sprinkle, LGBTQ-identifying Asbury students, and the administrators at Asbury promote a form of antinomian evangelicalism that is heavy on emotion and light on Biblical obedience. Asbury, in its statement on sexuality, argues that the issue of Biblical sexuality “is about the behavior” while ignoring the fact that scripture clearly shows that sexual sin is a heart matter. Because Jesus speaks of lust as adultery of the heart, the treasuring of identities that are rooted in sexual deviancy must be viewed as sexual sin of the heart. 

If Asbury University or any other school would see God send true revival, that revival must begin with the repentance of sin, the shedding of false doctrines, the rejection of compromises with the world, and a return to the standard of scripture. 

Editor’s Note. Our Op-Ed page does not always reflect the editorial opinion of Protestia.

Categories
Breaking Church News Op-Ed

Lies Abound in Liberal Christianity Today’s Rehashed Smear Piece on John MacArthur

Another Shepherds Conference, another run at trying to destroy John MacArthur.

Personal baggage, threats, and long-disproven claims drive the tabloid salaciousness of Christianity Today’s rehash of the 20+ year-old Eileen and David Gray saga. The most damning evidence: Contrary to the narrative forwarded in Kate Shellnutt’s article, Grace Community Church elders did NOT commission disgruntled former elder Hohn Cho to investigate the church’s conduct in relation to the 20-year-old case of Eileen and David Gray.

It’s like it’s March 2022 all over again, and we find ourselves repeating the same exculpatory evidence as last year regarding the sordid 2002-2005 affair of Eileen and David Gray, encouraging the same folks who fell for it last year to calm down. Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice, you need to read polemics/discernment websites more regularly.

This time the “journalism outlet” taking a run at discrediting John MacArthur and Grace Community Church is Russell Moore-captained Christianity Today, which on Thursday published what was basically a rehash of a roundly discredited Julie Roys 2022 piece entitled, “John MacArthur Shamed, Excommunicated Mother for Refusing to Take Back Child Abuser” – only this time with a former Grace Community Church elder and self-appointed Abuse Investigator endorsing Roys’ twisted conclusions.

The 2023 retelling, written by Kate Shellnutt (CT’s go-to #churchtoo writer who called Bart Barber’s defeat of Tom Ascol at SBC ’22 a “win for abuse reform”), reads like a People Magazine profile on former GCC elder Hohn Cho and is structured with the exact same gaslit emotionality as the original Roys hit piece that hoodwinked Cho last March.

Shellnutt starts by noting that it “turned out” that Eileen Gray’s fears proved true, then insinuated the same foundational thesis employed by Roys: A church’s lack of clairvoyance renders it culpable for whatever secret sin is revealed in the future. In other words, believe all women no matter what the evidence indicates, because the guy might still be awful.

To refresh: Despite her admitted sin and culpability in the matter, Eileen Gray has now been exonerated in the court of public opinion for what “turned out” to be true. Her refusal to pursue reconciliation with her husband was not on the basis of what was known at the time of her refusal, but on the basis of years-later revelations elicited during her children’s counseling. As the only real addition to last year’s story is Cho’s disagreement with the GCC elders and the claims of multiple anonymous and unchallengeable accusers, these new “revelations” will be the focus of this article. Anyone unfamiliar with the timeline or details of the case can read our analysis from last year here and here.

Investigator Hohn

The CT article claims that “as a lawyer and one of four officers on the elder board at Grace Community Church (GCC), Cho was asked to study the case” (Cho’s office was as recording secretary). Readers would be forgiven for concluding that he was chosen by the other elders to commission a fresh investigation because of some special legal expertise (a conclusion supported by his friend Rachel Denhollander).

In reality, Cho (an entertainment attorney turned transacional/M&A lawyer for a biotech company), was asked personally and informally to summarize the available court documents from David Gray’s 2004-2005 criminal case, as alluded to by GCC elder Phil Johnson back in March of 2022. No Cho-lead investigation into the church’s involvement with the Grays was ever requested by the GCC elders. The elder board – which included several men with intimate and personal knowledge of the 2002 case – was in unanimous agreement that given everything they knew and could have known at the time, the Gray situation had been handled as biblically as possible. The only holdout was Hohn Cho.

Unbeknownst to the rest of the board, Cho started his own personal investigation, which reportedly did not include talking to any of the people involved (like Protestia did) nor reviewing any evidence of the Gray’s counseling at GCC. Instead, the yet-to-be-released memo was reportedly Cho’s combination of an inspection of publicly available court documents with Julie Roys’ spin.

This 20-page memo was passed around to several elders, demanding GCC ‘do justice’ in response to what Cho was now convinced happened. His conclusion was reportedly roundly criticized by his fellow elders for its inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and for relying on indefensible assumptions not supported by the available evidence. Cho was reportedly asked to correct his faulty conclusions, including his assumption that David Gray’s yet-to-be-discovered sin meant that Eileen Gray was justified in refusing marital reconciliation. Instead, Cho and his wife resigned their church membership to the cheers of their friend Rachel Denhollander.

The Denhollander Spell

Hohn Cho has been an avid supporter/follower of fellow lawyer Rachel Denhollander since at least March 2018, when the “trained attorney” (a redundant descriptor Cho assigned her in a fawning 2019 blog post) published an 8000-word Facebook response to Sovereign Grace Church’s defense of its handling of an early 1980’s sex abuse case (among other claims of abuse mishandling).

Denhollander called for SGC to submit to an additional third-party investigation in part because the independent investigation previously conducted by the church (called the Thaler-Liebeler report) was done by “a firm and an attorney with no known or recorded experience in criminal law or investigative work” (curiously, she has expressed no concern for this standard being applied to Cho’s investigation of GCC). Cho weighed in on Denhollander’s 2018 Facebook post:

Read this last night and was blown away. Re-read it this morning and am still blown away. When I read CJM/SG’s response a few weeks ago, I shook my head because it was such a bad response, on so many levels. But this reply is powerful, comprehensive, and devastating. Praying for you!!!

Upon the publishing of the CT article on Cho, he claimed in a Facebook post that Shellnutt had “reached out to [him] for comment” in December 2022 for “a story she was working on.” While it isn’t clear exactly when Shellnutt’s story turned into a profile on Cho, the connection between his departure from GCC and the Gray case was revealed by Denhollander in April 2022, when she called his “courageous choice” to leave the church “redemptive” and “the true gospel.” She responded to criticism a couple of weeks later over her “true gospel” claim by doubling down and reiterating that one’s response to “those who have been harmed” is indeed the Gospel of Christ.

Cho didn’t reveal the reason he and his wife left the church in his April 2022 resignation email, choosing instead to stay largely silent about his concerns with GCC until (according to his Facebook post) he was contacted out of the blue by Shellnutt, the long-time Denhollander ally and recently named CT Editorial Director of News under ex-Baptist Russell Moore. In the same post, Cho hinted at “other GCC matters that have come to [his] attention,” and issued a coy threat that he may or may not go public with them depending on “the nature and extent of the response (if any) from GCC and its allies.”

Christianity Astray

Shellnutt’s article plays many of the same word games Roys used in 2022, leading the uninitiated reader to draw falsely negative conclusions about Grace Community Church’s knowledge and culpability. For instance, Shellnutt describes GCC pastor John MacArthur’s May 2002 public discipline of Eileen, then leaps forward in time, writing (emphasis mine) “David Gray, once a teacher on staff at the church, went on to be sentenced for his crimes in 2005: aggravated child molestation, corporal injury to a child, and child abuse.”

This deceptive skip makes it seem like Eileen Gray (and probably John MacArthur) was aware of the most serious accusations against David Gray at the time discipline was being exercised. In truth, these accusations didn’t materialize until over a year later.

The article seems entirely unphased by the possibility that both spouses can be guilty of sin, and acting in opposition to clear biblical teaching is not validated on the basis of the future revelation of sin any more than deciding to steal can be justified if later you find out that the goods already belonged to you. Your thievery would still be a sin against God, and your church would be right to address it as such.

Shellnutt’s article downplays the Bible’s teaching on divorce, and characterizes pastors relaying clear passages of scripture on things like forgiveness and love as damaging, especially when counseling women who “feared for their safety.”

Testimonies of eight anonymous women are presented with no critical analysis. Police involvement and legal proceedings are characterized as veritable proof of misdeeds – not of the husbands of course, but the church. The clear target of all of this one-sided, anonymous testimony is not the women’s husbands (as much as they might all be dirtbags), it is Grace Community Church, John MacArthur, and by extension the Bible’s prioritizing of marital reconciliation and clear teaching on marriage.

Common sense would indicate that even when a wife (or husband) facing abuse is given perfect counsel, there is no guarantee that things will work out as desired. Yet the article attempts to leave the reader with the distinct impression that GCC is cold-heartedly and knowingly forcing battered women and children back into the arms of abusive husbands. Careful examination of the evidence (or lack thereof) does not actually demonstrate this, however, and emotional hyperbole like Cho’s claim that “congregants who [he] still love[s] could effectively be playing Russian roulette if they ever needed counseling at GCC” and apart from him “call[ing] out a warning” the “blood of the people would be on [his] head” is shameless emotional manipulation.

More Questions

It is very sad to see a seemingly solid elder tread this path. By all accounts, Hohn Cho had a track record of faithful teaching and discernment. Yet his decision to partner with the woefully compromised and often anti-church Christianity Today – with this reliance on a bevy of anonymous accusations, Cho’s yet-to-be-released investigation memo, and the filthy manipulation published by MacArthur-obsessed Julie Roys – betrays a man with troublesome intent rather than simple ignorance.

His claim that the CT article contains “hard evidence” and “testimony from a multitude of witnesses” rather than the unchallengeable tabloid gossip it actually contains is the opposite of the personal integrity he claims motivated him, as is his gossipy reference to the “several other GCC matters” and his thinly-veiled threat to not let things rest if GCC or its allies do not respond to his liking.

Did the elders’ rejection of his memo create personal rifts that could not be repaired? Was his pal Rachel Denhollander pressuring him to be a “whistleblower,” and suggested go-to abuse writer Kate Shellnutt as the allied writer to drop this year’s pre-ShepCon October surprise? How did a disagreement over a 20-year-old case move Cho from being an “ardent and public supporter of GCC” to someone willing to partner with those actively seeking the destruction of his church? Why does Cho bear no responsibility for his time on the elder board during which all of this abuser-supportive counseling took place?

Is this case anything other than yet another church leader succumbing to the siren song of the “believe all women,” “feelings determine truth,” “biblical marriage is tyranny” woke subjectivism that defines the #churchtoo movement and enriches its most visible advocates?

Note: We reached out to Hohn Cho, but he had not responded at the time of publication. We will provide an update if he responds to our inquiries.

Categories
News Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Don’t Be a Boob And Sweat The Small Stuff

Stop it. Just stop it.

I have reached the end of my patience with gullible, pearl-clutching evangelicals falling for the same bait-and-switch. You know which one. The one where woke online babies apply a Pharisaical, legalistic standard for personal behavior or speech, placing burdens on the shoulders of anyone they oppose while completely ignoring the weightier matters of the law like, you know, faithfulness to the truth of God’s Word on matters like sexuality.

Such is the recent case (if it can even be called that) of SBC Executive Committee Trustee Guy Fredrick, who was recently “caught” writing no-no words in an order disapproved of by the current keepers of woke orthodoxy within the evangelical conversation. In response to a tweet asking if conservative men thought bartender-in-Congress gadfly Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was “hot,” Fredrick replied with the tongue-in-cheek, mocking question, “Like boob sweat hot, or like sexually desirable hot?”

To any reasonable adult: Yawn. To the gaggle of girls who lead American evangelicalism: Four Alarm Fire.

Right on cue, low-t evangelical leaders and their soy boy puppetmasters on social media clutched their emotional support teddy bears, worked each other into an estrogenic frenzy, and joined hands on the digital fainting couch to compete for Biggest Karen in the SBC.

Leading the pearl-clutching was none other than Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor David Prince, who whined about Fredrick’s “sexually crude” and “wicked” comments and demanded the SBC Executive Committee call for Fredrick’s resignation. Following Prince’s hysterical demand to see the manager was the new leader of the SBC Illumicastrati, EC Chairman Jared Well”man,” who tripped over “mother of all abuse bloggers” Christa Brown to play the Imago Dei card and subtweet (like every real man does) that “There is never a proper context to objectify another person” as if that was what had actually occurred.

The initial flurry of feathers was followed by an article at the newspeak-monikered Baptist News Global, where the transgender-affirming leftist Mark Wingfield joined the gaggle with an article insinuating that Fredrick’s criticism of AOC was because conservative men hate her (I can assure Wingfield, all conservatives can’t stand AOC) and that a meme shared by Fredrick in 2021 tying workplace sexual quid pro quo to forced vaccination was more evidence of crudeness. Wingfield also claimed that Fredrick’s social media was full of white supremacist content, which turns out to be just as big of a lie as saying that a person can change genders.

The comical lack of equal weights and measures being used (much less biblical weights) by these clowns is obvious: No worries about sermon plagiarism, CRT in seminaries or in SEND Network requirements, the largest SBC church in the country operating a gay-affirming ministry for confused LGBTQ+ kids, or professors holding to the Roman Catholic view of sin (Prince). But find a tweet from an EC trustee that asks an impertinent question on Twitter, and it’s all hands on keyboards to reiterate yet again what is really important to these platform simps – image and politics. And Fredrick is the sort of Southern Baptist that institutional faux pietists can’t stand – anti-“vaccine,” anti-Democrat party, and anti-woke (yes, it has a definition).

Making the whole thing worse, of course, is the deafening silence of so many should-know-better lemmings, cowed by the subjective and juvenile demands of the Woke Knights who haunt the evangelical conversation. Predictably, they watched in muted stupor as their gay-affirming opponents demanded Fredrick apologize and perform the proper penance (you know, a confession of “sins,” followed by praying a few “Hail Rachels,” and soon after self-immolation at the digital inquisition). As usual, nothing is forgiven. After all, no amount of apology, contrite groveling, or assurance of future PC piety ever keeps the Torch-wielding Woke from branding their enemies with the scarlet “C” for conservative or worse, the dreaded “T” for Trump.

Any ill-advised expression of apology or contrition for violation of the new Woke Orthodoxy is guaranteed to be met not with true Christian forgiveness (mainly because both true sin and true Christians are required for this), but with a screenshot and the ironic guarantee that you will remain forever unforgiven by those who cackle the loudest and most superficially about personal holiness.

So I say, don’t be a boob. Don’t try to one-up in legalistic piety these woke babies who are only manipulating language and weaponizing being offended in order to curry favor for themselves and attack their theological enemies. If you sinned, confess, repent and move on. But if you didn’t (or you see someone else being legalistically attacked by woke Pharisees), don’t sit there silent like you won’t be next. Cowardice is a sin too.

By the way, you knew it wouldn’t be long before I found myself in agreement once again with Doug Wilson. He addresses this issue here.

Categories
Op-Ed

OP-ED: SBC Prez. Bart Barber Keeps on Misrepresenting Abortion Abolitionism. Why Can’t He Get it Right?

Few things in the evangelical landscape of the west have caused a more polarizing response than that of the abortion crisis. More specifically, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has been torn over the issue for the better part of its existence. Whether through weekly sermon applications, daily evangelism, or annual resolutions, Southern Baptists have had much to say about this issue. That is a good thing in and of itself. After all, our Lord has much to say about this issue as well.

God has smothered the pages of Scripture with divine decrees that His people are to treat all humans with the equal value in which He created them. Yet, it seems this has become a mere catchphrase for those who find themselves in the middle of this discourse. Do Southern Baptists believe that the preborn actually are of equal value? If so, why wouldn’t they be willing to take a stand on providing the preborn with equal justice? If equal justice, why not equal protection? This is where the SBC finds itself in an unfortunate rift. Many of the saints involved in the fight to end abortion have bound themselves to a particular ideology. Usually, one of two.

1. Gradualism/incrementalism (defining ideology of the Pro-Life Movement)

2. Immediatism (defining ideology of the Abolitionist Movement)

Gradual incrementalism seeks to end abortion gradually by standing for and standing behind incremental methods of both evangelism and legislation.

Immediate abolitionism seeks to end abortion immediately by standing for and standing behind immediate and complete methods of both evangelism and legislation.

The majority of the SBC holds to the former, some by default and some by conscious assessment of the two ideologies. That certainly is true for the current president of the convention, Bart Barber. There might not be an individual more loudly sold out to the cause of gradual incrementalism than he. It does not take long to find content from Bart expressing his absolute favor of the gradualist movement and his devout disdain for the immediate abolition movement.

Recently, in Volume 8, Issue 6 of the ERLC’s ‘LIGHT Magazine’, Barber wrote a piece entitled “A Pro-Life Response to Abolitionism’s Critiques,” an article in which he sought to respond to the critiques of many immediate abolitionists’ open and thorough critiques of mainstream, pro-life incrementalism.

In this article, I endeavor to honestly and lovingly engage with many of the tragic misrepresentations and incomplete arguments that Barber made. I hope this bridges a gap and stimulates Christian conversation about six issues at hand in this discussion.

CLAIM 1: ABOLITIONISTS LET WOMEN DIE

 “Although I have yet to encounter a Southern Baptist whose position is, ‘OK, just let them both die, then!’ some abolitionist laws have avoided the necessary exclusions.”

This is not the first time that Barber has made this claim. Sadly, there have been many Twitter threads and dialogue at convention meetings where this claim has been made. There are a few problems with this claim.

Abolition bills do deal with situations like ectopic pregnancy in various ways including restating or strengthening existing defenses like self-defense and duress. Barber’s response to this has been that providing or strengthening a defense is not enough: “Physicians should not have to appear in court repeatedly to bear the expense and burden of proof to show that their saving the life of the mother by ending the life of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy or similar situation was warranted.”

Barber’s point is that a defense is something you raise in court after you’ve been charged. So he’s concerned that a doctor who treats an ectopic pregnancy could theoretically be forced into court for every ectopic pregnancy they treat and have to offer their defense before being let go.

But this is not how prosecutors anywhere operate. In their analysis of Idaho’s recent Supreme Court decisions on abortion, left-leaning legal blog JDSupra wrote that even though the Idaho law makes such over-prosecution possible, that doesn’t mean any prosecutors would be stupid enough to do so: “Of course, as a practical matter, prosecutors are unlikely to pursue cases in which affirmative defenses are likely to apply.” Prosecutors don’t pursue losing cases, and they especially don’t pursue losing cases against abortionists and mothers. Bart’s concern is a non-issue.

Even as a non-issue, Bart’s problem is not fundamentally with abolition bills: his problem is with the entire American legal system and almost all pro-life bills that operates with affirmative defenses. Unless he is suggesting the federal government and all states get rid of affirmative defenses and make them explicit exemptions, he needs to stop raising this objection. All an abolition bill does is make existing law apply to children in the womb.

Further, some abolition bills like HB3326 in Barber’s home state of Texas, even provide explicit exemptions: “Conduct is justified if the conduct charged is a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider and intended to remove an ectopic pregnancy that seriously threatens the life of the mother when a reasonable alternative to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child is unavailable.”

It is a perpetuation of a lie to claim that abolitionists or abolition bills are not supportive of saving the mother’s life in dangerous medical situations.

Barber’s misrepresentation of what is an actual abortion also has to be mentioned. Regarding ectopic pregnancies, there are categorically different procedures for those tragic cases. These are called “salpingostomy and salpingectomy,” according to the Mayo Clinic. The rationale for such treatments being legal is that they are not the cause of the baby’s death, but might indeed save the mother’s life. Barber, however, classifies these medical procedures as abortion, writing that these procedures “take the ectopic baby’s life to save the mother.”

CLAIM 2: ABORTING MOTHERS ARE VICTIMS

“Are women who get an abortion victims? Of course they are.”

The claim and narrative of the “second victim” has been a cancerous growth onto modern evangelism. He further claims, “I agree with the preacher who said in a sermon, “Women are pressured by the men who impregnated them to get abortions. Women are pressured by their families to get abortions. They are pressured by the stigma that they think will come to them to get an abortion. . . . They are . . . victims, and . . . scripture speaks to that.’”

Of course, it is sometimes true that women are pressured to murder their children. But the theological issue here is: does external pressure and temptation to sin exonerate sinners? Is this what God has said in His word?

James 1:14-15 clearly states, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

Humans are tempted when they are lured and enticed by their own desire. It is afterward that when the sinful desire conceives that it gives birth to sin. Humans are not merely tempted by external sources and outside pressures but each individual is guilty of their own sins. The theological implications to the second victim narrative are enormous, and when handled wrongly, make one guilty of what Isaiah says in 5:20, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

There is clearly one victim in every abortion and that is the child who has their life unjustly taken from them. Especially in light of the word “victim” quite literally meaning, “one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent.”

Imagine if we used this logic for other sins that are crimes. Are people raised by rapists, pedophiles, and murderers victims when they rape, molest, and murder because of their circumstances which tempted them into sinful crimes? Of course not.

When parents choose to murder their children, God will hold them accountable to that sin and so should we. Bart somewhat acknowledges this by saying, “Our preaching of forgiveness for abortion is an ongoing affirmation of the fact that women who consent to an abortion are morally and spiritually culpable for abortion.” This is where the catastrophic inconsistency lies. If every woman, in every abortion, every time is a victim, then can they simultaneously be morally and spiritually culpable? There is no biblical category for what Barber is grasping for here. There is no category set aside for innocent murderers or guiltless violence.

If they are culpable then should we not call them to repentance? Why, of course. How can we do such a thing if we treat them as victims?

This is not to say that women are never victims in abortions. In 2022, a man in Texas (where Bart has claimed abortion was fully banned) was accused of sneaking an abortion pill into a woman’s drink. This woman is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing and without a shadow of a doubt a victim. The mindful, knowledgeable, and willful abortion of a child by the woman, though? That is murder and the child is the only victim.

CLAIM 3: ABORTION LAWS SHOULDN’T “MANDATE” PROSECUTION

“Should abortion laws mandate the prosecution of women who seek or obtain an abortion? I think not. I think it is unjust, unnecessary, and unwise to include in abortion laws the prosecution of women who seek or obtain an abortion.”

Barber thinks not but God thinks so.

The first point which must be noted is that no law “mandates” prosecution. That’s not how laws work, and this is another example of Barber’s legal ignorance (and that of Light Magazine’s editors) rearing its head. Laws make possible the prosecution of crimes but prosecutors have discretion regarding whether to bring charges to court. No law binds a prosecutor into pursuing a certain sentence when the facts of the case don’t warrant it.

Second, what is the biblical definition of being “unjust” or “unwise?” God must be our standard for such claims and His Word must inform every thought when approaching these topics. What does God’s Word say about justice? What is the Christian’s role in administering justice?

To simply put it:

Do not turn a blind eye to the abortion holocaust happening among you or God will turn to you in anger (Lev. 20). Open your eyes and speak up for the mute (Prov. 31:8-9). Do what is right (Prov. 21:3) and love your preborn neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31).

In Mark 12, when Jesus says, “love your neighbor as yourself,” he is quoting from Leviticus 19:18. Just before that God says,“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” (verse 15). Meaning, if you want to love your neighbor—especially your preborn neighbor—show no legal partiality to them and judge them in righteousness. Judge them according to the righteous standard God has given us: the one that says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).

Barber continues on this point with a flurry of acrobatic hoop-jumping, arguing that:

  • The abortionist is the one operating the abortion tools.
  • Prosecuting women for abortion is unnecessary because they can already be prosecuted under conspiracy laws.
    • Mostly false.
  • Those who would be prosecuted would mostly be those who are coerced.
    • Completely, embarrassingly false. We can only speculate, but it’s unlikely that a truly coerced woman would ever be prosecuted. Only a wicked, heartless prosecutor intent on career suicide would ever prosecute a coerced woman. It is primarily women ordering abortion pills online who would be prosecuted if an abolition bill were enforced.
  • Most pro-life organizations and many Southern Baptists historically haven’t supported fully criminalizing abortion.
    • True, and damning of the Pro-Life Movement.

It also must be noted that Barber frames equal protection for preborn children as “singl[ing] out women for prosecution.” No abolition bill does any such thing. They just make preborn children equal under law, which means that anyone who murders them can be prosecuted.

Barber’s humanistic, emotional appeals against the full criminalization of abortion are weak even by their own standard, and are a vomitous abomination by the standard of scripture.

CLAIM 5: INCREMENTALISM ISN’T COMPROMISE

“Does it amount to sinful compromise to apply wisdom to the pro-life cause and to act strategically toward the long term goal of ending legal abortion? Of course not.”

Is it sinful to show partiality? Of course it is. From Genesis to Revelation God reserves some of His strongest, most intense warnings for people who show partiality. Barber is attempting to make a case for gradualism here—a case that many made in the slavery abolition movement that prolonged slavery—by conflating wisdom and pragmatism. He says, “Pragmatism is bad when it is an excuse for disobeying God. But sometimes pragmatism is just a word to describe wisdom employed to obey God.”

Pragmatism is not an issue of nuance—it is a philosophical worldview, one that is categorically distinct from the Christian worldview. C.S. Pierce and William James established the pragmatism movement in the United States in order to prove that the, “meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief.”

So the issue for Barber and his gradualist constituents is not one of methodology but one of theological principles. When your approach to ending abortion causes certain individuals to have less justice and inconsistent protections under the law, it should be defined as sinful compromise. The Lord does not call for delayed justice, He calls for immediate, “true justice” (Zechariah 7:9).

Christians should not seek simply to approach abortion practically and never pragmatically. They should desire to approach the murder of the preborn principally and Scripturally. As Clay Hall (Oak Grove Baptist Church, Paducah, KY) says, “We should not just do something about abortion, we should do the right something for the right reasons.”

Barber further contends:

[S]ometimes pragmatism is just a word to describe wisdom employed to obey God. The case law in the Torah often represents pragmatic wisdom employed to apply the principles of godliness to the situations of daily life. Such biblical case law includes explicit exceptions to murder laws based upon some of the very factors that have appeared above in this essay (uncertainty about intent, duress, etc.).

God led Moses to apply the sixth commandment not in an absolute way, but with a wisdom that created cities of refuge and manslaughter laws and, notably, specific situational laws surrounding the death of a child before birth.

This a conflation of God justly differentiating between categories of homicide and man choosing to write laws which deny some preborn children of all of their rights and legal equality, thereby “making the fatherless prey” (Isaiah 10:2).

Barber continues:

The abortion abolition movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation even in the most pro-life states in the Union. Anyone who seriously cares about protecting babies from death by abortion must recognize the importance of passing legislation nationwide to end abortion. But members of this movement tie the pro-life movement to the laws least likely to pass.

This is a sleight of hand often practiced by pro-life leaders. Barber is correct that an abolition bill has yet to pass. But those who say this seem to always conveniently forget to mention why these bills haven’t passed: namely, the people who say this typically are the reason they haven’t passed.

It is first and foremost pro-life organizations who have stood against bills to abolish abortion at every turn, most famously in Louisiana when the ERLC (which publishes Light Magazine and is an SBC entity) signed an open letter with 75 other pro-life organizations opposing and killing the Abolition of Abortion in Louisiana Act. Prior to the pro-life organizations mobilizing against the bill, it sailed easily through committee by a 7-2 vote. The pro-abortion forces couldn’t stop it. But after the pro-life organizations came out against it, nearly all of the legislators who supported it in committee flip-flopped and voted against it on the House floor. (Hear the full story here.)

The best outcome would be these pro-life and national SBC entities repenting and supporting the abolition of abortion, but second best would be for them to get out of the way.

CLAIM 6: BART WANTS TO TALK

“I want to be able to sit across the table from abortion abolitionists. I want us to be able to address one another respectfully and to work with one another where it is possible to do so.”

Then make it happen, Bart. Respond to Dusty Deevers’ text message.

This is one of the most disheartening parts in Barber’s article. It paints a picture of abolitionists that as being unwilling to have a conversation, when in reality, that is all we have been trying to do.

Through being attacked by entity heads on social media, muted at mics, the calling of questions at conventions, and slandered in published articles, abolitionist-incrementalist conversations have been shut down by the incremental pragmatists. The worst case of this by far was Barber’s Twitter thread targeting SBC pastor Dusty Deevers with numerous vicious and deranged lies such as, “unless you 100% agree with every jot and tittle of Deevers’s obsession with sending 16-year-old girls to prison for succumbing to the coercion of their parents to have an abortion, he will label you ‘against the innocent preborn.’” For his part in half-a-dozen savage, dishonest character assassinations of Deevers, all Barber apologized for was the use of the word “obsession,” something for which no one was asking him to apologize for.

Deevers — a pastor at Grace Community Church, Elgin, OK — has tried privately to seek reconciliation with Bart according to Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 18, yet has been consistently turned down and been subsequently, publicly misrepresented. To the authors of this article, Deevers said:

“As God commands of me, I have—along with the elders of my church—sought reconciliation directly with Bart from his slanders and lies and am willing and have offered multiple times to sit down across the table from Bart and have these conversations. However, at this point, that conversation would need to be moderated and documented in order stop any further distortion.”

So yes, have those conversations that you talk about, Bart. You don’t even have to seek them out. Your brothers have told you they will drive to Farmersville with their elders to meet with you and yours. Abolitionists have called and are still calling for these conversations with you personally and for moderated debate with SBC incrementalists generally. We want to see this happen as well. Let us labor to become of one mind towards whatever strategies and actions it takes to see abortion abolished by God, for God, and to the glory of God.

Editor’s Note. This article was written by Wesley Russell and James Silberman and originally appeared at Free The States. Wesley is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Pikeville, KY. James is the Communications Director of Free the States. Title changed by Protestia.

Categories
Op-Ed

Should You Celebrate Civil-Rights Activist and Sex-Pervert Martin Luther King Jr. this MLK Day?

Sex trafficking is bad. Adultery is bad. Hypocrisy is really, really bad. These are things that even pagans agree upon (generally). As Christians, we can also add a few other things to the “bad” list as it pertains to Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Orgies are bad. Homosexuality is bad. Heresy is bad. All of these things typify Martin Luther King Jr. 

When a civilized and decent society – especially one with a substantial segment of that society that professes Jesus – beatifies a sex-trafficking adulterer and homosexual, it doesn’t elevate that society to higher plains of decency. Society doesn’t become better by virtue signaling alone, especially when the virtue being signaled is tied intrinsically to a man with little virtue.

Before we get to Martin Luther King Jr., let us demonstrate the standard of decency that our American society has mutually agreed upon as a fair exchange in the Marketplace of Ideas. We have – generally speaking – agreed that men who take advantage of women or who treat women like disposable sexual objects should not be promoted and should not advance in influence. 

In this blossoming #metoo movement, which has by and large been a good thing, we are told that “character matters” and that those of low moral character, particularly Presidents, should be doubly scrutinized and held to a higher standard.

As a general rule, we don’t want to be a society that supports, condones, or celebrates scumbags who are engaged in scumbaggery, even if they promote policies we like. Even though most are inconsistent in that rule’s application, we agree with that premise.

The nearly-universal agreement that men who use women as sexual playthings shouldn’t be celebrated, promoted, voted for, hired or promoted (or even employed) is so accepted that two years ago the most recognizable conservative political figure in Alabama lost a “sure-thing” election against a Democrat in a deeply red state in the form of Roy Moore. 

Evangelicals like Russell Moore and the Social Gospel Coalition warriors fought vehemently against Donald Trump for his low character. For years they took potshots at him, recently calling for his impeachment over it. But despite the thunderous refrain that his character disqualifies him from any appreciation and admiration for his policies and the practices he sought to implement and advance, they cannot – with any degree of consistency – celebrate the legacy of a man whose utter depravity makes Donald Trump look like a choir boy. 

The ability to celebrate Martin Luther King in the age of the Weinstein Effect is gross negligence. It’s only the product of inconsistency. And, that inconsistency is inexcusable.

Although it has been very, very common knowledge (for a very, very long time) that Martin Luther King Jr. had no more personal integrity than Reverends Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, he has been venerated by American civil society, the evidence regarding King’s gross sexual sins entered into official government documentation when the “JFK Files” were released a few years ago. 

As a part of that civil society, evangelicals have happily jumped on the bandwagon celebrating MLK. We wrote about this in the post, It’s Time to Stop Beatifying Martin Luther King, Jr. We wrote then:

President Donald Trump ordered the release of documents relating to President John F. Kennedy from the National Archives, and those documents contain a dossier on King. What they reveal, according to Fox News and other sources, is that King had multiple extramarital affairs, likely sired an out-of-wedlock child with his mistress, and had a penchant for orgies. Please note that these have all been common knowledge about King, but these documents provide hard evidence of the claims.

The Washington Examiner claims that a 20-page document details a “two-day drunken sex orgy in Washington D.C.” attended by King, in which he took part in the festivities. The primary source document may be read here. The document reveals that the orgy contained both heterosexual and homosexual behavior (it’s long been known that King engaged in bi-sexual behavior). Claims that this document is an attempt by J. Edgar Hoover to slander King are entirely foolish, considering that this was an internal report that was sealed from the public.

The document also details MLK’s communist sentiments, quoting a “Gus Hall,” who was the General Secretary of CPUSA (the Communist Party), as saying, “King is a whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it, believes in it, and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly.”

Furthermore, the document cites attendees at several of his events who testify to “behind the scenes drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference,” and provided testimony of prostitutes being brought in for King and his associates. The document also reveals that King was carrying ongoing affairs with at least three women, including a prominent folk singer. The document states, “It is a fact that King not only regularly indulges in adulterous acts but enjoys the abnormal by engaging in group sex orgies.”

It’s not really a conspiracy at this point. There is documentation. There is evidence. These are not new allegations; these are only newly proven allegations. They’ve been known about and reported upon for a long time. They substantiate the testimonies of the people surrounding King (who were a part of his movement for racial equality), who testified to his behavior. Anyone who is an expert on MLK, a historian of any sort, knows that Martin Luther King’s personal life was rife with sexual escapades that involved many women, including prostitutes (we call that “sex trafficking” today), and even men.

There’s another issue for Christians that may not be controversial for pagans; King was a heretic. There’s no doubt about this. He denied the Virgin Birth, denied Scriptural inerrancy, had very troublesome views of the atonement and was by all accounts a theological liberal. He wrote in one paper:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that Christ … is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental… So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

And in another:

In this paper we shall discuss the experiences of early Christians which lead to three rather orthodox doctrines—the divine sonship of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection. Each of these doctrines is enshrined in what is known as “the Apostles’ Creed.” It is this creed that has stood as a “Symbol of Faith” for many Christians over the years. Even to this day it is recited in many churches. But in the minds of many sincere Christians this creed has planted a seed of confusion which has grown to an oak of doubt. They see this creed as incompatible with all scientific knowledge, and so they have proceeded to reject its content.

But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philosophically untenable,

…This doctrine (the resurrection), upon which the Easter faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view, this doctrine raises many questions. In fact, the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.

From start to finish, King denied the fundamentals of Christianity, practicing a liberation and social-gospel theology.


As the Christian Research Institute notes:

In 1985, Coretta Scott King asked Stanford professor Clayborne Carson to become the head of The King Papers Project, tasked to publish fourteen volumes of King’s papers to preserve his work. The papers’ dates range from 1948 to 1963. Around 1996, Mrs. King gave Carson a box with papers that affirmed King’s doubts about whether the Bible was literally true: “King didn’t believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as ‘mythological’ and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.”

This makes it especially curious when men like Ed Setzer and institutions like Wheaton College put on an event “focusing on preaching ministry of MLK” as if he weren’t a rank heretic whose preaching should be viewed as specious and suspect.

So then, other than virtue-signaling one’s lack of racism (an overly-simplistic and sophomoric idea of, “If I celebrate MLK, I’m not racist”), why would a pagan who affirms our common cultural belief that those who use women as sexual objects or abuse their positions of authority for sexual treats then celebrate MLK? Furthermore, how could a Christian who affirms Biblical teaching celebrate one who taught contrary to it and lived contrary to it?

Now, the answer might be, “In spite of his flaws, King promoted good ideas like equality, justice, and racial harmony.” Yes, ane men they hate like the former President Trump promoted ideas like religious freedom, and peace in the Middle East, supported legislation to end late-term abortions, created an Economic boom that lifted millions out of poverty, reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, stopped the federal funding of fetal tissue research, and was the first American President to attend March for Life. 

You can appreciate what one has done in one area without celebrating them in a teary-eyed near-deification ceremony. You can appreciate a person for a good deed while being circumspect about their gross moral failings. You can praise the way the Lord used a crooked stick to draw a straight line without celebrating that crooked stick.

And not only celebrating that crooked stick but insisting it’s actually a straight, smooth bar of gold whose faults and impurities must never be acknowledged, or whose preaching must be honored and lauded.

Editor’s note. A portion of this article was republished from a post a few years ago.

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
News Op-Ed

Op-Ed: New York Times Throws Their Boy A Bone: David French To Join Times As Opinion Columnist

David French, the Evangeleftist public theologian and political commentator who recently declared his approval of the Respect For Marriage Act and the nationalization of gay marriage, has announced that he will join the New York Times as an Opinion Columnist. This move will surprise absolutely no one who has been following French’s trajectory as he races to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Russell Moore, who was the token Christian lap dog for such leftist publications as the Washington Post before ascending to his throne in the Ivory Tower of Christianity Today. French is frequently quoted as a notable Evangelical in the New York Times in the same way that the Washington Post utilizes Russell Moore.

French previously served as a founder of the Dispatch and a contributor for The Atlantic. Undoubtedly, the secular humanists at the New York Times are gleeful at the news that the “French Press” Bloggerista will join their ranks. Undoubtedly, French will use this opportunity to frame his faux conservative, pro-secular nationalism, Globo-homo agenda as a standard for Evangelicals and conservatives. French and the New York Times both share a mutual disdain for former President Donald Trump, a fact that was clearly expressed in the first sentence of the NYT’s introduction of French.

The only thing that would be better than having a wolf in sheep’s clothing like David French take off his costume and join the wolf pack over at the New York Times would be having French’s pal and fellow Evangeleftist and sodomite sympathizer Phil Vischer join the rag as a contributor in the funny papers.

Categories
Op-Ed

To Christian Parents

Do not heed my words because I am without sin. Hate me if you want to, but heed my words because they are true.

Brothers and Sisters – did we learn nothing from the past three years? Do you honestly think that we can simply return to the status quo of nominal cultural Christianity and its non-aggression pact with the world? How do we think our country and our culture got to a place where we are desperately defending our Christian safe spaces, and our supposedly Christian congregations never returned after we reopened our churches? Do you think that God is honored because we are able to keep kids from having gay pride celebrations in Christian schools, or that we will spare our families from persecution by laying low and compromising to avoid offending a world that hates our Savior?

American Christianity has long been of the world, and still, they came for us. Still, they closed down your corporate worship, shut down your schools, and ordered masks onto the faces of your children. Still, they target our businesses when we refuse to bake gay wedding cakes, drive us from the public square, and demand our preachers cease proclaiming the righteous and holy standards of God.

Do we think it is over? Are we so ignorant as to think that if we can keep our kids from being gay that they will be saved? Is this what our faith has become? Excusing pastors who refuse to call sin what it is and call sinners to repent, and instead preach “love” as defined by the godless world? Who are ashamed to stand for the rights of the unborn? When we rightly identify the wickedness of baptizing those who continue to practice homosexuality (Romans 1:32), do we see that this sinful deception is enabled by the replacement of the Gospel with a world-pleasing counterfeit that ignores the gravity of the sins that put Jesus on the cross?

Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you (John 15:18). 2 Timothy 3:12-13 says, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

Are we equipping our children for the persecution that comes from living a godly life (which is the fruit of repentance), or are we being deceived by impostors? Will our children find that the only thing we were willing to defend was our comfortable, protective Christian space, or will they find us faithfully preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ even if it costs us everything?

The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Jesus is a rock of offense to the lost, not a friend. Not until God works the miracle of salvation in the hearts of sinners and they are brought to saving faith and repentance is the righteous anger and wrath of an Almighty God against them covered by the blood of Christ. Only then are they part of the family of God.

Salvation is preceded and followed by repentance. Not caused, but evidenced by good fruit – obeying all that God commands. A person continuing in unrepentant sin is not a Christian, whether or not a preacher told them they were! And love does not hide God’s truth from the lost! Yes, Christians still sin, but when we do we are chastened by the Holy Spirit and returned to the narrow path of righteousness. We continue to repent because it is an inalienable characteristic of our new nature! Jesus did not die on the cross in order that we would stay enslaved to sin, but that we would be free of it! We must preach this to our children, to their school, and to a lost and dying world – with no compromises! Stand in fear of the holiness of God, and proclaim the full counsel of his Word because you love Him and you love your neighbors’ souls more than you love their feelings!

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. We will love our neighbors by sharing with them the convicting, offensive, glorious, miraculous truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And the world will hate us for it. And we will be persecuted as we desire to live godly lives – some of which will come from those who claim the name of Christ. I will praise the name of Jesus when my children are persecuted for his name.

Brothers and Sisters, I pray you will do the same. Be willing to lose everything this world has to offer before you move an inch from the Gospel that brought you to salvation!

Categories
Church Op-Ed

An Open Letter to Fellow Believers Who Have Concerns About Online Polemics/Discernment Ministry

Note: This letter is intended to provide a biblical defense for the importance and Gospel focus of online polemics ministry, and answer many of the common objections presented to me over the last year or so.

Brother or Sister in Christ,

It has come to our attention that you have some concerns about online polemics and discernment ministries, of which Protestia is one. Beyond any issues with the purpose and identity of this ministry and apart from our commitment to transparency and openness to correction, there are many believers who don’t agree with even the existence of ministries like this, and who have (I will contend) many false impressions about the nature and purpose of what we do. These impressions (as well as genuine concern and curiosity) result in the same questions and/or accusations being brought up regularly. Rather than attempt to answer these questions (or variations of them) repeatedly as they come up, I’d like to offer biblical answers to the most common questions here. I will add any additional reasonable questions as they arise.

Also, I would encourage you to see these answers not merely as a defense of us or other ministries that do this work, but as a defense of the thousands of brothers and sisters who support this ministry prayerfully and financially. This includes believers who report coming to true and saving faith in Christ as a result of the work done by online polemics/discernment ministries.

The Importance of Polemics

This ministry is primarily engaged in the theological practice known as polemics, which (in contrast to apologetics which is the defense of the faith to non-Christians) is the practice of challenging and refuting doctrinal errors, including errors advanced by false teachers. Michael Horton (prior to unfortunately veering woke) observed in his 1996 article “How to Be Polemical (Without Being A Downright Nasty Person)” that, “There was a time, of course, when every theologian, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, was a polemicist. Later, polemics became merely a distinct position on a theological faculty. Finally, it disappeared altogether in a spirit of congenial tolerance.”

In 1970, Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote in Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25: Atonement and Justification:

Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also and many say that we must not be too precise about these things.  If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong,  and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.

At Protestia we actively protest the post-modern disappearance of polemics, and practice in the tradition of Paul (who famously told the legalists of his day to castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12), and Christ Himself who famously and publicly torched the Pharisees as children of hell (Matt. 23:15), a nest of snakes (Matt. 23:33), and white-washed tombs that appeared spotless on the surface but were full of hypocrisy and dead men’s bones (Matt. 23:27). Just as Jesus often answered his critics with scripture, we seek to answer our most common critiques below.

Questions and Answers

Where in the Bible does it teach that what you are doing is Christ-like?

Christ-likeness is defined by Jesus Himself, revealed to us in scripture (John 1:1). Scripture, as the inspired and revealed Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16–17), testifies to the person, work, and character of Jesus (John 1:14), and the complete revelation (Rom. 5:14) testifies to the nature (Rev. 15:4), character (Rev. 4:8), and will (Psalm 115:3) of God and therefore defines what is truly like Christ. As Christians, we are instructed to test everything (1 Thess. 5:21) to determine what is from God and what is not (1 John 4:1), knowing that false teachers and teaching are commonplace (2 Peter 2:1-3). We are similarly instructed to be ready to defend our beliefs with words (1 Peter 3:15) and to train our discernment with constant practice (Heb. 5:14) so that we might be skilled in the word of righteousness (Heb. 5:13). This skill manifests in refuting those who are in error, and polemics (argumentation) was practiced consistently (Acts 19:8) by the apostles and the early church as good and necessary.

Why do you have an entire ministry dedicated to the “negativity” of pointing out false teachers and teaching?

Much like other Christian ministries are focused on specific areas of faith and practice (mercy, missions, education, etc.), this ministry has a focus on an area of theological practice that is gifted and commissioned in scripture (1 Cor. 12:10). We encourage those who are blessed by this ministry to not make polemics their sole focus, and to engage with all areas of theological study (Matt. 4:4) through the work of other reputable ministries whose focus is in other areas. Primarily, all who support Protestia should be giving, loving, serving, and faithful members of a local New Testament church as defined scripturally (Acts 2:42, Phil 2:2, 1 Cor. 12:12–27). Information provided by this ministry is for the edification and defense of the church (Ephesians 4:15), not to equip “lone wolf” Christians or provide ammunition to attack faithful ministers of the Gospel.

Why can’t you balance the negative of what you are against with the positive of what you are for?

The nature of polemics (argumentation) is such that the primary lens through which we defend the truth is through identifying bad doctrine (Gal. 1:9) and false teachers (Matt. 7:15). Yet identifying falsehood is by its nature good (Psalm 119:104), as falsehood can only be determined by relating it to the truth (Jude 1:3). Those who complain about the “negativity” of this ministry are failing to see past the painful emotions that can result from conflict, but conflict in the interest of obedience to God is a positive, necessary thing (Matt. 5:11).

Isn’t it prideful or egotistical to always think you know better than everyone else?

Yes, it is. This is why we are constantly striving to speak and write not on our own authority but the truth of God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:1-5). It is our prayer that any opposition to what appears on this site will at its core be opposition to God’s Word (John 15:18) . We are generally unresponsive to hypocritical complaints about “tone” or being “unloving,” especially when the complainer merely wishes we hadn’t reported something true (John 7:24). Yet we are always open to correction and rebuke in the case we’ve reported incorrectly or misapplied scripture (Proverbs 11:2), have a firm policy against whitewashing our errors (unlike many other sites that “ghost correct” by editing or removing what they’ve written with no notification), and maintain a retractions page on our main menu to publicly repent and reconcile with those we’ve sinned against by getting something wrong (Ephesians 4:2).

Is it really Christian behavior to dig up and broadcast other people’s sins?

Sometimes. While it is truly a very small percentage of what we do, exposing secret sin (Numbers 32:23) can be necessary for the protection of the church and for confirming the identity of false teachers and false “Christian” movements (Matt. 24:24). Whistleblowers come to us because we are not beholden to “respectable” Christian institutions, and with a motivation to lovingly obey the Lord (Acts 5:29) will challenge anyone we believe is sinning or teaching falsely (even our friends) (Proverbs 27:6). This gets us left out of conferences, not credited by big names in Evangelicalism (even as they rely on us behind the scenes), and results in our ostracization even from those at our own churches (Matt. 5:11).

A perusal of the site shows that almost every article is reporting something that was done or taught publicly. We find it and report on it (from our biblically conservative framework), but we rarely provide facts that a reader wouldn’t be able to “dig up” by just being on the internet. Our ministerial work is not only in the reporting of the comings and goings of Christendom but in the discernment and doctrinal analysis brought to bear on the reported issues (Acts 17:11).

Why are you so quick to declare professing Christians to be false believers?

Simply, because the Bible demonstrates it. First, nowhere does the Bible teach that we are in any way compelled to believe someone is saved just because they claim to be (Matt. 7:22). Modern Christians are generally willing to accept someone as a Christian based on the thinnest claim to Jesus, and it takes a mountain of evidence to accept someone is a false convert. Yet Jesus taught that more people find the wide gate that leads to destruction than the narrow one (Matt. 7:13-14) and that there will be many who claim to be believers yet are not (Matt. 7:22). It stands to reason that many (if not most) who claim to be Christian are in fact false believers, and we simply follow the biblical prescription of looking to the spiritual fruit (Matt. 12:33) of a professing Christian (most especially what they profess and/or teach) (Matt. 7:15-16) to determine whether we are to treat them as lost or saved. In the case the lost person is teaching in the name of Jesus, we are commanded to publicly identify them and warn others (Rom. 16:17), expose their deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11), and not associate with them (1 Cor. 5:11).

Wasn’t there a nicer way you could have made that correction?

Perhaps. Although outside of a clear scriptural error, “nicer” is simply defined by the subjective feelings of you as the reader. Many readers have uncritically thrown around Bible verses instructing Christians to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) or “correct with gentleness” (2 Tim. 2:23-26) without reconciling these commands next to clear scriptural examples of Jesus using insults (Matt. 23:16–17), sarcasm (John 10:31–32), and even physical violence (John 2:15) in his corrections. Clearly, instructions to be gentle and loving are not blanket prohibitions against arguing or using pointed, direct language as Jesus Himself defines true gentleness and love. Rather, gentleness implores us to continue to appeal with our words, not engage in the fool’s errand of trying to manage the emotions of the reader.

Why didn’t you take your issue to the person in private, as Matthew 18 instructs?

The sin described in Matthew 18:15-17 clearly refers to a personal sin between two believers (if your brother sins against you), not to public error. Sins necessitating the Matthew 18 process must be serious enough to warrant possible ex-communication upon non-repentance (verse 17), and also be within the realm of practicable disciplinability (can’t discipline a believer who is not a member of your church). Rather, public error is rebuked publicly (Galatians 2:11), and we are to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3) and mark and avoid (Romans 16:17) those who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

Why are you engaging in ministry apart from the accountability of a church?

Every believer is accountable first and foremost to God Himself (Acts 5:29), and our actions should be judged by the standard of scripture, yet we recognize the need for spiritual accountability from the brethren (2 Tim. 4:2). Everyone involved with Protestia is required to be a member of a local New Testament church, and we seek accountability for everything we write or say from our local churches (Galatians 6:1). We also encourage open, polemical dialog on any issue we address, and often engage with and are critiqued by brethren who disagree with us (Proverbs 27:17). Every good work performed by believers within or apart from the church is rightly understood to be worship (1 Cor. 10:31), and all believers should hold one another accountable for words and deeds (Col. 3:13).

You know everyone hates you guys, right? (Yes, I’ve been asked this.)

Some people do, and if we are being faithful to the truth of the Word we will be hated by those who hate God (John 15:18). All believers should rejoice when the enemies of God hate them (Matt. 5:11). We encourage believers who reflexively oppose this work to search their hearts and determine the reason. If they oppose this ministry for doctrinal reasons, we will happily continue to argue and appeal for biblical truth. If they oppose us because they are opposed to the work of polemics/discernment, they need to take that up with God Himself, who instructed all believers to do this work as they train in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Much like believers are to study the Bible (and are aided by the work of other believers who write Bible studies and books)(2 Tim. 2:15), believers are instructed to be discerning and contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) (and can similarly be aided by other believers who write articles and produce online content).

Other helpful resources:

Disntr.com (formerly Reformation Charlotte) posted a very helpful article on the love displayed through polemics ministry that can be found here.

Categories
Church Coronavirus Op-Ed

Hey Pastor, Online “Church” is Still a Sinful Deception

Photo by Tom D'Arby on Pexels.com

As churches are returning to “normal” after cowering in the face of COVID-justified government tyranny, there has been almost no true repentance for the sin of closing down Christ’s church. Rather, world-pleasing innovators in the pulpit are continuing to push yet another distortion of biblical church practice that just so happens to completely exonerate them for the inexcusable sin of closing the doors of the church in the face of the faithful.

Much like the modifications to marketing and operations made by traditional retailers in the face of e-commerce was given a violent shove by economically-destructive government lockdowns, modern churches have rushed to offer their online “presence” as a full-fledged replacement for church. The faith (and therefore practice) once and for all delivered to the saints has become wide open for market-sensitive modification, and churches are continuing to take their place among the vast array of self-help and self-affirmed services offered to spiritual customers.

These pastors and churches pay lip service to movement of the Spirit, but it is the movement of polling and metrics that bring about their decisions. The same world-pleasing, market-driven culture that welcomed doctrinally-void, emotionally-manipulative throwaway music from Hillsong and Bethel, turned sermons into TED talks for 7th graders, and removed sinful rebellion as the primary cause of our need for Jesus has likewise removed the spiritual necessity of the physical gathering of the saints on the Lord’s Day.

These pastors are afraid to tell Christians not to forsake the gathering, and have demonstrated through their lack of repentance for closing down their churches that gathering is no longer required for Christian worship. They fail to understand that Spirit-filled believers will either respond in obedience to the call to gather or be rightfully rebuked for their disobedience, and instead these pastors enable believers to disobey by offering a false “church” for those who would rather not worship publicly.

Pastor, “We did the best we could with what we knew at the time” or “they lied to us” has never been an acceptable excuse for direct disobedience to clear scriptural instruction. You acted out of cowardice and/or ignorance unbecoming of your scriptural calling, believing that God would allow a pandemic virus to spread that would necessitate the closure of his church.

Pastor, God will judge you for your lack of courage. He will judge you for your lack of repentance. And he will judge you for your continued lack of obedience. Repent, apologize, and seek reconciliation with those you’ve sinned against rather than push forward with self-servingly advocating “online church.” Stop pushing unbiblical innovation, and call God’s people to public, unapologetic obedience in gathering in worship as the true church.