Category: Op-Ed

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.

Categories
News Op-Ed

The Christian Art Of Adopting Frozen Babies- And Why You Might Want to Consider It

Preamble

Several years ago I did an interview with a friend shortly after his wife gave birth to a ‘snowflake baby’- an affectionate and mildly tragic moniker given to children created in a lab who were frozen and then thawed before being implanted and ultimately born.

Their baby was conceived and fertilized several years ago, but was abandoned by his parents, He was placed in a laboratory freezer where for nearly a decade he wasted away with his siblings, the same fate as an estimated 600,000 more precious souls.

My friend and his wife sacrificed much to rescue him through an “embryo adoption”, where they saved the child from certain death and implanted the embryo in her womb, bringing forth renewed life after years of frozen purgatory.

It garnered much interest, and many people contacted me with poignant stories and pointed questions. Some folk were extremely grieved, having friends and family who had participated in IVF and now were waking up to the horror of realizing that their loved ones had abandoned their babies to be killed- that they had discarded their nieces and nephews in this unholy pursuit.

One woman spoke of how her daughter-in-law had created a child using IVF, leaving the rest of their babies in limbo. She asked if we knew anyone who would consider an embryo adoption so she could see her grandchildren one day. She lamented that she would give birth to these herself if she could, but being in her 50s it was no longer possible, and her helplessness was palpable.

Still, others were incensed. They were upset that I would dare hint that they had done anything wrong and vigorously protested the notion that their embryos were real human beings with souls. These were professing Christian women, specifically, and they refused to acknowledge the weight of what they had done.

But by far, the biggest category was those who had never heard of embryo adoption before- otherwise known as “snowflake adoption” due to the embryos being frozen and having to be thawed- and were curious to know more, and even whether this was something their family could do, as a means of fulfilling the biblical mandate to rescue those being taken away to death and hold back those staggering towards the slaughter.

Here’s all you’d ever want to know.

The Interview

Q: When did you first hear about embryo adoption, and when did the first serious conversations with your wife start taking place, asking “should we as a family do this?”

We first heard about embryo adoption from our friends who gave birth to twins that were frozen for 11 years). That was back in 2011 or 2012. It was sometime around 2013 that my wife began expressing interest in adopting children this way, and we began discussing what it would take to be able to do it.

Q: Was your wife on board the whole time, or was this something you had to convince her of?

Actually, my wife was the one who had to continue to press me about it. She would talk about it, but I just kind of thought about it as something other people were able to do but not something that would really ever be possible for us. I didn’t know how we could do it financially, she had her tubes tied after our last child, she had three c-sections already, and it just seemed like a huge mountain to climb in my mind. But she was faithful to begin looking into options and places to begin and to continue to gently press me about it. Finally, we decided to save a large portion of our tax return one year and that was the beginning of God providing financially for the whole thing.

Q: What made you decide to choose embryo adoption vs traditional adoption?

Well, we actually plan to adopt traditionally sometime in the future, so we haven’t actually ever decided against it. But we were intrigued by the Baker’s testimony regarding embryo adoption, and then some other Abolitionist couples we were close to adopted embryos (unfortunately, neither of them brought children to term), and we just saw how great a need there is and how disregarded these “unknown millions” are. So we decided to take our light and let it shine in the direction of the IVF industry and the orphans that existed as a result of it.

Q: How did your children react to your choice, as well as the rest of your extended family?

Our children were excited and completely accepting of the idea from the moment we told them. But they are used to being around Abolitionism, and so it didn’t really seem all that outlandish to them. They love babies and were excited to have another little sibling. Our extended families were totally unaware of the fact that this was even a thing. So they had a lot of questions, some concerns (which we addressed), and ended up being supportive overall.

Q: How did you decide to choose which children to rescue? Did he have several siblings? Did you flip through a dossier with information on the parents and his genetic dispositions?

Actually, God chose these children for us. Some fertility clinics do have books of embryos to choose from, with short bio of the parents (such as GPA, career, eye color, nationality, height, weight, medical background, etc.). However, the clinic we adopted from does not have lists and lists of donated embryos. In fact, there can be up to a two-year wait for adoptive parents at the clinic we chose. When we got on the waiting list there were 5 couples ahead of us waiting for available embryos to adopt.

There had just been three sets of two embryos (a total of six) donated to this clinic (from former clients). Two sets had been adopted out prior to us getting on the list, and two embryos were left. The five couples ahead of us all passed on the two we adopted because they were African American, and these couples did not want African American children, so we jumped straight to the front of the line. We were willing to rescue any children that were available for rescue.

Q: Has it been strange choosing to give birth to a child that is not biologically your own? Have you thought differently about him or had differing affections towards him compared to your other children?

We had very little information about their biological parents, so it has always been a toss-up regarding what these children might look like. With your own children, you expect that they will have many or most of your features and look somewhat like their siblings. We had no idea (not that it mattered, but it was very exciting to wonder about it). I can say without the slightest doubt that we have loved these children we adopted to an equal degree as our own. There hasn’t been even a hint of partiality in our hearts between our differently conceived children.

Q: In a few short paragraphs, what does the process of embryonic adoption entail?

It starts off with the application and initial medical history, choosing embryos, legal transfer of rights of embryos before a judge (depending on the state what this entails varies), lab work of husband and wife, determining the wife’s last day of menstruation to figure out a start date of the transfer cycle.

You begin birth control pills to regulate the woman’s cycle, lupron injections for several weeks in the stomach, a trial transfer to make sure there aren’t any unforeseen obstacles to transfer, which in our case there were and required an additional outpatient surgery, baseline check to determine uterine lining thickness, which determines transfer date, Progesterone injections in the hip, both injections administered by husband, and estrogen patches which lasted at least until the pregnancy test.

If positive, injections continue until about the ninth week of pregnancy, about ten weeks total. They thaw the embryos the morning of the transfer (5-6 days after uterine lining is where it needs to be) and praying that they are all still alive. If not, the whole process has to start over from the beginning.

Then they transfer the embryos through a catheter through the cervix and wait for a pregnancy test a couple of weeks later. If the test is positive, daily Progesterone injections are continued for about eight more weeks. A second blood test is required to make sure the pregnancy is progressing (if the HCG numbers do not double daily this likely means you miscarried after implantation).

The whole thing is both physically and emotionally draining on both parents, but especially the mother. In our case, we had to drive back and forth to Tulsa from Norman, about a 3-hour round trip. Injections had to be administered each day at the same time, which sometimes required us pulling over on the drive back from Tulsa and do the injection on the side of the turnpike. One of our children did not survive after implantation (our daughter named her Ruth) and our positive pregnancy test was bittersweet when the Endocrinologist told us.

Q: What is cost/price difference for doing a snowflake adoption vs a traditional open/close/oversees adoption?

Our total cost was $12,000 which included an extra $2,000 surgery to dilate my wife’s cervix due to scar tissue interference from previous c-sections. To break that down, there was a “package deal” that was a total of $5800. But we had a $500 legal fee, $850 trial transfer fee, costs of medications around $2500-$3000, plus labs and initial clinic visits before the package deal kicked in.

If foster-to-adopt parents do so through DHS, the adoption is essentially free. Adopting from a private agency can run $8,000-$40,000 after attorney fees, counseling fees, medical fees, etc., and to adopt overseas you will likely pay no less than $30,000 (for both legitimate and illegitimate fees to corrupt governments and orphanages). But I would never discourage adoption by any of these options. Adoption is needed in all of these areas.

Q: Do children born through IVF and frozen for long periods have a higher risk for congenital disabilities and abnormalities than babies conceived the natural way?

After the thawing process, it is observed that there is often cell loss or cell degradation. I’ve seen people talking about “our embryos only had 10% cell degradation/loss.” I was reading on the Genetics and IVF Institute website, and it stated that embryos thawed that maintained greater than 50% cell viability (or retained 50% of its blastomeres) is considered to be an embryo that has ‘survived. Less than 50% is considered to have “partially survived.” The lower the cell degradation rate, the better chance of survival until implantation.

As far as birth defects are concerned, there is a greater risk of low birth rates and premature births with children conceived through IVF. My son was premature due to Placenta Previa, which is also more common in IVF-conceived pregnancies. There is also a greater risk of multiple births, such as twins, triplets, etc., which also causes lower birth weights in children. This information is from the Mayo Clinic website.

It is hard to determine whether birth defects resulting from children born through IVF are caused from the process itself or from the infertility of the woman (although since infertile women aren’t really supposed to be getting pregnant, the use of IVF to do so would be a factor in any child conceived having birth defects IMO). This article in Time Magazine suggests that birth defects are higher from IVF births (but they admit it could be due to fertility complications in the mother). So, all that to say, there are conflicting studies out there and the jury is still out.

Q: If in-vitro is the process that helps families have babies who are otherwise infertile, which then brings them great joy to have a child that is their own flesh, why is this a bad thing?

IVF is sinful for many compounding reasons. First is that we have a great need for parents to adopt already existing orphans. IVF says, “I will go out of my way to ignore these orphans in order to unnaturally have my own flesh and blood children.” So, the IVF industry actually discourages the adoption of already-born orphans in the world.

Second, IVF unnecessarily endangers human beings. They are created in a petri dish, and the “leftovers” that survive or are not weeded out, are frozen in liquid nitrogen to -196 degrees. If they were frozen prior to the newer freezing method called “vitrification” (a flash freeze process), they could have as low as a 50% chance thaw survival rate. With vitrification, it is claimed there is as high as a 90% survival rate. But, needless to say, freezing humans you have unnecessarily created, with a good chance of death, is inhumane and unethical.

The IVF industry also dehumanizes these pre-born children by treating them like disposable commodities. They create large numbers of embryos, knowing that most of them will not survive (either through intentional discarding or unintentional death through freezing or miscarriage). When the parents and Doctors learn that one embryo implanted but the other one or two died, they celebrate because that is all they really expected and were hoping for.

Suppose parents have any kind of history of genetic or health defects themselves. In that case, they can opt for PGD and/or PGS testing, which tests the embryo (by taking a portion of it which can result in its death) and testing it for recessive genes that may result in that embryo being born with whatever disease the parent has. If the embryo tests positive, they are simply destroyed and “better grade” embryos are chosen for transfer and/or freezing.

There are other kinds of testing that are done as well. When we filled out our paperwork, we filled out the same paperwork as parents coming for IVF. On one of the pages were the options we wanted for any “leftover embryos” after a successful cycle. This page did not apply to us since we were not creating any embryos but instead rescuing the “leftovers.” The three options included donating the remaining embryos, destroying them, or donating them to scientific research, which results in their destruction.

So even if a couple decided that they were going to only create as many embryos as they were willing to have transferred into her womb without freezing any of them, it is still unethical. Why? Because you are ignoring orphans already among you. You are unnecessarily legitimizing and funding the IVF industry, which in the majority of cases does most or all of the above practices.

Recent studies have shown that doing fresh transfers (transfers of embryos without freezing them) may actually be more dangerous for the embryos because they are being introduced into the uterus, which may become irritated and inflamed from the egg retrieval process just days before, and therefore unnecessarily endangering your children. This is in part because an irritated and inflamed uterus will expel the embryo rather than allow him to implant.

And lastly, as stated above, the IVF industry not only discourages the adoption of already existing orphans but is responsible for creating hundreds of thousands of new orphans; it is an orphan-making industry.

Q: Why should we consider embryos to be human beings? Why would you equate discarding or freezing embryos to be no different than having an abortion?

Human embryos are human beings in the same way that human fetuses, human infants, human adolescents, human teenagers, human adults, and human seniors are human beings. Each of these descriptions is merely descriptions of the human stages of development. None of them speaks to the ontology of the being. Therefore if any humans possess human rights, based upon the fact that they are human, then all humans must possess them, regardless of their stage of development, abilities or inabilities, or any other arbitrary standards or qualifications.

But that begs the question, and we must go deeper. Why do humans possess rights at all? Why is human life more dignified than other life? This is a theological question with a theological answer. The Bible gives us that answer. It is because we are made in God’s Image (Genesis 9:6). God demonstrates the value of His image-bearing creatures by sending His own Son to become one of us (in the womb of a virgin), in order to redeem us from our sin, separation, and judgment of God. Our value is so great in God’s eyes that is cost Him the life of His Son.

Q: What do you think the Christian and the Church’s obligation should be towards our 600,000 frozen pre-born neighbors? What can we do?

First, pastors and teachers should start shining the light onto the evil of IVF rather than ignoring it and allowing the majority of Christendom to remain in ignorance about it. I believe there really is much ignorance here. Most Christians who know anything about IVF see it as a pro-life thing. After all, it is the pursuit of having children and making families. Most do not see or know about the dark underbelly of this practice.

Secondly, when Christians begin to become educated about it, when it is preached against as sin and discouraged as sin, they as individuals need to verbally and actively oppose it in the same way and to the same degree they should oppose abortion.

Thirdly, we should view these pre-born children, imprisoned in freezers, the same way we view already-born children who have been orphaned by their parents (although, I hesitate to say this because I don’t think Christians currently view born orphans rightly, evidenced through the overwhelming Christian inaction in fostering and adopting them or in opposition to abortion). They should begin thinking through how they might go about rescuing these orphans themselves.

Further, we desperately need Christian medical professionals and entrepreneurs, and business men and women, to begin figuring out how we might open clinics that do only embryo adoption and have no participation in IVF, but rather are a visible and vocal reminder of the evil of the IVF industry. This is something that has become a vision for some Abolitionists already.

Editor’s Note. This interview was lightly edited for clarity

Categories
News Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Why the Pro-Life Movement is Compromised, and Why Abortion Abolition is the Only Path Forward

Editor’s Note. This is a Twitter thread from Pastor Dusty Deevers, formatted for this page and posted with permission.

Do you call yourself “Pro-life?” Understand, there is a significant and growing internal conflict among the self-described #Prolife. It is not going away. Some know this and have begun to try to confront it. There are at least three groups within the current Pro-life Movement. 

Let’s briefly consider each Pro-life group. This is so important because this modern holocaust 10x that of Hitler’s is ours to steward and legally abolish. Where do you stand? (1) ESTABLISHMENT or BIG PRO-LIFE; (2) CONFLICTED-CONSISTENT; & (3) BLURRY MIDDLE.

GROUP 1: THE ESTABLISHMENT or BIG PRO-LIFE.

On May 12, 2022, 70+ Pro-life organizatons, self-described as “America’s leading advocates for life,” released a letter defining & defending their long-standing strategy. Here are four tenets of their position. 

1. “Second-victim.” Women seeking preborn homicide (abortion) are always victims.

2. Deny equal protection from fertilization/conception. Never support any measure or legislation to criminalize the act of preborn homicide from fertilization for all parties to the homicide. 

3. Post-abortive trauma is evidence of victimhood.

4. Incrementalism. Continue to pursue a pragmatic, incremental strategy that at no point criminalizes the act of preborn homicide.

The Pro-life Establishment is able to host a spectrum of folks wanting abortion exceptions & allowances: rape, incest, life of the mother, pre-heartbeat, pre-pain, pre-viability, separation of personhood and humanity, and punishment for only providers, which is also why @philvischer‘s ‘consensus’ crowd rightly can call themselves “Pro-life.”

The Pro-life Establishment is intentionally a big tent (i.e. Big Pro-life) that includes many denominations, Christians, and non-Christians.

The consequence of GROUP 1: PRO-LIFE ESTABLISHMENT:

1) Implicit denial of personhood from fertilization/conception AND 

2) Denial of criminalization which grants equal protection of preborn homicide from fertilization…

3) Results in implicit Christological heresy—not affirming the true personhood of Christ or granting Him equal protection from fertilization/conception.

GROUP 1: PRO-LIFE ESTABLISHMENT is the 1,000 lb gorilla on the left side of the spectrum of the Pro-life movement. They hold to at least implicit heretical anthropology & Christology, & secular political theology & practice. Big Pro-life wars against equal protection/criminalization bills in every state & slanders, misaligns, & lies about Christians holding to a consistent, biblical position. Big Pro-life has a proven, defined, & defended track record in every state, especially those states where abolition bills have been introduced.

GROUP 2: THE CONFLICTED-CONSISTENT.

These see the consistent bible position, yet self-label as “Pro-life.” Affirming:

1) Life & personhood begin at fertilization/conception—created in God’s image, owned by God, for His glory. 

2) Thus must be granted equal protection under the law by criminalizing preborn homicide according to Scripture.

GROUP 2 may assume that their conservative, Pro-life legislators & Christian leaders affirm life/personhood & = protection from fertilization/conception, but assuming this is neither wise nor sufficient. GROUP 2 may assume they can reform the Pro-life establishment, but they will not.

This is *not* to say that individual Pro-lifers will not change their position, they will. It is to say that Big Pro-life always will be biblically compromised, well-funded by those wanting abortion exceptions & allowances, and politically secular & pragmatic. This group needs to #Plexit. Leave the Pro-life movement for the biblically consistent Abortion Abolition position.

GROUP 3: BLURRY MIDDLE.

The 3rd Pro-life group sees the compromises of Big Pro-life & is tugged toward a more biblically consistent position, but a pint of pragmatism, a tbsp of tradition, & an oz of Big Pro-life pride is a sure recipe for a bland, lukewarm loaf of midwayism.

Big Pro-life has disciplined the BLURRY MIDDLE by demonizing and keeping attention away from the biblically consistent position of equal protection for all preborn from fertilization, namely the criminalization of preborn homicide. 

The BLURRY MIDDLE sadly has an underdeveloped understanding of Big Pro-life’s existing homicide exception bills, malicious undermining of biblically consistent proposed equal protection bills, and is under the malaise of Big Pro-life pride & propaganda. The consequence is the perpetuation of Big Pro-life in the face of the glory of God and the delay of the abolition of abortion.

ABOLITIONISM.

Abortion abolition is the outlawing, or criminalization of preborn homicide (abortion) thereby establishing justice as = protection from fertilization. Abolitionism is committed to the five biblical tenets as outlined in the acrostic GATES:

G – Gospel-centered
A – Aligned Providentially
T – Through the Church
E – Engaged Biblically
S – Sought Immediately without Compromise

Why would Christians advance any other agenda? This is most clearly seen in the abolition bills that they seek to pass, which always have the following characteristics:

1. Outlaw abortion from fertilization/conception.

2. Do not include exceptions for preborn homicide (ectopics & emergencies are *not* preborn homicide).

3. Criminalize preborn homicide and establish justice as equal protection for the preborn. 

4. Do not submit to unconstitutional rulings (like Roe).

5. Repeal or supersede all statutes which allow for preborn homicide.

Why would Christians support any other bill?

Abortion is murder and everyone knows it. 

It’s past time for Christians to act like abortion is murder. It’s past time for a mass exodus of Christians from the Pro-life Movement. It’s past time for a Christian Pro-life exit in favor of abolitionism. It’s time to #Plexit.

Categories
Evangelical Stuff News Op-Ed SBC

The De-vangelism of the Southern Baptist Convention

Every week, faithful church members dutifully write checks to support the Lord’s work at their local Baptist church, and thousands of these churches turn over a percentage of this giving to the para-church cooperation known as the Southern Baptist Convention. The bulk of this funding goes to support international evangelism/church planting through the International Mission Board (IMB) and church planting in the United States through the North American Mission Board (NAMB), cementing the SBC’s reputation as a decidedly evangelistic organization.

It was under this missional umbrella that NAMB made a recent decision to partner with the neo-christ, ecumenical marketing campaign known as He Gets Us (HGU), a project of the 501c3 donor-advised fund Servant Foundation that promotes what they call the “real Jesus” – a “Jesus” who “accepts everyone.” While the group claims to not be “left” or “right,” a cursory examination of their website paints a radically different picture.

Rather than a Jesus who came to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) whose ambassadors implore the lost to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20) and who “go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15), the “Jesus” that gets us is relevant and relatable, offering teaching and examples that “just might help you with your job, family, or relationship challenges, as well as issues like rejection, anxiety, depression and more.”

This devil’s bargain came to the attention of SBC pew-sitters when NAMB recently encouraged churches to join them for a webinar to learn how to join the HGU “movement,” and be included on a list of churches the campaign would refer “seekers” to upon being contacted via the campaign’s website. NAMB described the movement as “the biggest campaign to change hearts and minds about Jesus,” in the event listing for the webinar hosted by president Kevin Ezell and Wheaton College Dean and expert-on-everything-by-way-of-internet-scrubbing institutional mainstay Ed Stetzer – whose fingerprints are all over the HGU effort.

Almost immediately, conservative Christians and SBC pastors on social media began exposing that the campaign was promoting a woke, heretical Jesus that bore little if any resemblance to the true Christ. Ezell was forced to immediately backtrack from the campaign, which he called “too broad” to “directly connect with” in a hastily-penned mea culpa, adding that NAMB “will pray that the conversations begun by this campaign will lead to gospel-centered conservations (sic) and cause many to seek to learn more about Jesus.”

https://twitter.com/WWUTTcom/status/1580690379032367105?s=20&t=yaCICNJowrQ8UlXpJbxu6A

Just a few months prior, Ed Stetzer – not one to break his streak of being on the wrong side of every issue (Wuhan lab leak, COVID-persecuted churches, fake Heaven tourism books at Lifeway), began shilling for Woke Jesus in April via his column at Churchleaders.com, in which he first destroys a strawman of what he considers most evangelicals’ brand of “sharing faith” before advocating for the focus-group-tested, HGU strategy that “break[s] the mold of what most Christians think of when they think of evangelism.”

Note: Since Stetzer has a habit of scrubbing columns and social media posts once he’s proven wrong, here’s the archived link to the above-linked column.

Stetzer reminds his readers that, rather than simply and straightforwardly proclaiming the Gospel and imploring the lost to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20), we would do well to adjust our approach in light of the negative opinions, subjective feelings, and false impressions of the lost. He claims that a straightforward offer and proclamation of God’s Truth stands in opposition to love, writing (emphasis mine), “when communicating the components of a message becomes more important than how we share, we’ve lost sight of the good news of Jesus’ life, and ultimate death, for all humanity.” This “it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it” framework stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ evangelistic commissioning to the disciples, where He instructed them simply: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16). As Darrell Harrison aptly pointed out while discussing the HGU campaign, “The main thing Jesus ‘gets’ about all of us is that we’re sinners.”

Creating the kind of absurd, blind irony that only Ed Stetzer could pull off, he claims that a lost person may very well feel commoditized if a believer insists on “getting out [the] full presentation” of the Gospel – apparently preferring an approach that deliberately withholds parts of Jesus in order to craft a message palatable to the lost person. Stetzer misses the likelihood that the Gen-Z target (with their notable desire for authenticity) will sniff out the inauthenticity of a Christian offering a version of Jesus personally marketed to them. Then of course there’s the inconvenient fact that to maintain the lost person’s interest in “Jesus” one must avoid completing the Christological picture with inconvenient truths like repentance or the call to pick up one’s cross.

This tried-and-true sales strategy is the core of the $100 million campaign, which (consistent with its shameless salesmanship) guarantees its partner churches “success” – that is, success in generating wide gate-scale YouTube views, website visits, and placements of ad spots on Monday Night Football right next to ads for gambling, beer, and every other branded vice that might appeal to the unregenerate heart.

Yet rather than a call to repentance and trust in Christ for delivery from sin, TV viewers are comforted by the claim that Jesus was (and apparently is) just another conflicted, anxious, and troubled social justice-concerned beardbro. Whatever a lost Gen-Z heart might desire, wonder, love, or oppose – Jesus gets it. He validates it, unlike those hypocrites in the church. Neo-Christ gets you, unlike those judgy Christians who keep insisting you are a lost sinner in peril.

Stetzer is careful not to entirely dismiss the “strategy” of simply proclaiming the Gospel to the lost world (like those early church pre-literates who didn’t even have research or focus groups!), but insists that the He Gets Us strategy of moving the Jesus goalposts is simply an evangelism upgrade. Yet there stubbornly remains no biblical precedent for the soft-sell of “starting conversations” or even “sharing our faith,” only proclamation of the unadulterated Gospel call to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” – at any stage of personal familiarity.

The SBC has been wedded to the Church Growth, seeker-sensitive strategy of evangelism for decades – a strategy that replaces the Holy God standing in righteous judgment with Buddy Christ, and Buddy Christ would never judge a fly. Rather, he desperately wants you to be his friend. To quote pre-woke Matt Chandler, Jesus’ motivation in saving is “not so that you and him (sic) can be boys.” Buddy Christ bears little resemblance to the Holy Judge who calls on his children to “preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17).

Yet the North American Mission Board revealed the level to which the SBC downgrade has progressed in its thankfully short-lived partnership with the de-vangelistic HGU campaign. Beyond the simple continuation of its promotion of self-help guru Buddy Christ, NAMB was caught actively promoting partnership with a pro-gay, inclusivist, heretical false gospel campaign – a campaign whose falseness has been known for months. If not for an (honestly quite cursory) examination of the HGU campaign by discerning believers, Ezell and NAMB would still be encouraging SBC churches to hop aboard the inclusivist Jesus train with the United Methodists (also an active partner of the HGU campaign).

Note: As of this publishing, He Gets Us has removed the denominational logos and names seen in this article’s featured image above.

Even more troubling, Kevin Ezell apparently did at least some diligence on HGU and still yoked NAMB to the campaign, telling Stetzer in the recent webinar that he found the HGU ads to be “beautiful” and that people looking to evangelize (“share their faith” in modern lingo) are “going to love this.”

https://tiribulus.com/flix/Screen_Recording_20221013_213416_Twitter.mp4

The president of the largest church planting network in the United States finding nothing objectionable about the heretical HGU campaign is yet another nail in the coffin of the once-conservative SBC.

Categories
Op-Ed Worship Music

Discerning Praise and Worship – A Primer

Knowing that I’m a musician, many readers of Protestia and followers/supporters of Protestia Tonight have asked me how I approach the selection of worship music from a biblical perspective. In response, I’d like to humbly offer my rating system for figuring out if a given song belongs in your church service. There are other websites that offer similar analyses, but frankly, I have found them far too tolerant considering churches don’t need any particular song. First, some context.

The Megachurch Takeover

Worship music is extra-biblical. Songs are notes, rhythms, and often lyrics not found in scripture. Of course, this does not mean that there is anything sinful or wrong with songs in general, but scripture does instruct us to sing songs that are spiritual (Col. 3:16). We sing Psalms (worship songs written under the inspiration of the Spirit that are part of scripture), hymns (which often contain scripture, and should contain rich doctrinal truth), and spiritual songs. Spiritual songs may be more general, but should be characterized by the promotion of those things that are true, honorable, just, lovely, commendable, excellent, or worthy of praise (Philippians 4:8) – again, informed by scripture.

While the singing of Psalms faces no scriptural challenge (as they are scripture) and most long-accepted hymns enjoy wide acceptance (although a few present some doctrinal or associational difficulty), modern music technology has presented a vast array of new challenges to the Church. This modern technology includes recording, easier and cheaper music production and the internet becoming the sole distribution channel for musical products.

Churches of the market-driven, seeker-sensitive variety quickly realized the power of music to aid their marketing efforts, and many developed in-house, professional writing, recording, and distribution operations to capitalize on the music industry’s paradigm shift. Music could now be recorded cheaply and distributed instantaneously, and (as with so many other products) the church was a ripe market. The relatively-niche market for Christian recording artists (once largely separate from the music used in church worship) was quickly taken over by church music ministries recording and producing cheap, emotional songs under the “worship” label. These songs were created not for the purpose of selling albums to Christian customers, but to be used in church worship services. People had stopped buying music, and streaming royalties remained low, but churches continued to license music through CCLI for Sunday morning.

Aside from the revenue generated through licensing, mega-church ministries that had their own music production and distribution arms enjoy an attractional, and professional feather in the cap that signals to the wider Christian world that they are the real deal. Additionally, music has a way of leading people to let their doctrinal guard down, and accept teachings that would likely draw opposition if taught directly from the pulpit.

Christian recording artists, unable to compete against the unassailable certification of holiness granted to “church bands,” jumped on the bandwagon and started producing worship songs and albums as well. The ironic result was that the tapestry of “spiritual songs” that was on the verge of blossoming a couple of decades ago gave way to a homogeneous, cheap, sound-alike Christian music industry. Questionable doctrine now came in a church-sanitized package on Sunday morning. Artistry had been replaced with generic praise bands singing emotionally manipulative, universalized, and generic lyrics over music that was cheap, basic, and disposable.

The Current Landscape

Yet there is a remnant. There are Christian music artists writing songs that exalt God’s truth using music that is artistically crafted rather than comprised of the same four chords that make up every Phil Wickham, Elevation Worship, Hillsong, or Bethel tune blasted from evangelical sound systems on Sundays. And of course, we have the Psalms – which are often put to new music yet contain inspired truth. Classic hymns of the faith are re-produced or rearranged musically.

Yet seemingly every day a new, disposable Christian praise tune is released and is quickly promoted on lowest-common-denominator Christian music outlets. K-Love Kathy quickly goes from undiscerningly blasting it in her Toyota Sienna to sharing it with her girlfriends at the weekly Priscilla Shirer “bible” study. Soon, the tune catches the ear of the worship pastor or leader (who is no doubt aware that the hipster church down the street is using it) and he follows suit – using the same tune to raise the hands, close the eyes, and bend the emotions of his emotion-addicted congregation.

Discerning Songs

And so we find ourselves asking: By what standard should a church determine which music is praise-worthy, which music should be off-limits, and what should be the approach to music that may be in the middle? Christian liberty is an important biblical doctrine, and there are many choices that fall into the category of being “permissible, but not beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12). In this spirit, and under the plain logic that there is an opportunity cost with every song used in Christian worship (every time one song is used, another is not), I humbly suggest the following biblical rating system designed to analyze the value, fidelity, and risk of singing a given song in corporate worship.

Many of these principles can be used when deciding what a believer might listen to at home or privately, but this application will be for the purpose of selecting music for corporate worship. Note that I am not rating the artist per se (several standards would be stricter if the artist were a pastor, for example) – I am rating the songs. For example, if the artist has a troublesome theological belief that doesn’t manifest in the song itself or create an obvious or undeniable reproachful association, this may not be enough to disqualify the song itself.

The Rubric

Songs will be rated on a 100-point scale, scored by the following:

Doctrinal Fidelity and Clarity – 25 points. Is biblical doctrine consistent throughout the song? Are the nature, works, and character of God described in the lyrics consistent with scripture? How are the Gospel and salvation characterized? Are there phrases commonly employed within false teaching being used? 

Doctrinal Specificity – 20 points. Are the lyrics specific enough to positively describe the true Christ rather than a generalized God? Do the lyrics positively exclude false versions of Jesus? Would anything prevent followers of other religions from singing this song? Would lost people be able to sing this song without any issues?

Focus – 20 points. Does the song rhetorically place the focus on God or man? Is God being praised apart from the individual experience of the worshipper, or is He characterized as praiseworthy by the approval of the worshipper?

Association – 20 points. Is the song written by or primarily associated with a heretical, false, or troublesome church movement? Would using the song in church reasonably be seen as a tacit endorsement of a false church or false gospel? Does the primary songwriter or artist associated with the song partner with false ministries or teachers?

Musical Value – 15 points. Is the song using the same musical structure as every other praise song? Does it employ repetition as an emotional device and/or a replacement for lyrical content? Is it arranged in an artistically unique way, or could the melody and lyrics be easily replaced with another song?

Songs will receive a raw score indicating overall appropriateness for a worship service, but a loss of more than 10 points in a doctrinal category or association will result in an automatic non-recommendation. The “musical value” category is obviously the most subjective, but also includes consideration of low-value techniques like phrase repetition and emotionally manipulative musical devices.

Three Categories

80-100: Safe for Sunday. If you like it, program it.

50-79: Pastoral Guidance Suggested. This song may be used, but prayerfully consider choosing something else and be ready with an explanation if questioned about why the song is being used despite its issues.

0-49: Pick Something Else. These songs have no business being used in a church worship service. Stay away.

We will continually update the category of analyzed songs as a resource for pastors and church members to use as a handy guide when presented with a song they are unfamiliar with.

Bonus: Practice applying this rubric to a David song here:

Categories
Op-Ed

Op-Ed: How Doug Wilson and Co. Are Getting Lost In the Culture War

Last month we brought you this post How Doug Wilson and Co. Are Wailin’ on the Culture War, explaining why many are drawn to them. This is absolutely required reading before this post, being the first part of it, so click the link, give it a read, and then check back in. Also note that ‘Op-Ed’ means “opposite the editorial page” and does not necessarily reflect our opinion on Wilson and company, but we occasionally allow for diverse thought if we find it helpful to draw distinctions and dividing lines.

Earlier I made a post on what draws people to Doug Wilson and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. (CREC) (The aforementioned one we said to read) What I offered I think is overwhelmingly true. Further, I think that broadly the church can improve on dealing with current issues and society. That being said DW’s and the CREC’s approach is misguided and here’s why:

1. Most people reading this post probably don’t like CNN. They find the leftward slant of CNN obnoxious, but there is another factor. CNN or any 24/7 news services constantly plays off of your need to be in the “know” and tries to make you afraid. They always attempt to repackage the same story over and over again for maximum public impact. I am not accusing DW of being CNN, or fear-mongering. I am saying that just like mass media they are always out to spin things for maximum impact and greatest coverage. If you have ever felt vexed, and like it never ends with a 24hr news cycle I would say DW operates on a similar basis.

2. DW and the CREC are obsessed with the “culture war”. Engaging in it and fighting it, but I see a huge problem with their engagement. They are quick to show the tom-foolery of authorities in the church and state. They are steadfast in speaking against the wokeness of our age. But, what I don’t see them do is preach the Gospel to our age. They take positions on cultural issues, and cultural issues are important. Yet, to truly transform the culture it happens one sinner being converted at a time. The Gospel must be at the fore- Redemption offered to fallen and sinful man from a Crucified Savior must always be the heart of our message.

3. Cultural Transformationalism from Neo-Calvinism. This is intimately tied in with point 2 but let me further expand. Instead of the Gospel, and sinners being converted transforming a culture the CREC does something different. They opt for a “Cultural Transformationalist” approach that has its roots in Neo-Calvinism and came to them by way of Theonomy. In a nut shell, the “culture war” is vital to the CREC because they want to transform and better this culture. They are also actively working to build a counter-culture, but so much is predicated on culture. This leads them to seek cultural influence over Gospel influence (if I may term it is this way), there is a subtle danger in their tactic as it makes friendlies out to be those that agree with them in the culture war, not their brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. Cultural Transformationism and the “Culture War” means you take your cues from the culture. If you are always countering the culture, the culture becomes your guide. Instead of operating on the basis of the Scriptures and what they say, the culture dictates where your theology goes. This can lead to some pretty heavy uneven results and theological imbalance. (One of the in house debates the church needs to have is Neo-Calvinism its influence and cultural-transformationism. I will link at the bottom the best critiques of Neo-Calvinism I am aware of.)

5. Where is the first table of the law? In Matthew 22:37-28 Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love and serve God with all that we have- he refers to it as the first and greatest commandment. There is a second commandment Jesus gives about loving neighbor but love to God is first because you can’t love your neighbor without first loving God. What Jesus says about loving God is a summary of the first 4 commands of the 10. What Jesus says about loving neighbor a summary of the latter 6. It is on the first four that Christ puts priority. The idea of loving God involves worship, it involves public life and public policy. To put it simply you should be as passionate about Blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking as your are about abortion. As passionate about worship in your own congregation as you are with any cultural impact. Now let me offer the critique in two subpoints:

a. The first table of the law is strangely lacking in much of what the CREC does. Sure, they might mention things about worship and “Christian Nationalism” but lets be frank the worship in their own churches is not in accord with the Word of God. They are Anglicans or Cyrpto- Papist. They have all sorts of errant and aberrant worship practices.

b. Its lacking in how they see cultural transformation, sure they acknowledge it at points. Recently though I saw a CREC church doing an ethics class on only the second table of the law. When they approach issues of public policy and cultural impact,, why is the first table not more at the front? Further, when they address cultural issues it seems the fear, and honor due to God is lacking.

6. The CREC draws you in by appealing to your cravings for solid food, and then fails to provide it. Ultimately slowly starving you. It works like this- the Christian feels a need to hear cultural and political issues addressed from a Christian perspective, they are drawn to the CREC. Instead of getting a healthy diet once there though, the culture wars dominate the church. And what is left is a flawed sacramentology, and view of worship. They love liturgy and weird views of sacraments because I am afraid they don’t preach Christ well, and the culture war has little place for Experimental Religion.

The CREC/DW “Culture War” tact leads the church lose the vitality of its message. Instead of the Gospel it becomes about the culture and transforming it. Instead of preaching the “old paths” the church’s paths meander through current cultural and societal issues. The CREC and DW have derided others for trying to be relevant, while they themselves seek after relevance by constantly firing volleys in the the “Culture War”. The church must never be afraid to address, societal, or political issues.

This fear, which I think characterizes much of the church (yes, even the Reformed church) gives Wilson and the CREC a following. The church must also remember that its message is the Gospel, and the truth’s the Scripture contain are timeless. It is not the church’s job to play tit for tat in a culture war. Rather the church must take the timeless truths found in the Word of God and apply them today’s culture and situation. We must remember the Gospel is effective because it is timeless.

*** Critiques of Neo-Calvinism***

1. Dr. William Young’s astute and sage paper: “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism”:

https://www.westminsterconfession.org/…/historic…/

2. Dr. C. Pronk’s critique of Neo-Calvinism:

https://christianreformedink.wordpress.com/…/neo…/

3. William Dennison “‘Dutch Neo-Calvinism & the Roots for Transformation: an Introductory Essay”:

http://the-highway.com/neo-calvinism.pdf

Ed. Note. This post is a Facebook post from Zach Dotson. Adapted for this page.

Categories
Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Was the Apostle Bartholomew Even Martyred? Myths that’ll Preach

Well-meaning people frequently give a well-known apologetic as evidence regarding the resurrection of Christ, usually during The Easter Sermon. Preachers, teachers, theologians, and laypeople point to the Apostles’ deaths as circumstantial evidence concerning that event. They say things like, “People will die for a cause if they believe it to be true, but they won’t die for a lie. The twelve Apostles suffered terrible deaths as martyrs for the cause- now why would they endure such profound suffering if they believed it a lie?”

It’s a given that almost all the Apostles were martyred and that their gruesome, grotesque end is known. People say things like “church tradition has it that……” or” church history tells us that….” and that seems to settle it. There is assumed confidence in the historicity of these accounts, supposing we have sufficient certainty of knowing what actually happened and recounting this to others without impunity.

Yet even a cursory examination of the accounts of the apostles’ deaths shows gaps, contradictions, conflicting testimony, unreliable witnesses, suspect testimonies, and incredible uncertainty. The whole thing is a complete mess, and. If someone says that church tradition says they all died a martyr’s death, ask them, which ones in particular they’re referring to and they would have no answer. It’s a good line, but it’s impossible to back up once you go deeper than surface-level sound clips.

To cite just one example, we offer the supposed martyrdom of Bartholomew the Apostle. Finding primary sources for the martyrdom of Bartholomew has been a nightmare. What we typically see is “some local traditions have him going to India. Other traditions record him as serving as a missionary in Ethiopia. Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Lycaonia”. In the NewAdvent entry on Barthlomew, we read without sources or citations:

“Other traditions represent St. Bartholomew as preaching in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and on the shores of the Black Sea. One legend, it is interesting to note, identifies him with Nathanael. The manner of his death, said to have occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia, is equally uncertain; according to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified, head downward, by order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polybius, King of Armenia.”

Here are all relevant and recent sources for the evidence of the martyrdom of just one of the Apostles:

1. The Biblical Evidence. There is no extant biblical evidence of the fate of Bartholomew. The Scriptures are wholly silent on the matter.

2. Hippolytus of Rome [170-235] Though in his own day he was co considered to be a very prolific writer, the details of his own life and his writings have generally all been forgotten and little is known about him. He wrote that “Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia. Hippolytus. “On the Twelve Apostles of Christ.” Ante-Nicean Fathers, Vol. 5.

Hippolytus does not give us sources for this account; likewise, his authorship of said source is highly disputed. That is to say- we don’t even know if he actually wrote it. But if he did, it is also curious note that Hippolytus reports natural deaths for four of the twelve disciples (John, Matthew, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot), which would contradict Eusebius and others regarding other apostolic deaths.

3. Eusebius of Caesarea, [AD 263 – 339] Recounts only that Bartholomew went off to India. “Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, He found the Gospel, according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.” Eusebius.  Church History. Book V. Chapter 10.

4. Jerome. [ 347 – 420] In his commentary on Matthew he mentions a number of no-longer-extant apocryphal gospels, including a document entitled The Gospel of Bartholomew (sometimes called the Questions of Bartholomew.) This document is strongly Nestorian and was condemned as heretical by the Gelasian decree. The Questions of Bartholomew describes several conversations between Jesus and the Apostles regarding the crucifixion, Christ’s adventures in hell, and the resurrection. In the book, Jesus gives Bartholomew power and authority over the people and demons populating hell, which gives him the ability to question Satan about his battle with heaven. Written possibly as early as the 6th century, it does not cast light on his death.

5. There is a non-Biblical document called the “Martyrdom of Bartholomew” written as early as the 5th century, which claims that Bartholomew was martyred by King Astyages in Armenia:  “Then the King rent the purple in which he was clothed, and ordered the holy apostle Bartholomew to be beaten with rods; and after having been thus scourged, to be beheaded.”

Interestingly enough, in this book the demons are speaking amongst themselves about how to recognize him, and they give this description “And the demon answered and said: He has black hair, a shaggy head, a fair skin, large eyes, beautiful nostrils, his ears hidden by the hair of his head, with a yellow beard, a few grey hairs, of middle height, and neither tall nor stunted, but middling…His voice is like the sonnet of a strong trumpet; there go along with him angels of God, who allow him neither to be weary, nor to hunger, nor to thirst; his face, and his soul, and his heart are always glad and rejoicing; he foresees everything, he knows and speaks every tongue of every nation.”

6. Moses of Chorena, a writer who lived either in the late 5th century or sometime in the 7th century, wrote “There came then into Armenia the Apostle Bartholomew, who suffered martyrdom among us in the town of Arepan. As to Simon, who was sent unto Persia I cannot relate with certainty what he did, nor where he suffered martyrdom. It is said that one Simon, an apostle, was martyred at Veriospore. Is this true or why did the saint come to this place? I do not know I have only mentioned this circumstance that you may know I spare no pains to tell you all that is necessary.”  History of Armenia .  Section IX

7. The Acts of Phillip. A bizarre, mystical, Gnostic apocryphal late 4th century book. In a later addition to it we read “And the Savior said: O Philip, since you have forsaken this commandment of mine, not to render evil for evil,  for this reason you shall be debarred in the next world for forty years from being in the place of my promise: besides, this is the end of your departure from the body in this place; and Bartholomew has his lot in Lycaonia, and shall be crucified there; and Mariamne shall lay down her body in the river Jordan. Addition to the Acts of Phillip. Paragraph 52

8. Allegedly there is an old Roman Breviary which states “In Great Armenia Bartholomew led the king, Polymius, and his wife, in addition to twelve cities, to the Christian belief. These conversions very much enkindled the jealousy of the clergy there. The priests succeeded in stirring up the brother of King Polymius, Astyages, to such an anger that he gave the gruesome order to have Bartholomew skinned alive and then beheaded. In this martyrdom he gave his soul back to God.” We have not been able to locate any source for  it.

So here’s where we are; concerning the apostolic work of St. Bartholomew we have only unreliable and contradictory statements. The earliest accounts have been lost. The first that have been preserved originated between 450 and 550 in the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire with traces of Nestoriansim. His manner of deaths range from being beaten, beheaded, flayed, crucified, and a host of others ends. He is said to have died in dozens of different places and countries, and most of the information that supposedly sheds light on his death was written hundreds of years after his actual death, in unreliable, unbelievable, fantastical sources.

During the first several centuries after Christ, stories about him, the apostles, and their lives — not to mention writings on the meaning of Christ’s life, the duties of a Christian, and predictions about the end of the world — exploded into existence, and the adventures of Bartholomew consists entirely of that- stories, traditions, myths and legends.

That is just one of the Apostles. There are 11 more, and the majority of them have histories just as twisted and convoluted. While we have stronger and more solid evidence for the martyrdom of some of the other Apostles, the point we want to make stands; we don’t even know that Bartholomew was martyred. We don’t know how, why, where or even IF. We don’t with any certainty know a single detail about his death, other than that he indeed did die. Appeals to church history and church tradition are useless and confusing, and because we want to speak the truth, we need to be precise.

It’s fair to say something like “While we have a mess to sort our regarding which apostles died where how and why, its reasonable to conclude that many of them if not most of them probably were martyred for their faith”

It doesn’t have the impact that “They were all martyred for their faith and suffered this specific gruesome fate….” but the purpose is not maximum impact, but maximum truth so that God may be glorified.

Editor’s Note. This was adapted from an earlier 2013 essay,

Categories
News Op-Ed

Op-Ed: The National Association of Evangelicals Fiddles While Healthy Breasts Burn

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded in 1942 as a new coalition to ‘unify evangelicals and to function as a “middle way” between the bitterly divided fundamentalist and progressive streams of American Christianity.'”

In actuality, they emerged as an ecumenical organization designed to serve as controlled opposition to the more liberal American Council of Churches, but soon broke left after their original founders – including Bob Jones and John Rice – were out of the picture. They’ve remained there since, becoming increasingly entrenched in their recalcitrance and pitiful in their irrelevancy.

This was was shown when they supported a legislative initiative called Fairness for All, which sought to codify sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, adding them to federal nondiscrimination laws, along with a thousand other progressive cuts and hot takes and exemplified perfectly by their newly released blockbuster report Loving the Least of These.

Representing tens of thousands of churches from over 40 denominations, including the SBC (and up to a few short weeks ago, the PCA) The NAE (who has Ed Stetzer on their Executive Committee) gathered up all their social capital and published a sweeping 96-page report designed to address some of the most pressing matters of this current age.

It’s not about the abortion holocaust, in which NAE supports the bleeding of babies in cases of rape and incest anyway. It’s not the militancy of the transgender movement cracking evangelicalism wide open, nor is it about the purposeful grooming and manipulation of children by blue-haired teachers in incubating classrooms or by parents dragging them to drag shows. It’s not about the social contagion of kids identifying as LGBTQ nearing a majority, nor the decimaction of an ability to articulate what a woman is and what makes them uniquely made in the image of God. Lastly, it’s not about the mutilation of healthy penises and breast tissue on children through mephistophelean medical experiments; a grotesque obsession by conscience-seared madmen competing to see who can create the most realistic approximation of sex organs on a 16-year-old.

Instead, their major announcement is about climate change, where they bemoan melting ice and glacier loss, rising sea levels- “As ocean temperatures rise, the water expands and raises the water level. Melting glaciers also contribute to the rise in sea level. From 1880 to 2020, sea levels rose 8–9 inches (20–23 centimeters). A 2022 report suggested that future sea level rise is predicted to be another 10–12 inches (25–30 centimeters) by the year 2050.” agricultural losses, loss of forests, loss of biodiversity, damage to fisheries, and pollution challenges.

After spending fifty pages lamenting the ways the earth is falling apart, they offer up ways that Christians can stop sucker-punching the planet and mitigate their impact on this world through these acts of ‘loving their neighbor.’

“In Bible study groups, learn about creation care and its biblical foundations.

Worship God with songs and prayers that reflect his might in creating the world.

In your church, make sure your Sunday school programs, outreach activities and sermons include theology of creation care.

Invite fellow believers whose congregations are affected most noticeably by changing environments to speak at your church.

Make your church facilities as environmentally friendly as possible and help others to do the same.

Consider buying sustainable foods, recycling, composting, and switching to renewable energy

sources and less polluting vehicles.

Ask what God wants you to do about the threats to the health and survival of human beings, as well as the animals and plants on which we rely on.

Use more efficient appliances, shift to public transportation and renewable energy-powered vehicles, prioritize energy savings, eat more plant-based diets, and pass legislation that helps speed up the transition to renewable energy.

When you purchase a plane ticket, consider paying for carbon offsets.”

The report concludes by noting, “No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. God will show you the next steps.”

This completely misguided endeavor might be forgivable if it weren’t at the expense of battles not being fought. More than that, they’re not doing their congregations any favors. One of the most powerful Christian organizations in the United States, the NAE, is not popping up in the public square to proclaim the primacy of Christ or grabbing their gear to do trench warfare for the souls of our children.

Rather, they’re talking about installing solar panels on churches and the Christian’s obligation to buy a Tesla. Look at the last six months of articles- are they getting a little blood on their boots where the battle burns hottest?

Megan Basham explains why this is so problematic, pointing out that other than coopting the jargon to advance their position, they’re not in the thick of the battle but rather on the outskirts of it.

All the Christianese jargon is here. NAE claims becoming a climate change activist is part of “loving your neighbor,” “showing hospitality,” and recognizing “lived experience.” Get some new terms guys. Maybe you could find some in the Bible!

While children are being mutilated, this is where Evangelical orgs are throwing that “social capital” they’ve been guarding so carefully. Climate change. But if you suggest that they’re deliberately choosing to align with causes that will make them “co-belligerents” with the leftwing media and government power structures, you’re divisive and out of order.

Want to know what they’ve said about transgender ideology destroying children’s lives & bodies? Nothing. Two generic articles from 2016. Don’t tell me they’re just seeking to represent Biblical values in public sphere.”

The National Association of Evangelicals is not even in the same fight, they don’t have the same priorities as you, and at this rate they never will.

Categories
News Op-Ed

OP-ED: IVF is Mass Murder and an Abomination Before God

With the news that troubled Christian musician Israel Houghton and his wife recently became parents with a son through the use of a surrogate, which involved multiple rounds of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF,) we wanted to discuss something that should be uncontroversial: IVF is almost always mass murder and the wholescale slaughter of pre-born children.

This is because life begins at conception, and IVF conceives and then kills MILLIONS of babies. Not just by pagan women who have no regard for human life, but IVF is a scourge that has infiltrated Christendom too, with Christian couples bathing their hands in blood. 

According to the American Pregnancy Association, there are five steps involved in IVF:

  1. Doctors stimulate the development of eggs in a woman’s ovaries by injecting her with hormones and fertility drugs.
  2. The eggs are extracted from the woman’s uterus through an invasive surgical procedure.
  3. A male donor produces and donates sperm.
  4. A scientist mixes together the eggs and sperm in a petri-dish. Sometimes, the scientist will puncture the eggs and inject them with sperm (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection). The eggs are then monitored until they are fertilized and become embryos.
  5. About 3-5 days later, the scientist places the embryos into the woman’s uterus with a tube (catheter). Implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall or womb is hoped to occur about 6-10 days later.

But IVF is costly, costing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because of the expense and the low probability of success upon the first implantation, especially when women are over the age of 35, doctors won’t just create, cultivate and implant a single embryo but rather frequently will extract 20-40 eggs at a time, which are fertilized with the man’s sperm.

Because of the high costs, it is extremely rare for a doctor to cultivate, combine, and implant a single embryo. Instead, they will get a few dozen going and then run genetic health tests and sift through them to find the “healthiest” embryos to implant, usually 2-5 at once, hoping that at least one “takes.” Doctors will monitor, and if “too many babies” are conceived, doctors will use the process of “fetal reduction” or “selective reduction” to eliminate the excess offspring.

What happens to the rest of the unused embryos? The other 25 or so they created and won’t have to use because the woman became pregnant on the third round after blowing through 10 other babies? They are treated as property. They are either destroyed or frozen for years until they are ultimately discarded because the couple gets tired of paying $1000 a year to keep them alive.

Only between 7-15% of all embryos artificially created ever come to term. The rest are all ultimately killed. Most estimates put the number of babies left in a perpetual frozen state until their demise to be between 400,000- 920,000, with millions murdered since the technology emerged.

Any Christian couple considering it or going through with it ought to be instantly put under church discipline, no different than if they plotted to have an abortion or stick knife in the neck of their six year old.

Abortion Abolitionist Jelaine Fondren summarizes the process of IVF and elaborates on its sinfulness.

The process of IVF creates many human beings (in the embryonic state) to then choose a few of the best ones to implant in a uterus. If more than one implant successfully, the mother is then offered to abort any extras. The leftover embryos are frozen for later use in case the first attempt is unsuccessful or the person wants to have more children. These extra embryos are treated like property, with the owners (parents) paying rent for storage space in the freezer. Most are abandoned to death via the thawing process or scientific experimentation.

The other reason it is sin is the selfishness involved. God opens and closes the womb for His purposes. Christians are called to care for orphans and widows. When we are so intent on having our own biological children at the cost of thousands of dollars and tens of extra babies abandoned to death instead of opening our hearts to orphans, we have indeed become lovers of self instead of lovers of God and our neighbors.

Abolitionist Toby Harmon adds:

In Vitro Fertilization is sinful for many compounding reasons. First is that we have a great need for parents to adopt already existing orphans. IVF says “I will go out of my way to ignore these orphans in order to unnaturally have my own flesh and blood children.” So, the IVF industry actually discourages the adoption of already born orphans in the world.

Second, IVF unnecessarily endangers human beings. They are created in a petri dish, and the “leftovers” that survive or are not weeded out, are frozen in liquid nitrogen to -196 degrees. If they were frozen prior to the newer freezing method called “vitrification” (a flash freeze process) they could have as low as a 50% chance thaw survival rate. With vitrification it is claimed there is as high as a 90% survival rate. But, needless to say, freezing humans you have unnecessarily created, with a good chance of death is inhumane and unethical.

The IVF industry also dehumanizes these preborn children by treating them like disposable commodities. They create large numbers of embryos, knowing that most of them will not survive (either through intentional discarding or unintentional death through freezing or miscarriage). When the parents and Doctors learn that one embryo implanted but the other 1 or 2 dies, they celebrate because that is all they really expected and were hoping for.

If parents have any kind of history of genetic or health defects themselves, they can opt to to PGD and/or PGS testing which tests the embryo (by taking a portion of it which can result in it’s death) and testing it for recessive genes that may result in that embryo being born with whatever disease the parent has. If the embryo tests positive, they are simply destroyed and “better grade” embryos are chosen for transfer and/or freezing.”

Categories
Evangelical Stuff Op-Ed

Platform Grifters Case Study: The Hardings

We try very hard at Protestia not to punch down – that is, publish articles targeting those who carry little or no actual influence in evangelicalism. Yet occasionally we witness behavior and theology from online characters that is worth discussing as a demonstration of a growing or novel problem affecting the church.

In this case, the problem is platform grifters.

A grifter (combination of grafter and drifter) is a person who steals (grafter originally meant thief) and when exposed or thwarted drifts to another camp or group. The internet, with its ability to create any reality, is a fertile ground for ideological grifting – in this case grifting that involves theological influence. An idea or teaching can be advanced online without any of the traditional barriers to entry that historically muted the unqualified or uncommitted.

The platforming of regular people resulting from the internet’s flattening of public discourse, while a win for equality and individualism, also encouraged a new breed of small-time “ministers” – false teachers motivated by the desire for influence as much if not more than the desire for money. In contrast to the televangelist of yesterday feeding on check-mailing insomniacs, platform grifters feed on likes, comments, and online engagement with strangers – preferably those in positions of real or perceived influence (platform evangelicals). Grifters create digital kingdoms where they are free to declare themselves experts, influencers, victims – anything that will keep their supposed support flowing – no matter how superficial or limited the “support” actually is.

They imagine that every like, supportive comment, or retweet represents a faithful and loyal subject (and likely hundreds more who just didn’t engage this time). Their influence – real or perceived – is what validates every action taken, allegiance formed, or proclamation made from their virtual throne. And this virtual throne sits on top of dopamine-pushing social media software designed to assure them that every time they post they are actually issuing a royal edict.

Yet absent any actual influence, real-world institutional framework, or solid doctrinal conviction, the platform grifter’s perceived support dries up. Viewers who initially offered enthusiastic but cheap ovations of support shift their attention elsewhere, and the initial splash of attention the grifter hoped would lead to their big platform arrival turns out to be nothing of the sort. They discover (although rarely accept) that people’s attention is limited, and the internet’s ability to offer limitless content does not come packaged with limitless audiences.

So much like a 10-year-old simply starts a new Minecraft world, the platform grifter changes positions and begins the platforming cycle anew knowing that the internet is huge and new followers will either be ignorant of or be happy to ignore prior positions. Receiving praise from the opponents of their prior position, they resume their quest for influence with new enemies and allegiances. This cycle of grift invariably moves leftward as emotionalized subjectivity is required to cover for the shifted views of the grifter and objective, revealed biblical truth is jettisoned to avoid charges of hypocrisy.

My Case Study

Out of all the online examples of platform grifters I could discuss (and at the risk of providing the platforming and legitimacy they so desperately desire), the case of Erin and Todd Harding has intrigued me more than most. This was because Erin’s relatively inconsequential bachelor’s degree in Pastoral Ministry from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the wake of her and Todd’s precipitous downgrade in theology was such a prominent marker of the liberal downgrade within the Southern Baptist Convention. Yet at the same time, I suspected that if John MacArthur offered Erin a position teaching at The Master’s Seminary, she would gladly abandon her woke ways and return to advocating her prior conservative positions. Allow me to explain.

The Hardings demonstrate all of the characteristics typical of platform grifters:

  • Shifting alliances and friendships, seemingly changed based on personal support and/or platforming from a person or group.
  • A preoccupation with personalities and tribes over biblical doctrine.
  • Vocally and aggressively bandwagoning with the shifting winds of cultural concern (survivor advocacy and its theological puppetmaster egalitarianism, for example).
  • A narcissism that frames every issue as being about the grifter (which of course promotes support of their platform).
  • A tendency towards the extremes of personal interactions (“I love this guy!” or “I hate that guy!”) absent substantive doctrinal concerns.
  • Willingness to toe the line or carry water for anyone influential they believe will endorse them.
  • An obsession with status (those they’re trying to impress are wonderful, others are “nobodies.”)
Todd likes to call websites like Capstone Report, Protestia, and writers with actual readership “nobodies.”

Note: While these behaviors manifest across a variety of online personalities and backgrounds, platform grifting can be especially tempting for intelligent and capable adults who profess Christ later in life, are excited about their faith, and are able to capably debate and express theological ideas. They engage under the belief that Christian theology is to be navigated via personalities and tribes, and their desire for influence and respect (platform) encourages tribal conflict rather than doctrinal conviction as their standard for public discourse.

The Hardings have – within a few short years – promoted positions and teachers all over the doctrinal spectrum. In less than four years, they have expressed undying love for John MacArthur, podcasted with reformed patriarchalists, rebuked Beth Moore and Lysa TerKeurst for teaching men, cooperated with Tom Buck, attacked Todd Friel and those who thought the Dallas Statement was helpful in defining where Christian leaders stand on social justice, ripped John MacArthur, engaged in an ongoing feud with and anathematized Tom Buck, lauded Beth Moore, and (in a final theological faceplant and rejection of God’s immutable design) declared that a “transgender woman” (a male) reflects Jesus and is definitely saved.

They loved JMac and decried women pastors like Beth Moore:

https://tiribulus.com/flix/1Screen_Recording_20220819-181500_Player-FM.mp4
Clip from the Harding’s Ex Nihilo podcast discussing John MacArthur, circa 2017.
https://tiribulus.com/flix/2Screen_Recording_20220819-183704_Player-FM.mp4
Erin states that it would be wrong for her to be a pastor or teach in the gathered assembly.

Later they decry JMac, express approval of woman pastors, and cozy up to false teacher Beth Moore:

Erin took JMac’s theology seriously just a few years ago.
The credential bolsters the new egalitarian platform.

They claim being blocked on social media is evidence that they are right, yet routinely block others:

Erin insults those who have blocked her.
I guess Erin and Todd aren’t willing to tussle?

When Erin and Todd thought expressing conservative views and orthodoxy would provide them with the platform they admittedly wanted, they were more than happy to affirm biblical principles on gender, yet within a few short years both had done a theological 180, completely replacing the biblical definition of love with subjective emotion, claiming “transgenderism” is compatible with regeneration, that a male living as a woman is a “sister in Christ” (a double lie), and redefining age-old biblical teaching on sin to cast their opponents out of the kingdom:

See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
See Matthew 7:21-23.
Todd fails to understand that “one another” applies to believers, not those in active, unrepentant rebellion against the Lord.

In truth, the Hardings hate “Natalie.” Affirming abject rebellion against the Creator is the essence of hatred – both for “Natalie” and more importantly God Himself.

The Hardings are an interesting example not because platform grifting is uncommon (to an extent, platforming oneself is the purpose of social media), but because they are such a clear example of the theological wasteland platform grifters occupy and how this wasteland entangles those who are foolish enough to mistake self-promoting platforming for principle.

After bouncing around theologically for years, the Hardings continue to advance obvious theological errors that wouldn’t make it past Awana Cubbies, and uncritically yoke themselves to anyone willing to give them credibility. This behavior is entirely disqualifying of serious engagement, much less ministry in the name of Christ.

Bonus: Since Todd thinks we’re clowns, here’s a little clowning… Todd has a chance of being the spokesperson for his suggested Theobro sponsor: