Months after announcing that he was leaving the pastorate to become a full-time theology YouTuber, TGC contributor Gavin Ortlund has demonstrated why this endeavor is such a net loss for Christianity, recently arguing that the flood in Genesis was not worldwide, as the scripture says, but small and localized.
With a propensity to challenge Biblical teaching with false teaching in the form of whataboutism that redirects questions about Biblical interpretation to external sources, his content always veers to the left.
Smash Baals succinctly summarized the problems with Ortlund’s thesis, writing
Ortlund later responded to the immense pushback he received on X, writing; “Projecting bad motives or calling me a liberal without argumentation is unproductive. Even if true, nothing good comes from it. It advances the kingdom of God 0%.”
The good is that he gets exposed for his progressive pathologies, which is a worthy endeavor any day.
“Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2676).
Months after TGC contributor Gavin Ortlund got into a fracas after arguing that pro-LGBTQ ‘Christians’ and Universalists are still in the faith, he shared some ‘surprising theological views’ he holds, including that Jesus’ mother Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant.
Fr. Thomas Esposito, writing for the Catholic Register, explains why they believe this to be the case:
Immediately after accepting her vocation as the mother of Jesus, Mary “sets out in haste into the hill country” (Luke 1:39). She eagerly speeds her steps to visit her relative Elizabeth, herself pregnant despite her advanced age. As soon as Elizabeth hears Mary’s greeting, little John the Baptist leaps in her womb, rejoicing in the presence of his Lord. Just as the Ark was the portable sanctuary accompanying Israel through the desert, so Mary travels with the new presence of God in her womb. And John the Baptist’s womb-jumping imitates David, who danced with abandon before the Ark as it entered Jerusalem for the first time (2 Samuel 6:14-15). In referring to Mary as “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), Elizabeth confirms this bold interpretation of Mary’s womb as the Ark of the new covenant – the name, “Lord,” after all, is the divine name God reveals to Moses in Exodus 3:14-15.
As part of their idolatry, Roman Catholics believe that Mary never sinned, was eternally a virgin, never tasted death, and assumed bodily into heaven like Jesus himself. They think she also acts as an intermediary between men and Jesus, with many insisting that she is a co-mediator with Christ. Because they are committed to this narrative, they twist the scriptures to find any way to elevate her and abase the Lord of Glory, and this lofty title and shallow comparison. In discussion with Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid, Dr. James White addresses some of these claims, writing:
The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr. Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly constructed. He says,
“God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.‘
Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed–for example, must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary’s Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)?
Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David’s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary’s life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not–there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion.
The roster for the upcoming Reconstructing Evangelicalism Conference, which would be more aptly named if it were called the Deconstructing Evangelicalism Conference, looks like a Who’s Who in the leftist Evangelical world. The conference, hosted by the Center for Pastor Theologians will feature several false teachers who twist scripture in their own special ways, including radical Liberation Theologians, environmentalists, Marxists, and supporters of the LGBTQ agenda.
One notable theologian in the lineup is Russell Moore, who is currently obsessed with what he describes as the evils of Christian Nationalism. In a recent article, Moore claimed that those conservatives who oppose leftist ideology are seeking to build an ethnostate through “Christian Nationalism”, Moore’s favorite right-wing boogeyman, while leftist Christians are simply seeking to advance society through progressive means.
Despite their self-perceived opposition to the social gospel of old, Christian nationalists embrace the exact same view of the gospel. For the social-gospel-oriented left wing, Christianity exists to build a social order in step with the upward progress of humanity. For the Christian nationalist right-wing, Christianity exists to build a social order in step with national or ethnic identity. The gospel is a means for a forward-looking utopianism in the one case and a backward-looking nostalgia in the other. Christian nationalism is a liberation theology for white people.
A number of Liberation theologians are slated to speak at the conference and participate in panel discussion, including Malcolm Foley, Equity Advisor to the President of Theological Dumpster-Fire Baylor, who resents the suggestion by Moore that Christian nationalism is merely “liberation theology for white people.”
In a recent response to Moore’s statement, Foley claimed that liberation theology is for white people, and rank heretic Marxist liberation theologians James Cone and Gustavo Gutierrez are actually orthodox.
Finally and perhaps offensively, there is the overall false equivalency of the claim that Christian nationalism is “liberation theology for white people”, an absurdity that Moore surely understands: it assumes that white people are oppressed, particularly because of their whiteness, Americanness, and “Christianity”. Cone teaches us much because the Black experience in this country has largely been one of facing terroristic violence and political and economic oppression. Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, Oscar Romero and others teach us much because of and through their embeddedness with the poor and exploited of Latin America. In white Christian nationalists, we hear nothing but the whining of those who interpret the loss of cultural and political hegemony as persecution. There is no equivalence here. Nothing in the Scriptures suggests the Lord’s sympathy with the greedy and the prideful. Much, however, aligns the Lord with the poor.
Despite pushback against Moore’s recent statements, Foley, who preaches the Marxist myth of “Racial Capitalism”, considers Moore to be a true comrade in the fight against capitalism and orthodox Christianity because they both despise conservative white evangelicals.
Gospel Coalition authors who will join in this leftist celebration of the decline of the faith include Kevin Vanhoozer, Benjamin Espinosa, Winfred Neely, Michael Niebauer, Matt O’Reilly, and Douglas Sweeney.
In recent years, evangelical leftists have frequently taken the term ‘Gospel’, emptied it of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and then stuffed it with leftist political agenda items that they label “Gospel issues”. In the summer of 2020, this playbook was run with the promotion of Social Justice and Critical Theory. The teachings of Biblical justice and Biblical impartiality were flipped on their head by leftist activists who claimed that the blood of Christ and the impartiality exemplified by the New Testament Church were insufficient to bring together believers of different skin colors. Instead, these woke activists claimed that white-skinned Christians needed to perform penance for the wrongs of generations past, in a cycle that left adherents beholden to a false Gospel of works that could never atone for anything.
This same playbook is currently being run in Evangelical Society by side-B homosexuality advocates who claim that advocating for abominable sexual identities is a Gospel issue; and egalitarians, who have taken up the cause of female church leadership under the guise of promoting “gender justice” as a Gospel issue.
So-Called “Climate Science” has been an issue in leftist political circles for a number of years, so it shouldn’t be surprising that leftist Evangelicals like Gavin Ortlund support climate change discussions as an “important issue”, setting up climate science as the next big “Gospel Issue” to distract the church from the true Gospel. Ortlund recently released a vlog in which he argues that Climate Change is an issue that should concern all Christians.
In the first five minutes, Gavin admits that he is not an expert on Climate Science, but thinks that it is important to “have a conversation” on the issue. In 2020, Ortlund published Finding The Right Hills To Die On, a book that purports to teach Christians how to prioritize the defense of doctrine, from essential doctrines to fourth-tier issues. The book was endorsed by many Big Eva leftists, including Russell Moore, Sam Allberry, Danny Akin, and JD Greear. One would think that if a pastor did not have what was considered expert knowledge about a controversial topic that would be considered extremely low on a scale of doctrinal importance, he should relegate that particular topic to fourth-tier importance and focus on the clear teaching of Gospel truth.
In recent months, however, Ortlund has taken heretical positions on many primary doctrinal truths, including the belief that LGBTQ identifying persons and universalists could maintain their sin identities and be saved, the belief that Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith alone) is not necessarily true, and the belief that examples from church history should be used to trump clear scriptural teaching on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Apparently, Ortlund ran out of first and second-order doctrinal issues to botch and decided that it was time to ignore his own advice and take up the leftist mantle of Climate Science.
Journalist Megan Basham of the Daily Wire has been recently picking apart leftist Big-Eva figures, like Ortlund, who failed to call out former NIH head Francis Collins. As a scientist who claimed to be Christian, Collins was hailed as a Big Eva standard bearer on how to live as a Christian in a secular leadership role. Collins was exposed by Basham as a fraud who advocated for an increase in experimentation on the body parts of murdered babies, the promotion of LGBTQ propaganda by the NIH, and the promotion of lies about the origins and nature of COVID-19. Basham caught wind of Ortlund’s political antics and took him out behind the twitter woodshed on account of his attempts to “baptize” his leftist climate change policy position in “Christianese”.
Basham is on point in regard to Climate Change policy decimating the free market. Pastors like Ortlund who use “Climate Science” as a rallying cry for increased regulation, ignore the fact that while many Christians in western countries would likely survive the destructive interference of climate science policy in free markets, such regulations would have devastating affects on poor believers in third world countries who already suffer the implications of leftist monetary and COVID lockdown policies. Ortlund’s only defense against Basham’s indictment was that his motives came from a non-partisan Christian position, and her motives came from a politically partisan position.
Basham informed Ortlund that her husband is a meteorologist, who understands that “climate science” is a highly debatable topic, and suggested that Ortlund should stick to his field of expertise. (Given Ortlund’s history of taking leftist anti-Biblical positions, it is actually debatable whether or not Ortlund has a field of expertise.)
Believers should take note of Megan’s tactics. Leftists often lead the argument with an accusation that conservative Christians are politically motivated. In reality, nothing can be completely detached from politics, because neutrality is a myth. Megan brushes off accusations of political partisanship by demonstrating that her opponents are political partisans themselves, focusing on the destructive implications of leftist ideology in the church. In reality, those who accuse conservative Christians of engaging in “culture war” are merely identifying themselves as enemy combatants who have adopted the standards of the world, rather than the teachings of scripture.
Editor’s Note. This article was written by Paul Brown for Protestia.
