Rapper and Producer Lecrae has released a new song, “Deconstruction” off his album Church Clothes 4, where he disses Voddie Baucham and mentions several pastors he once looked up to while extoling the deconstruction and he’s been through, which he thinks has made him a better Christian and saved his faith.
We’ve spoken at length about how by every measurable standard, the deconstruction Lecrae is so grateful to have undergone is not healthy, but rather is the picture of unhealth leading to death. Let’s look at his life over the last two years.
Lecrae believes this is all healthy, and in the song he takes a shot at pastor Voddie Baucham, while namedropping John Piper, Tony Evans, and even wishy-washy Churchome pastor Judah Smith as people who contributed to his deconstruction. In particular, he points to Baucham for telling him he needs to reorient his thinking after he bought the lie that an unarmed Michael Brown was murdered by police for no reason, rather than lawfully killed after attempting to grab a police officer’s gun after he committed a theft.
I would speak at churches, hang with leaders and such You know, Judah, Piper, and Keller, Tony Evans was clutch I was so involved, never thought that I could fall, y’all Right before the fall of 2015, I was all off It involved killing Michael Brown, had me feeling down Tweeted ’bout it, Christians call me clown, I was losing ground And Voddie was a hero of mine, met with him plenty times This time, when he spoke, it cut me deeper than I realized Doubled-down, spoke about my pain, I was met with blame “Shame on you, ‘Crae, stop crying, get back to Jesus’ name” Cut me deep, I was losing sleep, “God, ain’t these Your sheep?” Why they hate me like they do? Maybe grace is really cheap Maybe this is all a lie, they don’t really love me They just love it when I say the things they wanna hear in public They’re like following they God mean turnin’ on Black people Is Black evil? Why do they hate and attack people? I’m vulnerable and cautious, I’m reading (James) Baldwin Ta-Nehisi got me thinking, now I’m going all in I ain’t know if God was real no mo’ Every day we gettin’ killed, and I can’t deal no more
After reiterating the other lie that black folk are being shot by police officers for no reason, He goes on to explain that he fell into a period of depression and sin, where he doubted his faith, but then he had a Damascus-like encounter where he realized that “I let the church trauma turn into a God wound” and after reading Critical Race Theorists like James Baldwin and Ta-Henisi Coates, he’s made for himself a new faith which works for him.
I learned the western world is twisting up the scriptures So when I re-enlisted, I learned the eastern context the way that Jesus meant it My peace has been cemented, my soul has been re-lifted My deconstruction ended, reconstruction is beginning
With the fruit of his deconstruction that we’ve seen so far, we hate to see what the future of his construction will hold.
In a recent episode of ‘Ask Pastor John’, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church has sparked controversy in a listener’s question about the travails of being unattractive, telling them that their ugliness is on account of the fall, and so people can see a physical representation of how ugly Satan and sin is.
Few of us feel as attractive as we would like, and some of us feel downright ugly. Why does God allow such unattractiveness in a world that prizes physical beauty?https://t.co/Me19kArIFK
Question: “Why did God make some people ugly and unattractive? How can I accept the fact that God though capable of making me beautiful or at least average looking, chose to create me in an unattractive manner?”
Piper begins with a bit of a humblebrag, sharing that he’s never really been called that before, and then explaining that being ugly is just the ‘tip of human suffering’ when compared to the breadth of physical maladies and disformities people can have.
“When I hear a question like this, it makes me groan partly because I can count on three fingers, maybe, maybe less, the people who have ever called me, ugly, or handsome. In other words, I groan because I know I’m being asked to speak to a sorrow that I’ve never tasted.”
Piper responds further:
“Very few people escape the relevance of this question at some point, I think the deepest answer to the question why there is so much ugliness, and deformity and injury and disability and misery in the world is found in Romans 8:18-23.
I think that’s the most important passage in the Bible, for our friend to think about. Ugliness and disfigurement have their roots in the origin of human sin. Now, listen carefully, because this could be so easily misunderstood. Not in a person’s particular personal sin, but the origin of human sin in Adam and Eve which infected the whole human race. In his wisdom, God decreed that there would be physical manifestations of the horrors and outrage of sin against God. This does not mean that everyone’s disability or everyone’s disease or everyone’s disfigurement is because of their own sin.”
Arguing that people are unattractive so they can serve as avatars of the unattractiveness of sin is a hot take indeed, but Piper presses forward:
“God brought the physical world, the bodily world into sync, into correspondence with the moral world. He made physical ugliness and misery correspond to moral ugliness and misery, even in some of the most godly people on the planet. Every bodily or material burden in the world should point us to the burden of sin. Every ugliness should point to the ugliness of sin and Satan. Satan is a real secondary cause under God. He is immediately responsible for many physical horrors….So all physical ugliness, and deformity and misery points to the moral ugliness and deformity of sin and Satan.”
One would be forgiven for concluding that Piper is basically saying the uglier you are, the worse the sin you are representing. For many, the notion that a child born with down syndrome is “physical manifestations of the horrors and outrage of sin against God’ is more than a little troubling.
Piper does not share how on account of sin, our standards of beauty and what is good and pleasing are compromised, but rather paints a theology where the world’s standards of beauty are assumed, rather than challenged. There’s about 10 other response that he might have said about this, and apparently, he’s gone with this one.
It’s for this reason that a man or woman with characteristics such as lazy eyes, hooked noses, buck teeth, and asymmetrical features aren’t viewed as part and parcel of God’s good design. Instead, he seems to be suggesting that all the 1-5/10 are meant to remind of us sin and the devil, with the more attractive 6-10’s/10 meant to remind of… his greatness and glory? He concludes:
Christ is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in him, especially in our temporary ugliness.
NATURALLY, this has garnered a fair amount of pushback, with the following tweet summarizing most the bulk of the responses.
We wrote three weeks ago how certain men who make a living creeping in unawares have been waging a war to shave points off the evangelical vote for Trump and turn the tides of war towards the baby-killing braggarts of the Democratic Party. According to exit polls released by the New York Times, they got their wish.
In 2016, Evangelicals voted 81%-16% for the Republican Party. Following four years of leftists losing their ever-loving minds and promising a radical mandate that would make even Canada blush, the numbers shifted to 78%-23%, with Trump losing 3% but most alarmingly, Biden gaining 7% of the evangelical vote.
While not claiming to be prophets, we said last month, “The good news is that Donald Trump is gaining supporters in the black and Hispanic community commensurate with what he’s losing in evangelicalism. And the irony is sweet; the evangelical talking point against Donald Trump is that he’s racist. It would only make sense in God’s divine irony to make up for his evangelical losses in minority communities.” By all accounts, this has occurred, with Trump gaining large swaths of the Black and Latino vote.
Men and ministries that have encouraged people to either vote for the Democrats, or vote for either party include Tim Keller, JD Greear, TGC, 9 Marks Ministries, John Piper, David Platt, Thabiti Anyabwile, Russell Moore, and a host of others.
(Capstone Report) Did I promote blasphemy when I voted for Mitt Romney?
Did I promote divorce when I supported Ronald Reagan?
Evangelical Elites have a new standard in their attempt to keep conservative voters at home: to vote for Donald Trump is to endorse his immorality, they claim. All of it.
John Piper is the latest preacher to show a lack of moral judgment. He opined against developing a moral calculus that one party might be better than another party.
He writes, “I will not develop some calculus to determine which path of destruction I will support. That is not my duty. My calling is to…
In this definitive critique, author Enoch Burke shows that both men have introduced novel terms into the church, and he measures their teachings by the standard of the Reformers’ doctrine of Scripture. Burke issues a stirring call to Christians to take individual action in defense of the faith, and calls on the church to take hold of its mandate and recover its witness to the truth. Christians who love the word of God and care deeply for the welfare of the church will want to order and read this biblical critique.
Below is an excerpt from Burke’s book:
The ‘Same-Sex Attracted Christian’ an extract from The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry by Enoch Burke
On February 15, 2017, Sam Allberry addressed the Church of England General Synod in London in a speech claiming to support the Christian doctrine on marriage. However, what distinguished his speech were the comments which he made at the outset regarding himself:
I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that I mean that I have sexual, romantic, and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way…
Allberry describes himself in the introduction to his book Is God Anti-Gay? as ‘someone who lives with homosexuality’ and elsewhere in the book declares ‘I battle with homosexual feelings’.
The use of the phrase ‘same-sex attracted’ by Allberry sets him apart from many in Christian ministry who describe themselves as having left a life of homosexuality. This phrase appears to have been coined by Allberry. In his introduction, Allberry seeks to justify his use of the phrase by claiming that it is different from the use of other words such as ‘gay’. In his book, Allberry argues that while ‘same-sex attraction is not a good thing’ yet he does not believe that to be same-sex attracted, i.e. to be tempted to engage in an impure relationship is itself a sin. This distinction is key, as it gives Allberry sanction to use the phrase in a whole variety of contexts, without any shame.
Allberry’s insistence on using and popularising the phrase ‘same-sex attracted’ must be examined carefully as it is central to his message. He uses the phrase widely throughout his book and in his speaking engagements. Before critiquing this phrase, however, it may be useful to consider the importance of language and its power for good or for evil.
The Role of Language The purpose of language is to communicate by calling to mind an object, place, or idea. The King James version of Scripture speaks, in relation to Sodom and Gomorrah, of ‘the filthy conversation of the wicked’ and how it vexed Lot’s soul (2 Pet. 2:7). While the word conversation would be more generally comparable with conduct in today’s English, there is no doubt that it includes conversation, because the next verse records that Lot’s soul was vexed by what he saw and heard. Filthy conversation is when words are used to call evil activities to mind. Such conversation has become part and parcel of the world in which we live, estranged as it is from its Creator.
That Scripture would draw particular attention to the language of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a reminder that language has a role in legitimising evil. The more a society indulges in evil conversation, the more it serves to legitimise the activities discussed. The wide vocabulary of terms for illicit sexual behaviour popularised in the last half-century have this effect. They call to mind activities and desires which fall into the biblical category of uncleanness. They serve no purpose except to legitimise the activity the more the word is used. Indeed, the use of unchaste language in television comedy shows, arguably, did more to break down society than any rational argument in defence of the indefensible homosexual lifestyle.
The church should always be wary of new language, especially when such language relates to sin or another of the core doctrines of Christianity, for it can serve as a conduit for false doctrine. Evangelist Dave Breese notes how, with the growth of neoorthodoxy after World War II, churches were infiltrated, and churchgoers deceived by the use of time-honoured phrases which had been invested with a new meaning:
The emphasis they [neo-Orthodox theologians] presented used many words and expressions well known and accepted by believing Christians. The trouble was that they gave these words a new meaning. Consequently, many true believers were deceived into thinking that they were listening to the grand old Christian faith, whereas in reality a new form of spiritual subversion came upon them.
In light of this, the use by Sam Allberry of phrases accepted by many believing Christians, such as ‘the Bible’s teaching’, ‘faithful to Scripture’ and ‘[Christian] sexual ethics’ should not be taken for granted, but investigated closely. Christians have a responsibility to recognise false prophets by a close examination of their fruits: ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ (Mt. 7:20). ‘Know’ in this context means recognise and recognise with the purpose of avoidance. Is the new vocabulary of Sam Allberry, despite its claim to biblical orthodoxy, faithful to the message of the Scriptures?
A New Vocabulary Perhaps the most serious error of Allberry’s use of the phrase ‘same-sex attracted’ is that such a phrase is without biblical precedent. Homosexuality in Scripture is never once merely described as a ‘temptation’ nor are homosexual feelings ever discussed without a link to homosexual conduct. Allberry may find such concepts elsewhere in the realm of psychology but they are alien to Christian theology. Not only so, such concepts are fundamentally at odds with the Christian teaching on conversion and the self-image of the Christian. To link such feelings so closely to a person’s persona, so that they become one of their main descriptors, as Allberry does, is antithetical to the teaching of the Scripture.
When it comes to sexual sin in Scripture, it is not the temptation but the actions, secret and open, which are primarily emphasised. The main passage concerning lust in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount describes illicit sexual desire in very tangible terms: ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart’ (Mt. 7:28). Here Christ describes desire in terms of action – the look of lust is described as committing adultery in the heart – and it is this ‘looking’ which Christ condemns – a vivid action indeed. The look may be hidden, or even within the realm of the imagination, but it is a choice of the will. There is no discussion here of the temptation to sin but rather the focus is on the sin itself.
Throughout Scripture, emphasis is repeatedly laid on actions and choices of the will rather than ‘temptation’. Job declared ‘I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?’ (Job 31:1) – a clear rejection of wilful sins of the ‘eyes’ and the ‘thinking’. When Joseph was tempted, he boldly declared: ‘How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?’ (Gen. 39:9). For Joseph, adultery was an unthinkable evil and a sin, ultimately, not against Potiphar but Almighty God. When Christ discussed sin, He warned of the propensity of sinful desire to defile the whole person (Mk. 7:20-23).
Allberry’s use of the term ‘same-sex attraction’ is concerning because of the impression it gives that homosexual feelings are in some way to be excused. In so doing, it undermines the seriousness of sin, and, in particular, the sexual sin which is so rampant in this age. Indeed, as will be discussed in the next chapter, Allberry does not treat homosexuality with any particular opprobrium. Rather, the attitude which Allberry displays towards this sin in his book is somewhat trivial. This is seen, for example, in his chapter on ‘Homosexuality and the Christian’:
All of us experience fallen sexual desires, … it is not un-Christian to experience same-sex attraction any more than it is un-Christian to get sick.
At best, this is a gravely misleading statement on the part of Allberry, considering the judgment meted out on sodomy in the Scripture. Homosexuality, in all its forms, is to be shunned by the believer and Scripture is clear that evil desires constitute wickedness (Pr. 21:10). At worst, Allberry’s comment is a repudiation of the Christian doctrine of sin. Again, of course, Allberry’s use of the verb ‘experience’ (portraying the Christian as a ‘passive’ agent in the sentence) and the phrase ‘same-sex attraction’ cause ambiguity and render his meaning unclear to the average reader.
The concept of ‘sexual orientation’ has been widely used by the homosexual lobby to legitimise their desires and mollify the public. Discussing ‘temptation’ in this fashion, however, treads precipitously close to excusing sin based on the condition of the sinner. This is a diabolical path to tread (Gen. 3:1-5). Those who love the sinner will urge him or her to flee from sin to Christ. In Paul’s great letter to the Ephesians, where he urges them to ‘walk in love’ (Eph. 5:2), his command is immediately followed up with a fulsome rejection of even discussion of sexual immorality. Such discussion is, according to Paul, improper for believers (‘as becometh saints’ – v3) and out of place (‘not convenient’ – v4) and he warns in no uncertain terms that an ‘unclean person’ (v5) incurs the wrath of God and has no ‘inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God’ (v5). Discussion of sinful desire in a spirit of acceptance is forbidden in Scripture, for Paul warns that ‘it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret’ (5:12). Rather, the instruction given is threefold: to avoid partnership (v7, v11), remember past deliverance (v8) and reprove sin (v11) as one seeks what is pleasing to God (v10, v15).
The coining by Allberry of the term ‘same-sex attracted’ may be considered, by many, a totally legitimate phrase which brings clarity to the issue of homosexuality. One must consider, however, what is being sacrificed for the sake of a perceived ‘clarity’ – clarity which can only be obtained by a faithful preaching of the Scriptures. Allberry’s phrase, with all the ambiguity (not clarity) it introduces, has been received enthusiastically by many professing Christians, who now have just one more excuse not to rebuke sexual sin when they meet it.
Significantly, in the same chapter where Paul warns against sexual immorality, he warns of the power of language to deceive and distract: ‘let no man deceive you with vain words’ (v6). ‘Vain words’ are in a modern translation ‘empty words’ as the Greek word kenos (empty) lies behind the translation. Paul warned of words that served no purpose (see 1 Cor. 15:14, where Paul mentions ‘vain’ preaching or Phil. 2:16, a ‘vain’ running or labouring). If something is vain it is a waste of time. Paul’s warning here is that Christians would be deceived into wasting their time and losing their spiritual sharpness through discussion of things which ought not to be discussed and were contrived to draw them away from Christ. Paul elsewhere warns against Christians being ‘spoiled’ through ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ (Col. 2:8). The Greek word here does not mean spoiled as one would use it today, but the sense of ‘capturing’ somebody in a battle, rendering them useless in service for God. Sadly, this has happened to scores of minds in churches today, particularly those of younger generations.
Resisting the Conspiracy of Silence Knowing God is not something that is evidenced in self-satisfaction or a mystic spirituality. Rather, Daniel 11:32 reminds us that true knowledge of God reveals itself in action: ‘the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits’. There is no room in Christendom for those who desire an easy life, or for those whose preference it is to sit out the battle with principalities and powers ‘on the fence’. Scripture divides the inhabitants of the earth with a simple dichotomy: ‘They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them’ (Pr. 28:4). Boldness in Christian service to take on the forces of hell (Eph. 6) should be the aspiration of every child of God.
Today, the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e. those that share the same interests as the men of that ancient city, are literally marching. The homosexual lobby realise fully that they are in a battle to influence the nation. Hence, their pride marches – public, intimidating, highly visible expression of pride in what Scripture says is a ‘dishonourable’ and ‘unseemly’ sin (Rom. 1:24, 27) – are carefully orchestrated to cause maximum impact. Pride marchers are not merely ‘enjoying themselves’ – they realise they are in a battle for minds and they are doing their best to win it.
When Christ was on earth, however, He depicted the church of God as marching in attack against the gates of hell (Mt. 16:18). What a tragedy that, due to the proliferation of false doctrine, many pulpits now preach compromise with all that Christ is against. Few are the voices raised in defence of a holy faith. Instead, the insidious teachings of Sam Allberry are permitted to circulate unchallenged and undermine the doctrines of truth. Those who would shake hell are becoming increasingly voices in the wind, while a vast majority of churchgoers refuse to stand against evil.
In 1887, the Baptist Union of Great Britain faced a battle within its own ranks known as the ‘Downgrade Controversy’. The English preacher Charles Spurgeon described the fight as one involving both modernism and worldliness. Writing in his magazine The Sword and the Trowel, he described the culprits as Baptist ministers who ‘scouted the atonement [and] derided the inspiration of Scripture’ as well as endeavouring to ‘unite church and stage, cards and prayer, dancing and sacraments’. However, his choicest words were for those Baptist church members who were claiming to be evangelical but whose voices were strangely silent:
Little as they [faithful Baptists] might be able to do, they could at least protest, and as far as possible free themselves of that complicity which will be involved in a conspiracy of silence. If for a while the evangelicals are doomed to go down, let them die fighting, and in the full assurance that their gospel will have a resurrection when the inventions of ‘modern thought’ shall be burned up with fire unquenchable.
To protest the error of the day, as Spurgeon knew, is not an option for those faithful to Christ, nor is it a great ask. It is but a ‘little’ service which marks one out as in no way joined to those who forsake God’s Word, but rather contending against them. The only other option, in Spurgeon’s eyes, was to be ‘complicit’ (i.e. an accomplice in crime) in the heresies of the day, betrayed by one’s silence. The temporal cost of a faithful stand did not bother Spurgeon, for he knew that he would be vindicated in the judgment of the final day.
In the face of rampant cultural immorality, and the infiltration into the church of activists who have made Christ the ‘minster of sin’ (Gal. 2:17), the church must reclaim its holy calling. Chastity of life must once more become the spotless garment of the people of God, condemning the vulgarity of rebellion against God and winning those who are impervious to a bare profession. Men of the calibre of Charles E. Macartney can once again call the church to its great and holy heritage, by, like him, condemning without hesitation the specific evils of their day. Such Christians will know the Word of God, walk in its doctrines, and faithfully proclaim its precepts without compromise.
The 19th century American poet Josiah Gilbert Holland made the appearance of such men his prayer. It is reproduced below, a sober call to God’s people to live above the fog of the age, repossess the virtue of true Christianity and, for the sake of God and man, live up to the glorious heritage of Christian duty.
GOD, give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office can not buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagogue And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking! Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty, and in private thinking; For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds, Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps, Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.
