We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer

Monday, July 16, 2012

Random Apostasies and Heresies

To start out this issue in the right frame of mind, I direct you to Matt Slick’s article, “Eight reasons why we need apologetics.”  It is a good description of why apologists do what we do.

One charge often leveled against me (including from the individual who recently caused me to block comments) is that I do not go to the false teacher first before publicly exposing them.  I have continually pointed out that there is no biblical requirement to do so, by explaining that Matthew 18:15-17 is about personal sin against a believer and not public sin against God and the Church in the way of false teaching.  Lighthouse Trails posted an excellent article about this subject last week.
Yesterday’s Cedar Rapids Gazette had a short article which demonstrates the depravity of other religious belief systems.  The article was from Nashik, India, and I have to cite it for you to believe it:
I now pronounce you frog and wife. 
With five priests chanting scriptures, a frog groom named Punarvasu andhis amphibian bride Pushala were joined in holy Hindu matrimony by villagers hoping the ancient custom will bring monsoon rains to their drought-stricken district.
Organizer Nandkumar Pawar said thousands of people gathered Thursday in a massive tent in Patkhal village for the lavish wedding banquet.
He said Saturday that the frogs were decorated with flowers and smeared with turmeric, a holy and auspicious ointment.  A brass band played Bollywood film songs while the priests blessed the frogs.
Frog weddings are practiced in some parts of India and other areas of South Asia.
It is sad that people do such bizarre ceremonies to appease their gods.  But is it really much different from some of the “ceremonies” found in many churches today with all their screaming of “fire, Lord, fire!” or for “more” of the Holy Spirit, and their being “slain in the spirit”? The false belief systems don’t have the market on the bizarre.
Back on July 7th I told you about how the Episcopal Church was “poised to adopt a blessing rite” for homosexual couples, and that they had also passed the first hurdle for ordaining “transgendered” people.  Well, the total collapse into apostasy in the Episcopal Church took place long ago, but these latest issues have been passed and sanctified, sealing their apostate condition.  Of course there was celebrating by many sexual perverts while they blasphemed God claiming His approval.

This may turn off some of the followers of this blog who are women, but I am firm in the belief that God forbids women being elders or pastors in the Church.  Every church which has permitted this to take place has turned liberal or aberrant.  Paul said the reason for this was because Eve was the one deceived.  Women by nature are more emotion-driven than men, which makes them easier to deceive in general.  
This being emotion-driven is what has led to the “Jesus is my boyfriend” phenomenon invading the Church, with love songs to Jesus and sexual imagery in their discussions of their spiritual relationship, such as in Ann Voskamp’s book, “One Thousand Gifts,” and Beth Moore’s claims of God calling her “honey.”  There is an excellent article on this subject over at The End Time blog.

Ken Silva has an article, including a few short videos, about Nicole Crank as an example of why women shouldn’t be in leadership positions.  She and her husband, David, are false teachers in St. Louis.  Two videos in this article demonstrate these goatherds praising heretic Joel Osteen.  (As an aside, the third video in the article demonstrates another reason why Ed Young, Jr is bad news - he supports the Cranks!)
More and more seeker-sensitive pastors are approving of women in the leadership roles.  An example is “Pastor” Eric Dykstra, whose wife Kelly serves as with him as a pastor.  Kelly claims it was teaching from heretic T.D. Jakes who set her on her path, so that should tell you something about her theological stance.
Of course there are also women who are not in pastor/elder positions but who seem to be treated as such.  One of these women is Joyce Meyer, a Word of Faith heretic who leads thousands of people into her false doctrine.  A good example of her false gospel is discussed on Wretched Radio, as posted on this Apprising Ministries page.
Beth Moore is another woman who is treated as if she is in the pastoral role.  She is not heretical like Joyce Meyer, but she does have aberrational and other false teachings galore.  Ken Silva posted another prime example this past week.
Just in case someone is not convinced that T.D. Jakes is a top-notch false teacher, more evidence is the fact of his praising of heretics Paul and Jan Crouch on TBN! This pair are blatant Word of Faith teachers and yet Jakes not only approves of them - he praises them!
I’ve learned of another Word of Faith heretic to alert you to: Joseph Prince.  As with other false teachers of his ilk, he has a huge following for his heresy.
Sola Sisters posted an excellent article about true shepherds guarding their flocks against false teachers.  One of the things they do is NAME names of false teachers.
One thing common to all the seeker-sensitive and emergent churches, as well as many others who haven’t slid that far into compromise with the world, is a particular genre of music used in their services.  More and more it becomes self-focused rather than God-focused.  Steve Bricker has an excellent article about music in the assembly.
Someone pointed me over to John MacArthur’s blog and an article from a year ago questioning whether or not Rob Bell is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I’d say the answer is, yes, he is!
Lastly, Tim Challies posted the first part of a review series he is doing on a book by Debi Pearl, titled, “Created to Be His Help Meet.”  Challies is gracious about the little bit of good in the book, but he cuts no slack in pointing out the bad teachings.  Since the book is by Debi Pearl, I would automatically assume it was rife with bad teachings, since the Pearls are well known for aberrational and legalistic ideas. (I’ve already reported on two books by them.)  I think you’ll find the comment string to be quite interesting also.

I will be eagerly awaiting the next parts.

9 comments:

Christian Ease said...

Concerning the episcopal church; speaking on the ordination of women in 1948, Lewis states:"To say that it doesn't matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favor of Christian priestesses but against Christianity." He goes on later to say somewhat propheticly, that after making gender nuetral references about about God, in a generation children would be referring to God as mother god. His heart was breaking for them 60 years ago, I'm glad he didn't have to see them today.

ali said...

Very good articles.

Wondering your take on Kay Arthur and women in leadership elder/pastor in the church, which I agree is not biblical.

Many hearts have been turned by false teachings and doctrines of devils via TBN -

I pray discernment will return to the body of Messiah.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Ali,

You know, I really haven't paid much attention to Kay Arthur because whenever I have heard her teaching she has been right on the money. And I even saw a video where she chastised Beth Moore, and another woman "teacher" who I can't remember, for things they were saying about husbands.

Linda said...

Interesting because I listen to Kay Arthur on the radio with her inductive bible study. The thought occurred to me today--is she biblical in doing this? I don't know since she's not doing this within the Church.

I know she's saved but If by chance it's wrong what she's doing then I will stop listening to her even though her teachings are right on...

No doubt her ministry has helped people get back to God's word which is a plus...

I think the thing that I wonder about that was not addressed here is how women are attacked who have websites that they are "not permitted to teach".. But from what Scripture says and in it's context I believe that many are taking Scripture out of the context of Church order and trying to apply it to women defending the faith or women who are apologists with their blogs etc. All I can think of is many people who don't like it when a woman who is defending the faith speaks up the clarion call against their (man or woman) that's when they misuse Scripture citing foul when there is no foul..

What's your take Glenn?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Linda,

Well, the context of forbidding women to teach or have authority over men is in the assembly, not out in the world. My goodness, women teach their own teenage sons (who are adult men)! And what about women who teach their unsaved husbands, leading them to Christ? What about female missionaries?

Women writing books, or blogs, or speaking over the radio, are not violating this command. They are not exercising any authority over men. And men don't have to listen or read.

Legalistic Christians can cause a lot of grief in the Church.

I follow a few women's blogs, women who are good Christian apologists. Scripture doesn't say women can't teach men in a general way, rather it says they are not to teach in the assembly - the Church gathered.

Linda said...

Glenn, I really love the examples you have given. These examples equip me and I hope you don't mind if I use them when people are getting "too legalistic..

Thanks Glenn for your wisdom and simple common sense answers

Lois said...

Glenn,
Your response was excellent about women who teach in a general way. Can you clarify from your original post: women shouldn't be elders or preachers. My understanding is that elders/teacher is pretty much the same thing within the church. Can women be deaconnesses? The one verse about "wives much also be," (sorry, don't have my Bible handy) when Paul is describing qualifications of deacons can be interpreted to mean either women deacons or the wife of a deacon. And the first verse in Rom. 16 mentions Phoebe as being a servant, which is the same Greek word used for deacon.

The reason I ask, is one church we were were visiting was opposed to women deacons. When we visited a different church the next week, I observed a woman trying to discipline her young daughter in the ladies' room. An older woman told her not to spank her daughter because it was child abuse. I thought how needed it would be to actually have a woman deacon in that situation. :) Asking a deacon to step into the ladies' room to settle an argument might be, well, awkward! The situation resolved itself, and as a visitor, it really wasn't my place to interfere, I just thought there is a time and place to have women in leadership roles in a church (although NOT in the pulpit.) What is your opinion?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hi Lois,

The word “deacon” or “deaconess” merely means one who serves. And in the case of Rom. 16 that is apparently all it means, while in 1 Tim and Titus it is referring to an office.

The only commentators I have read who claim that it can be a woman deacon rather than the wife of a deacon (1 Tim. 3) are liberals who seek justification for women in the pulpit.

However, when it comes right down to it, a servant is not in a position of authority as is a shepherd, and so it really wouldn’t have much bearing on women pastors. So whether a woman was a official “deaconess” or just another woman in your situation, it would amount to the same thing - someone being a servant. (And when you get right down to it, all Christians should at times be “deacons” or “deaconesses.”). If I was a woman in that situation, member or not, I would tell the older lady to mind her own business because spanking is NOT child abuse. (If actual abuse was taking place that would be another situation.)

A pastor is indeed an elder. “Pastor” just means “shepherd,” while the N.T. talks of the elders/bishops shepherding the church. So a pastor has to be an elder. Some assemblies have what they call the “teaching elder” who is the one who does the sermons.

Lois said...

Thank you Glenn. That pretty much summarizes my understanding too. Some churches get bent out of shape with the title "deaconess" but are perfectly happy with women in roles of service within the church. Funeral dinners, organizing meals for a new mother, teaching Sunday school, visiting the sick, are frequently filled by women, but if you give them a title, oh my! To me, that issue of servanthood is not worth splitting a church over as we are all called to be servants of Christ.