In the 5/13/09 issue of the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette is the following report:
DAVENPORT — Members of the East Iowa Presbytery voted last night in favor of changing the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to allow the possibility of gay and lesbian ministers. Pastors and ruling elders of the East Iowa Presbytery voted 74-21 in support of an amendment that would change wording in the church constitution that currently requires ministers to adhere to sexual chastity unless they are married. Marriage is legal for same-sex couples in only a handful of states. The amendment would not guarantee that gays and lesbians could become ministers but it would open the possibility, said the Rev. Kristin Hutson, Coe College chaplain and a member of the East Iowa Presbytery. Although the amendment has already failed in the denomination nationwide, Hutson said the vote Tuesday was an important show of the East Iowa Presbytery’s ongoing support of furthering the possibility of ordaining gay and lesbian people into the office of minister of the word and sacrament.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) is one of those liberal churches which long ago left any semblance of following Christ, diving headlong into apostasy. I have kept a file of news items on the PCUSA for quite a while, and here are some gleanings from this file. Notice that homosexuality has been a major issue in that church, deciding whether it is right or wrong. (In the following reports, “CRG” is the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette.)
My earliest article is not about homosexuality, however; it is about abortion. I have a citation from a report adopted by the 195th General Assembly of PCUSA in 1983. The report is titled: “Covenant and Creation: Theological Reflections on Contraception and Abortion.” Here is an amazing citation: “The decision to terminate a pregnancy may be an affirmation of one’s covenant responsibility to accept the limits of human resources…. Abortion can therefore be considered a responsible choice within a Christian ethical framework when serious genetic problems arise or when the resources are not adequate to care for a child appropriately.” SO, if you don’t think you have enough money to care for the child you’ve conceived, kill it and that’s okay. The report continues: “Elective abortion, when responsibly used, is intervention in the process of pregnancy precisely because of the seriousness with which one regards the covenantal responsibility of parenting.” How does one murder their child “responsibly”? What about the responsibility not to have sex if you don’t want a child? This next statement leaves my jaw hanging: “Even in the face of the most difficult decisions, of which abortion is surely one, the gospel assures us that we can trust in God’s Spirit to guide us in our decision.” I’d say the Spirit has already guided us - the Word of God says we are not to murder.
Back in February 1991, the church’s Special Committee on Human Sexuality issued a report “challenging thousands of years of teachings that sex should be reserved for marriage.” This report actually recommended that the “denomination approve premarital sex, homosexuality and bisexuality.” They claimed that “re-marriage is a near impossibility” because of a “shortage of partners.” Their solution was to have “Sexual relations outside of marriage, same-sex intimacy…” (Aurora, IL Beacon-News, 6/22/91, p.1B). Although the General Assembly soundly rejected this, the fact that it was even brought for consideration should say something about the leadership.
Some items from 1996: The Associated Press reported that the governing body of the PCUSA okayed the ordination of celibate gays. (CRG 7/6/96, p.5B) Does this conform to the requirements for elders as cited by 1 Timothy and Titus? World Magazine 8/17/96, p.24, reported that PCUSA continues to accept practicing homosexuals as members in good standing and welcome at the Lord’s Table; the G.A. elected John Buchanan, who favors ordination of homosexuals, as moderator; the G.A. adopted a resolution calling for the “equal civil liberties…with all the civil rights of married couples” for same-sex relationships; the refusal of the G.A. to condemn partial-birth abortion; and the setting aside the teachings of 1 Tim. 2:12 to allow women in church leadership. From the CRG, 11/2/96, and Newsweek magazine, 11/4/96, we learn
PCUSA minister, Eric Swenson became Erin Swenson after having his body surgically mutilated to resemble a woman. They voted to allow him to retain his ordination. This guy not only did sundry church duties as pastor, but he was also a chaplain at a psychiatric center, an instructor and supervisor at a seminary and even had a private marital counseling practice. (Would you want a marital counselor who was that deceived and muddle-headed?).
Reading from the 2/16/97 CRG, p.15A, I see where the East Iowa Presbytery of the PCUSA voted down an amendment “that would deny ordination to practicing homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals.” Their executive presbyter was interviewed and stated, “The ordination of gay and lesbian persons is a complicated issue. My reading of this is that God isn’t finished with us yet.” Um, how complicated can it be to decide that what the Bible says about homosexuality would prohibit ordination of these people? Well, a later report in the CRG, 3/22/97, said that the amendment was voted for nationally, and unmarried church officials were required to be celibate. However, 3 months later, on 6/21/97, CRG published an AP report saying, “Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders agreed Friday to amend their constitution to support ‘fidelity…in all relationships of life,’ in an attempt to temper a rule that bars homosexuals from the pulpit.”
In 1997 the church elected as their leader Pat Brown. “She is unashamedly pro-abortion and will not discuss her views on same-sex marriage or the ordination of homosexuals.” (American Family Association Journal, 9/97, p.11)
I’m not going to check the web to see if the National Network of Presbyterian College Women still exists or still has a web site, but the September 1998 issue of the American Family Association Journal reported that this group worked on college campuses in support of lesbianism. “The NNPCW web site had links to pro-homosexual, pornographic and New Age web sites.” This group was receiving thousands of dollars from the PCUSA for “evangelism.” When the General Assembly decided to end funding of this group, a protest was staged by homosexual activists and the next day the G.A. decided to continue the funding.
Family News From Dr. James Dobson, 9/99, cited a Washington Times article from 2/18/99, which reported on the Hudson River Presbytery in New York. It seems this presbytery voted to affirm “the freedom of any [congregation] to allow its ministers to perform ceremonies of holy union between persons of the same gender.”
In 2002 the General Assembly passed a resolution supporting evolutionism, calling it “reliable scientific knowledge” that needed to be taught in public schools. The resolution said there was no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the doctrine of God as creator. (Answers In Genesis “Update” newsletter, 9/02, p.6)
An article from “O Timothy,” the newsletter of Way of Life ministries, in August 2003 reported that “The 500 high school students at the Presbyterian Church (USA) Youth Connection in Louisville earlier this month voted to ‘affirm the call of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered persons to all areas of ministry.’” (O Timothy, Vol.20/No.10, p.17).
From Agape Press, 12/29/2003, there is a report about the Presbytery of Western North Carolina seeking to strip Pastor Parker T. Williamson for writing in The Presbyterian Layman that Presbyterians should “withhold undesignated gifts to the denomination because of its support for partial-birth abortion, homosexuality and other practices that violate Scripture.” On 2/10/04 Agape Press reported that this was a done deal - that Williamson was disavowed.
On May 7, 2004. Agape Press and Fundamental Baptist Information Service both report about the PCUSA court ruling that the church’s constitution doesn’t prohibit homosexual marriages, and therefore exonerated “Pastor” Stephen A. Van Kuiken, who was defending himself for performing same-sex marriages.
In June 2004 the G.A. elected Rick Ufford-Chase, “a peace activist who supports the inclusion of gays in the ministry,” as head of the church for the following two years (Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette, 6/28/04, p.5A).
In 2006 the G.A. stated that “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” have been used “to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women.” (Must have been something they taught in the PCUSA - I don’t know of any denomination that teaches men are superior to women.) They gave some acceptable alternatives for those wishing to use a different label for the Trinity: “Mother, Child, Womb” and “Rock, Redeemer, Friend” were a couple cited. (Kathleen Parker, Townhall.com, 6/30/06)
In 2008 the PCUSA’s highest court decided that a woman minister, Jane Spahr, did not violate denominational law when she officiated at two “weddings” of lesbian couples. The court decided that they weren’t really weddings (well, at least they were correct there) so Spahr didn’t violate anything. (OneNewsNow.com, 4/30/08 citing an AP release)
OneNewsNow.com reported on 6/28/08 that the PCUSA General Assembly voted to drop the ban on homosexual clergy. This news item also included the information that ministers can bless and perform same-sex unions as long as they don’t call them marriages, and the ceremony can’t “mimic marriage ceremonies.”
Not much later - 10/3/08 - the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that a Presbyterian court acquitted Rev. Janet Edwards of guilt in performing a lesbian marriage. The court said she did not violate their constitution or Scripture. (I wonder what “Scripture” they read?) They said since the church’s constitution doesn’t allow same-sex marriages, the ceremony could not have been a wedding ceremony.
Abortion, homosexuality, evolutionism, women leaders, defrocking those who stand for biblical truth - this is what the Presbyterian Church (USA) is all about. My question becomes, why do any true Christians remain in that denomination (if there are any)? From all the evidence, I’d have to say that Satan has had a hold on PCUSA for a long time.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
More Apostasy in the Episcopal Church
This little item was in my daily e-mail from The Berean Call on 5/11:
Abortion is a blessing and abortionists are doing holy work, says Anglican priest [Excerpts]
The new Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has given a sermon describing abortions as a "blessing" for the women who undergo them. The Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale also thinks that the people who run abortion clinics are "heroes" and even "saints".
Ms Ragsdale, speaking in Birmingham, Alabama, said that "when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight - only blessing."
Do not, please, make the mistake of assuming that she is an unrepresentative extremist: liberal Anglicans in America are among the most fervent supporters of abortion in the world, outstripping even atheists in their enthusiasm for this gruesome procedure.
[Dean Ragsdale finished her sermon with the following exhortation]: “These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
“I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing - who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You're engaged in holy work.”
The reference source was cited as thus: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/04/02 /abortion_is_a_blessing_and_abortionists_are_doing_holy_work_says_anglican_priest (Damian Thompson, Telegraph.co.uk, Society/Religion, April 2, 2009). (Links gone by 4/7/18)
I have previously posted articles about the heretical and apostate nature of the Episcopal Church, let alone the parent Anglican Church. This is just another example of apostate thinking of their leadership. So why would any true Christian want to remain associated with this apostate church?
Abortion is a blessing and abortionists are doing holy work, says Anglican priest [Excerpts]
The new Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has given a sermon describing abortions as a "blessing" for the women who undergo them. The Rev Katherine Hancock Ragsdale also thinks that the people who run abortion clinics are "heroes" and even "saints".
Ms Ragsdale, speaking in Birmingham, Alabama, said that "when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight - only blessing."
Do not, please, make the mistake of assuming that she is an unrepresentative extremist: liberal Anglicans in America are among the most fervent supporters of abortion in the world, outstripping even atheists in their enthusiasm for this gruesome procedure.
[Dean Ragsdale finished her sermon with the following exhortation]: “These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
“I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing - who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You're engaged in holy work.”
The reference source was cited as thus: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/04/02 /abortion_is_a_blessing_and_abortionists_are_doing_holy_work_says_anglican_priest (Damian Thompson, Telegraph.co.uk, Society/Religion, April 2, 2009). (Links gone by 4/7/18)
I have previously posted articles about the heretical and apostate nature of the Episcopal Church, let alone the parent Anglican Church. This is just another example of apostate thinking of their leadership. So why would any true Christian want to remain associated with this apostate church?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
How to Sing in Church
The Spring 2009 issue of the Emmaus Bible College magazine, Journey, has a very good article by Lisa Beatty entitled, “Encouraging a Singing Church.” What I found really interesting was the opening section where she cites John Wesley; it will give you some food for thought:
In the preface to a collection of Charles Wesley’s hymns, Sacred Melody, published in 1761, his brother John Wesley provided instructions for singing the songs in the collection:
Learn these tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.
Sing them exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you have learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can.
Sing All. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weakness or weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
Sing lustily and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep, but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony, but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
Sing in time. Whatever time is sung be sure to keep with it. Do not run before nor stay behind it; but attend close to the leading voices, and move therewith as exactly as you can; and take care not to sing too slow. This drawling way naturally steals on all who are lazy; and it is high time to drive it out from among us, and sing all our tunes just as quick as we did at first.
Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your Heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve of here, and reward you when He cometh in the clouds of heaven.
In the preface to a collection of Charles Wesley’s hymns, Sacred Melody, published in 1761, his brother John Wesley provided instructions for singing the songs in the collection:
Learn these tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.
Sing them exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you have learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can.
Sing All. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weakness or weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
Sing lustily and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep, but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony, but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
Sing in time. Whatever time is sung be sure to keep with it. Do not run before nor stay behind it; but attend close to the leading voices, and move therewith as exactly as you can; and take care not to sing too slow. This drawling way naturally steals on all who are lazy; and it is high time to drive it out from among us, and sing all our tunes just as quick as we did at first.
Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your Heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve of here, and reward you when He cometh in the clouds of heaven.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Beware of Christian Book Stores
I have often said that Christian book stores are minefields of apostasy and heresy. There seems to be more aberrant stuff than good doctrine on the shelves.
I came across an excellent article that discusses this very issue, and I am recommending that you check it out. It will be very good for you.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Beth Moore's "Breaking Free"
I have been slowly reviewing the title book for the past few months and now I felt the need to post analysis of what I read. Let me say firstly that, even though it took a long time due to my not taking the time to just sit down, it is still a very cursory review which doesn't detail all the problems I found.
Let me say up front that I think Beth gives some very good advice in this book, but her credibility is denigrated by the problems she presents in her teachings. If she could eliminate the claims of special revelations and correct her hermeneutics, this could be a valuable book for women. Unfortunately, there will never be changes made so I have to recommend against the book if I am ever asked, unless it is used by very discerning Christians - or at least provide this information to them!
I’m not going to address every time Beth has poor or misleading teaching, rather I am going to concern myself only with poor use of Scripture, claims of special revelation, and eisegesis. To point out every problem would be an arduous task! (She also has some pop-psychology that disturbs me.)
Claims of Special Revelation: (I skimmed much of the book for these later, so I may have missed some)
1. “You see, the finished work that falls in your hands represents untold hours of intensity with God in which He first taught it in ‘long hand’ to me.” P.4
2. “God spoke to my heart and said something like this: ‘I sent my Son to set the captives free. You will go forth and ring the liberty bell.’" p.6
3. “The words He first gave me after I began walking the path to freedom still echo in my mind.” P.6
4. P.43. “When I finally bent the knee to the Prince of Peace over hurts in my childhood, I realized He was directing me to forgive the person who hurt me. God did not insist on my forgiving for the sake of my perpetrator but for the sake of peace in my life. Once I began to surrender to Him in this painful area, He began to give me a supernatural ability to forgive.” Besides the pop-psychology evident here, what is the evidence that God insisted Beth forgive her offender; did He say something audible? Was there a sign given? And what is the evidence that she was given a “supernatural ability to forgive.” Again, did God reveal this to her audibly or with a sign?
5. “As God began stirring the tremendously heavy burden in my heart to write this study…” Who’s to say that this wasn't just her own emotions instead of God “stirring” her?
6. P.102 Moore lists five reasons she believes God allowed her childhood abuse. I can agree from biblical principles that the first four items are highly likely, especially since Beth starts each statement correctly with, “He knew.” And God knew all the things would happen as she says they happened because God sees the future. It is her last statement that bothers me because she says dogmatically, “He wanted me to teach how to make freedom in Christ a reality in life from the passion of personal experience.” Beth CANNOT know this! Therefore, this becomes a de facto claim of direct revelation. (And it may well be that God never wanted her to do anything about it!)
7. P. 181 Beth says, “I believe this week will be a supernatural turning point for all who take advantage of what they learn.” I wasn’t sure whether I should also include this under “revelation” or “other problems,” so I’m putting it here. Is it not arrogant and presumptuous to believe that your teaching will be a “supernatural turning point”? Is Beth then saying that God supernaturally meets everyone who studies Beth’s work? Of course this only works if we “resist the temptation to take any shortcuts or skip any homework!”
Misuse of Scripture and other problems:
1. Pp.14-15. We have first looked at 2 Chron. 26:21-27:9 and then Isa. 6:1-8 for the context of this section. “Isaiah grew up under the reign of the mighty King Uzziah and no doubt idolized him as a young boy…” is how Moore begins on p. 14. Then she decides that when Uzziah died it was “perfect timing” for God to choose that very same year to call on Isaiah because Isaiah was now “hero-less.” She continues on the next page, “I believe Isaiah idolized King Uzziah.” I think the word “idolized” is a bit extreme. Beth continues with an analogy of how she sees sports figures and in the world. But I don’t think the Israelites would put their kings in the position of idol, since that would be a rank violation of the Commandments.
Moore then gets really extra-biblical as she imagines all sorts of things about these passages. “People crave a human worth worshiping. We are wise not to try to deliver. Uzziah accidentally left poor Jotham hopeless to measure up in the minds of many. I believe Isaiah was one of them. Notice Isaiah 6:1 does not say, ‘in the year Jotham became king, I saw the Lord.’ Not the existence of something new but the removal of something old opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.”
There are some real problems here. Firstly, Moore assumes Isaiah was worshiping Uzziah and then decided Jotham wasn’t worthy of worship. Secondly, she decides that Jotham was “hopeless to measure up” to his father “in the minds of many,” including Isaiah. Where does Scripture even intimate this? The Bible tells us Jotham, except for not tearing down the pagan “high places,” was more godly than his father! Moore’s idea comes because Isaiah says it was the year Uzziah died that he saw the Lord instead of saying it was the year in which Jotham became king. That is a non sequitur: what difference does it make how Isaiah recorded time? Perhaps he used Uzziah’s death because it was something that stood out? We don’t know because the Bible doesn’t say. But Moore says that the death of Uzziah was what “opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.” So does this mean that Isaiah, in chapters 1-5, really didn’t understand God’s kingship? That’s what Moore implies. I think this is a gross misreading of Scripture.
At the bottom of the page Moore then makes this statement about Isaiah: “Isaiah was probably just as corrupt in mind, mouth, and practice as the people surrounding him.” I would think if this was the case that the Bible would have at least hinted at it. Isaiah was certainly a sinner, as everyone is, but it does not follow from this that Isaiah was so corrupt. Isaiah saw the corruption and I believe he was pained by it. After all, he was a prophet of God! Yet Moore has decided on her own that, “I don’t believe He called Isaiah because he was a man of character, like Noah. I suspect He may have called him because he was just as sinful as the rest of them.” But there is no Scriptural justification for this idea.
2. Pp. 32-33 Beth uses Isaiah 43:10-13 as if it is directed at the Christian, but the context of this passage is God talking to Israel. She asks, “Why have we been ‘chosen’ according to Isaiah 43:10?” But Is. 43:10 says nothing about us being chosen. The whole context of Is. 43:10-13 is about God and Israel yet Beth finds many parts of it addressing Christians. Can we as Christians take lessons about God from this passage? Yes: there is no other god besides God, there is no other Savior besides God, and no one can undo what God has done. Is Moore’s conclusion about who we are correct? Yes, but her method of coming to the conclusion is erroneous. (She misuses this same passage later in the book.)
3. Pp. 34-35 Beth again misuses Scripture to make her points. This time it is Isaiah 43:7. In context God is again talking about the nation Israel, but Beth asks the questions, “According to Isaiah 43:7, why did God create us?” In context God is talking about why He created Israel. Is Moore’s answer to her question correct? Yes, but again her road to the answer misuses the text.
4. P.39 we are to look at Jeremiah 31:23-25. God is talking about what he will be doing for Israel when He brings them back from captivity. Beth makes a spiritual application of this passage, saying that God “will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint” when He releases them from spiritual captivity. If she wanted to make an analogy, I’d have no problem with this, but to take the passage out of context and spiritualize it is another matter.
5. P. 46. Beth again is using Isaiah out of context with Isaiah 43:1-7. The context is God’s relationship with Israel but she makes it about His relationship with us. Again, if she discussed it as an analogy or a principle of God’s attributes, that would be okay. But she makes it a specific application to us.
6. P.73 begins a lot of pop psychology, which in itself can be harmful to individuals if that’s the route they take to deal with their problems. On page 75 Beth mentions things that keep us in bondage because of things we “inherit.” Then she defines what she means: “learned environmentally” (agreed), “genetically predisposed” (also agreed), “binding influence passed down through other means” (if this isn't the same as environmental influences, then it appears she is going into the “generational sin” of the aberrational spiritual warfare movement.).
7. On pp.79-80 she gives her interpretation of what Exod. 20:5 means, which really becomes no more than the unbiblical idea of generational sin. She starts by giving the example of “alcoholism” (a psychologically-incorrect term that pretends a lack of self-control with alcohol is a disease) and how many “alcoholics” (i.e., “drunks”) are in a family throughout generations because “alcoholism had been deposited in the family line.” But what she doesn’t see is that drunkenness is a learned behavior, not a “deposited” behavior. She seems to say these problems are learned behaviors with her citation of a story by Gilda Radner, but then she becomes inconsistent in whether it’s learned (environmental) or “deposited.” Maybe that’s why I’m confused about her teaching! While Beth, in that section, seems to be saying we can determine whether we want to continue with the sins of our progenitors or change for the better, there is also much to make me think she may want us to believe we can inherit these things, as Bill Gothard teaches (and as do many false “spiritual warfare“ teachers).
8. Her citation and use of Exod. 20:5 is common among proponents of this teaching, in that they overlook the next verse. She points out (p.83) how God allows “the sins of the fathers to visit the children to the third and fourth generations” but completely ignores the part about thousands of generations in verse 6! But even vs. 5 says “of those who hate me.”
9. P.99 Moore says that she believes Matt. 18:5-9 “specifically apply to child victimization or abuse…” While it is highly possible that victimization and abuse may lead the child into a sinful life, I think Jesus is talking specifically about leading them to sin in any manner. I’ve read some commentaries which say this isn’t addressing children so much as it is addressing those who are children in their faith. But Moore needs her meaning to apply in order for her to discuss her topic of child abuse. ( I think one can find plenty of passages to show God’s view of any abuse of a child!) The remainder of this section and the next is based on Moore’s interpretation. So, although her teaching on the subject may be helpful, her misapplication of Scripture is unacceptable.
10. P.120, Moore starts with a little bit of, “studying the tender - and may I say, romantic - ministry of Christ.” There is nothing “romantic” about Christ’s relationship with women any more than with men. This is one of the problems with many women’s teachings - they often tend to put a romantic slant on our relationship with Christ. Christ is not their individual husband as Moore claims beginning on p.121- He is the Husband of the Church. And that is a metaphor, not literal. Yet Moore continues to call each woman, and even each man, a separate bride of Christ, and she carries the analogy much farther than biblical. What she really leaves out by this teaching is the LORDSHIP of GOD the SON; he is not a lover. Beth continues the next chapter also teaching that Christ can fulfill “girlish dreams” of romantic relationships. This is unbiblical.
11. Beginning at p.126, Moore claims that the Song of Songs is “ultimately a story about Christ and His beloved bride - us.” This is 100% false. The Christian church, under Rome, started making this claim long ago because of prudery over the story. But if one reads the story in context, there is no way it can be about Christ and the Church. It is about a romantic - and even sexual - relationship between a husband and wife, and this cannot be made to be about Christ and the Church without eliminating the romance and sex, and then spiritualizing it all. P.135 ends with the romantic Jesus slant and the S.o.S nonsense. I will cut Moore a wee bit of slack on identifying S.o.S. as Christ and the Church because that has been taught by many.
12. P.148 “Even the Father and the Son had a Potter-Clay relationship. Christ obeyed the Potter.” Beth needs to be clearer here, because it sounds very much like she is saying Jesus was created by God the Father. I don’t think this is what she means, nor do I think she believes it, but she needs to be very careful of her verbiage, nevertheless.
13. P.163 Beth endorses a book by Francis Frangipane. I find this extremely disturbing! Frangipane has many, many aberrational teachings and is heavy into the “signs and wonders” movement and should never, ever be recommended in any teaching.
14. P.174, item 3. This sounds much like pop-psychology, self-esteem theology. Beth says that Jesus “thinks it will be heaven because you will be there.” So if you weren’t there it wouldn’t be heaven to Jesus? What if you choose not to follow Christ and end up in Hell - does Christ then think heaven isn’t heaven? Then Beth cites a song saying, “When He was on the Cross, I was on his mind.” No, it wasn’t anyone personal who was on Jesus’ mind, rather it was the salvation of mankind in total.
15. P.203 Beth says, “This journey has required the full participation of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you have fully participated in every lesson and every exercise, you have withheld nothing from Him.” This equates withholding participation in a Beth Moore study with withholding yourself from God. I find this a bit arrogant, as well as presumptuous.
Well, there you have it - my cursory review of this book by Beth Moore. I can only guess that the DVD probably has obnoxious behavior as seen on her "Believing God" series.
I really would like to see Beth Moore get some good theological training and retract a lot of her bad teachings, even pulling publications that have them. With her popularity, she could really do some good if she cleaned up her act.
Let me say up front that I think Beth gives some very good advice in this book, but her credibility is denigrated by the problems she presents in her teachings. If she could eliminate the claims of special revelations and correct her hermeneutics, this could be a valuable book for women. Unfortunately, there will never be changes made so I have to recommend against the book if I am ever asked, unless it is used by very discerning Christians - or at least provide this information to them!
I’m not going to address every time Beth has poor or misleading teaching, rather I am going to concern myself only with poor use of Scripture, claims of special revelation, and eisegesis. To point out every problem would be an arduous task! (She also has some pop-psychology that disturbs me.)
Claims of Special Revelation: (I skimmed much of the book for these later, so I may have missed some)
1. “You see, the finished work that falls in your hands represents untold hours of intensity with God in which He first taught it in ‘long hand’ to me.” P.4
2. “God spoke to my heart and said something like this: ‘I sent my Son to set the captives free. You will go forth and ring the liberty bell.’" p.6
3. “The words He first gave me after I began walking the path to freedom still echo in my mind.” P.6
4. P.43. “When I finally bent the knee to the Prince of Peace over hurts in my childhood, I realized He was directing me to forgive the person who hurt me. God did not insist on my forgiving for the sake of my perpetrator but for the sake of peace in my life. Once I began to surrender to Him in this painful area, He began to give me a supernatural ability to forgive.” Besides the pop-psychology evident here, what is the evidence that God insisted Beth forgive her offender; did He say something audible? Was there a sign given? And what is the evidence that she was given a “supernatural ability to forgive.” Again, did God reveal this to her audibly or with a sign?
5. “As God began stirring the tremendously heavy burden in my heart to write this study…” Who’s to say that this wasn't just her own emotions instead of God “stirring” her?
6. P.102 Moore lists five reasons she believes God allowed her childhood abuse. I can agree from biblical principles that the first four items are highly likely, especially since Beth starts each statement correctly with, “He knew.” And God knew all the things would happen as she says they happened because God sees the future. It is her last statement that bothers me because she says dogmatically, “He wanted me to teach how to make freedom in Christ a reality in life from the passion of personal experience.” Beth CANNOT know this! Therefore, this becomes a de facto claim of direct revelation. (And it may well be that God never wanted her to do anything about it!)
7. P. 181 Beth says, “I believe this week will be a supernatural turning point for all who take advantage of what they learn.” I wasn’t sure whether I should also include this under “revelation” or “other problems,” so I’m putting it here. Is it not arrogant and presumptuous to believe that your teaching will be a “supernatural turning point”? Is Beth then saying that God supernaturally meets everyone who studies Beth’s work? Of course this only works if we “resist the temptation to take any shortcuts or skip any homework!”
Misuse of Scripture and other problems:
1. Pp.14-15. We have first looked at 2 Chron. 26:21-27:9 and then Isa. 6:1-8 for the context of this section. “Isaiah grew up under the reign of the mighty King Uzziah and no doubt idolized him as a young boy…” is how Moore begins on p. 14. Then she decides that when Uzziah died it was “perfect timing” for God to choose that very same year to call on Isaiah because Isaiah was now “hero-less.” She continues on the next page, “I believe Isaiah idolized King Uzziah.” I think the word “idolized” is a bit extreme. Beth continues with an analogy of how she sees sports figures and in the world. But I don’t think the Israelites would put their kings in the position of idol, since that would be a rank violation of the Commandments.
Moore then gets really extra-biblical as she imagines all sorts of things about these passages. “People crave a human worth worshiping. We are wise not to try to deliver. Uzziah accidentally left poor Jotham hopeless to measure up in the minds of many. I believe Isaiah was one of them. Notice Isaiah 6:1 does not say, ‘in the year Jotham became king, I saw the Lord.’ Not the existence of something new but the removal of something old opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.”
There are some real problems here. Firstly, Moore assumes Isaiah was worshiping Uzziah and then decided Jotham wasn’t worthy of worship. Secondly, she decides that Jotham was “hopeless to measure up” to his father “in the minds of many,” including Isaiah. Where does Scripture even intimate this? The Bible tells us Jotham, except for not tearing down the pagan “high places,” was more godly than his father! Moore’s idea comes because Isaiah says it was the year Uzziah died that he saw the Lord instead of saying it was the year in which Jotham became king. That is a non sequitur: what difference does it make how Isaiah recorded time? Perhaps he used Uzziah’s death because it was something that stood out? We don’t know because the Bible doesn’t say. But Moore says that the death of Uzziah was what “opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.” So does this mean that Isaiah, in chapters 1-5, really didn’t understand God’s kingship? That’s what Moore implies. I think this is a gross misreading of Scripture.
At the bottom of the page Moore then makes this statement about Isaiah: “Isaiah was probably just as corrupt in mind, mouth, and practice as the people surrounding him.” I would think if this was the case that the Bible would have at least hinted at it. Isaiah was certainly a sinner, as everyone is, but it does not follow from this that Isaiah was so corrupt. Isaiah saw the corruption and I believe he was pained by it. After all, he was a prophet of God! Yet Moore has decided on her own that, “I don’t believe He called Isaiah because he was a man of character, like Noah. I suspect He may have called him because he was just as sinful as the rest of them.” But there is no Scriptural justification for this idea.
2. Pp. 32-33 Beth uses Isaiah 43:10-13 as if it is directed at the Christian, but the context of this passage is God talking to Israel. She asks, “Why have we been ‘chosen’ according to Isaiah 43:10?” But Is. 43:10 says nothing about us being chosen. The whole context of Is. 43:10-13 is about God and Israel yet Beth finds many parts of it addressing Christians. Can we as Christians take lessons about God from this passage? Yes: there is no other god besides God, there is no other Savior besides God, and no one can undo what God has done. Is Moore’s conclusion about who we are correct? Yes, but her method of coming to the conclusion is erroneous. (She misuses this same passage later in the book.)
3. Pp. 34-35 Beth again misuses Scripture to make her points. This time it is Isaiah 43:7. In context God is again talking about the nation Israel, but Beth asks the questions, “According to Isaiah 43:7, why did God create us?” In context God is talking about why He created Israel. Is Moore’s answer to her question correct? Yes, but again her road to the answer misuses the text.
4. P.39 we are to look at Jeremiah 31:23-25. God is talking about what he will be doing for Israel when He brings them back from captivity. Beth makes a spiritual application of this passage, saying that God “will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint” when He releases them from spiritual captivity. If she wanted to make an analogy, I’d have no problem with this, but to take the passage out of context and spiritualize it is another matter.
5. P. 46. Beth again is using Isaiah out of context with Isaiah 43:1-7. The context is God’s relationship with Israel but she makes it about His relationship with us. Again, if she discussed it as an analogy or a principle of God’s attributes, that would be okay. But she makes it a specific application to us.
6. P.73 begins a lot of pop psychology, which in itself can be harmful to individuals if that’s the route they take to deal with their problems. On page 75 Beth mentions things that keep us in bondage because of things we “inherit.” Then she defines what she means: “learned environmentally” (agreed), “genetically predisposed” (also agreed), “binding influence passed down through other means” (if this isn't the same as environmental influences, then it appears she is going into the “generational sin” of the aberrational spiritual warfare movement.).
7. On pp.79-80 she gives her interpretation of what Exod. 20:5 means, which really becomes no more than the unbiblical idea of generational sin. She starts by giving the example of “alcoholism” (a psychologically-incorrect term that pretends a lack of self-control with alcohol is a disease) and how many “alcoholics” (i.e., “drunks”) are in a family throughout generations because “alcoholism had been deposited in the family line.” But what she doesn’t see is that drunkenness is a learned behavior, not a “deposited” behavior. She seems to say these problems are learned behaviors with her citation of a story by Gilda Radner, but then she becomes inconsistent in whether it’s learned (environmental) or “deposited.” Maybe that’s why I’m confused about her teaching! While Beth, in that section, seems to be saying we can determine whether we want to continue with the sins of our progenitors or change for the better, there is also much to make me think she may want us to believe we can inherit these things, as Bill Gothard teaches (and as do many false “spiritual warfare“ teachers).
8. Her citation and use of Exod. 20:5 is common among proponents of this teaching, in that they overlook the next verse. She points out (p.83) how God allows “the sins of the fathers to visit the children to the third and fourth generations” but completely ignores the part about thousands of generations in verse 6! But even vs. 5 says “of those who hate me.”
9. P.99 Moore says that she believes Matt. 18:5-9 “specifically apply to child victimization or abuse…” While it is highly possible that victimization and abuse may lead the child into a sinful life, I think Jesus is talking specifically about leading them to sin in any manner. I’ve read some commentaries which say this isn’t addressing children so much as it is addressing those who are children in their faith. But Moore needs her meaning to apply in order for her to discuss her topic of child abuse. ( I think one can find plenty of passages to show God’s view of any abuse of a child!) The remainder of this section and the next is based on Moore’s interpretation. So, although her teaching on the subject may be helpful, her misapplication of Scripture is unacceptable.
10. P.120, Moore starts with a little bit of, “studying the tender - and may I say, romantic - ministry of Christ.” There is nothing “romantic” about Christ’s relationship with women any more than with men. This is one of the problems with many women’s teachings - they often tend to put a romantic slant on our relationship with Christ. Christ is not their individual husband as Moore claims beginning on p.121- He is the Husband of the Church. And that is a metaphor, not literal. Yet Moore continues to call each woman, and even each man, a separate bride of Christ, and she carries the analogy much farther than biblical. What she really leaves out by this teaching is the LORDSHIP of GOD the SON; he is not a lover. Beth continues the next chapter also teaching that Christ can fulfill “girlish dreams” of romantic relationships. This is unbiblical.
11. Beginning at p.126, Moore claims that the Song of Songs is “ultimately a story about Christ and His beloved bride - us.” This is 100% false. The Christian church, under Rome, started making this claim long ago because of prudery over the story. But if one reads the story in context, there is no way it can be about Christ and the Church. It is about a romantic - and even sexual - relationship between a husband and wife, and this cannot be made to be about Christ and the Church without eliminating the romance and sex, and then spiritualizing it all. P.135 ends with the romantic Jesus slant and the S.o.S nonsense. I will cut Moore a wee bit of slack on identifying S.o.S. as Christ and the Church because that has been taught by many.
12. P.148 “Even the Father and the Son had a Potter-Clay relationship. Christ obeyed the Potter.” Beth needs to be clearer here, because it sounds very much like she is saying Jesus was created by God the Father. I don’t think this is what she means, nor do I think she believes it, but she needs to be very careful of her verbiage, nevertheless.
13. P.163 Beth endorses a book by Francis Frangipane. I find this extremely disturbing! Frangipane has many, many aberrational teachings and is heavy into the “signs and wonders” movement and should never, ever be recommended in any teaching.
14. P.174, item 3. This sounds much like pop-psychology, self-esteem theology. Beth says that Jesus “thinks it will be heaven because you will be there.” So if you weren’t there it wouldn’t be heaven to Jesus? What if you choose not to follow Christ and end up in Hell - does Christ then think heaven isn’t heaven? Then Beth cites a song saying, “When He was on the Cross, I was on his mind.” No, it wasn’t anyone personal who was on Jesus’ mind, rather it was the salvation of mankind in total.
15. P.203 Beth says, “This journey has required the full participation of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you have fully participated in every lesson and every exercise, you have withheld nothing from Him.” This equates withholding participation in a Beth Moore study with withholding yourself from God. I find this a bit arrogant, as well as presumptuous.
Well, there you have it - my cursory review of this book by Beth Moore. I can only guess that the DVD probably has obnoxious behavior as seen on her "Believing God" series.
I really would like to see Beth Moore get some good theological training and retract a lot of her bad teachings, even pulling publications that have them. With her popularity, she could really do some good if she cleaned up her act.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The Social Gospel
The January 2009 issue of the Jews for Jesus newsletter has an article by David Brickner about the “Social Gospel.” This movement by the likes of Rick Warren and his ilk is nothing new, as Brickner points out. Here is an excerpt from the article that I think sums it up:
Why was it, and why is it popular to blend evangelism with social action? Can’t each stand on its own merits? Some believe it is necessary to combine them in order to gain an entrée for the gospel, or to earn respect from those who think Christians don’t care about social concerns. The problem is, since social action is far more acceptable to unbelievers than attempts to point them to Jesus, it is easy to convince ourselves that our social actions will speak volumes about our faith. And people will want to know more about Christ, some insist, without our having to offend them by talking about sin and the Savior.
We all prefer appreciation to rejection - I know I certainly do. And isn’t it wonderful that some of the things God commands us to do may lead people to appreciate us? But if we try to blend that which people usually appreciate with that which they often reject, we should not be surprised to find ourselves giving precedence to the former at the expense of the latter. That’s how many “missions” programs minimize the difficult doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation, undermining the gospel message and rendering it essentially powerless. Hence the phrase “social gospel” implies a lot of social, but not much gospel.
Rick Warren, are you listening?
Why was it, and why is it popular to blend evangelism with social action? Can’t each stand on its own merits? Some believe it is necessary to combine them in order to gain an entrée for the gospel, or to earn respect from those who think Christians don’t care about social concerns. The problem is, since social action is far more acceptable to unbelievers than attempts to point them to Jesus, it is easy to convince ourselves that our social actions will speak volumes about our faith. And people will want to know more about Christ, some insist, without our having to offend them by talking about sin and the Savior.
We all prefer appreciation to rejection - I know I certainly do. And isn’t it wonderful that some of the things God commands us to do may lead people to appreciate us? But if we try to blend that which people usually appreciate with that which they often reject, we should not be surprised to find ourselves giving precedence to the former at the expense of the latter. That’s how many “missions” programs minimize the difficult doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation, undermining the gospel message and rendering it essentially powerless. Hence the phrase “social gospel” implies a lot of social, but not much gospel.
Rick Warren, are you listening?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Apologetics Aphorisms
I have a collection of aphorisms, quips, and humorous thought-provokers about discernment issues. I've collected these over a period of many years and I can't remember where I got most of them. I know many were picked up at the various discernment conferences I've attended. One of my favorite teachers with some of this wit is G. Richard Fisher, who has been a pastor at Laurelton Park Baptist Church in Bricktown, NJ since 1968, and is also with Personal Freedom Outreach apologetics ministry. I hope you enjoy these thoughts as much as I, and that you can find use for them sometime!
"Discernment is the immune system of the church; apologetics is the handmaiden of the gospel."
"Wisdom is knowledge applied; the knowledge being from study or experience."
"Tolerance is the virtue of those who don't believe in anything." G.K. Chesterson
"Greeks looked for wisdom, Americans look for compromise."
"True love must discriminate between good and evil."
"The Bible is like a gun; don’t defend it, use it!"
Christians who don’t understand their faith, and who are not discerning, are suffering from some (or all) of the following maladies: "Spiritual AIDS - Acquired Ignorance of Doctrine Syndrome," "Doctrinally impaired," "Biblically challenged," or "Doctrinal anorexia."
"They have been sewing spiritual clothes but they’ve missed several stitches."
"We need to equip our people for living in the world, rather than protect them from living in the world."
"Shepherds are letting the sheep determine their diet." (I believe this came from R.C. Sproul)
"Many Christians are eating junk food theology; some of which can give food poisoning."
"With some teachers there is so much chaff that the wheat is hard to find."
If someone says “you can’t throw out the baby with the bath water,” tell them to save the baby but drain the water.
"Seduction of the mind will result in corruption of the soul."
"When people are starving they will eat anything."
"To get a bone away from a dog, give him a bone with more meat on it." (Helping people leave cults)
"Ear candy gives brain cavities."
Some of Dick Fisher’s quips discussing scripture-twisting: “Hazardous hermeneutics.” “Rorschach Hermeneutics” (you see what you want to see). “Harmeneutics” “Flexodoxy”
Some claim people just need “milk” because they are not ready for the meat of Scripture. The question becomes, what sort of milk are we giving them: skim? 1%? 2%? or sour?
Daffynitions: Cult cocktail - Scripture with a twist. Therapist: Rent a Friend.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Emerging Into Cultdom!
One of the things that should be an immediate red flag for any "Christian" movement is when they have to come up with their own Bible to reflect their theology. This is what happens with cults and other groups who have gone aberrational or heretical. Some examples of this are:
1. Mormons and their Joseph Smith Translation (also called the "Inspired Version").
2. Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation.
3. Seventh-day Aventists and their The Clear Word.
4. The Local Church and their Recovery Version.
So now the Emergent Church has joined the ranks and are now publishing their own “translation” of the Bible called The Voice. If the Emergent Church hasn’t raised red flags with all their aberrations, heresy and apostasy already, then their new “Bible” should do so.
Extreme Theology has done some excellent work showing problems with this new version of the Bible. So far they have posted two parts of their investigation:
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/11/review-of-the-voice-new-testament---part-one.html
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/12/review-of-the-voice-new-testament-part-two.html
(Extreme Theology is a site I recommend for general reading, as there are a lot of good, thought-provoking articles.)
As I read these articles I couldn’t help but shake my head in wonderment that these men would do such twisting of the Word of God.
1. Mormons and their Joseph Smith Translation (also called the "Inspired Version").
2. Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation.
3. Seventh-day Aventists and their The Clear Word.
4. The Local Church and their Recovery Version.
So now the Emergent Church has joined the ranks and are now publishing their own “translation” of the Bible called The Voice. If the Emergent Church hasn’t raised red flags with all their aberrations, heresy and apostasy already, then their new “Bible” should do so.
Extreme Theology has done some excellent work showing problems with this new version of the Bible. So far they have posted two parts of their investigation:
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/11/review-of-the-voice-new-testament---part-one.html
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/12/review-of-the-voice-new-testament-part-two.html
(Extreme Theology is a site I recommend for general reading, as there are a lot of good, thought-provoking articles.)
As I read these articles I couldn’t help but shake my head in wonderment that these men would do such twisting of the Word of God.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Darkness of "Twilight"
There are many Christians sending/allowing their children to see this movie without hesitation. Christianity Today on their web site movie reviews actually gave this movie what reads to be a very positive review, as if it is all fun and romantic. I e-mailed CT my concerns that they did not recommend against this movie and I was given the usual complaint of being “judgmental” and even that I was making “blanket decisions for everyone.”
My point is this: the Bible says we are to avoid and expose the deeds of darkness, and that we are to avoid sexual immorality. Yet this movie’s theme was sexual tension between the vampire - a demonic being - and the 17-year-old girl, and no one seems to have a problem with the fact that this girl aggressively initiated sexual relations with the vampire and only remained chaste because he pulled away out of fear of hurting her. Somehow this has gotten to be a great teaching for abstinence!
Of course there’s the other problems, such as the girl saying she doesn’t care that he is a killer and dangerous, that she is willing to be eternally damned as a vampire with him, that it’s okay for a man to be stalking you and showing up in your bedroom while you sleep. There were so many bad messages that there is no way I can see any value in this film, regardless of the Christian reviewers who make a big deal of the family unity of the vampires.
Another blogger brought to my attention about how the Christian Stay at Home Moms blog removed all comments that spoke against Twilight because they thought it was a great movie. My suggestion for these CSAHMs is to spend their time delving more into the Scripture rather than promoting the “fruitless deeds of darkness.”
Making "blanket decisions for everyone” is not what we do when we warn against things that are spiritually harmful to the flock. We don’t say you “can’t” see this movie, we just tell you the harmful messages it presents and then say that is why you “shouldn’t” see this movie. My authority would be passages such as Proverbs 4:23, Psalm 101:3 and Ephesians 5:11-12.
My point is this: the Bible says we are to avoid and expose the deeds of darkness, and that we are to avoid sexual immorality. Yet this movie’s theme was sexual tension between the vampire - a demonic being - and the 17-year-old girl, and no one seems to have a problem with the fact that this girl aggressively initiated sexual relations with the vampire and only remained chaste because he pulled away out of fear of hurting her. Somehow this has gotten to be a great teaching for abstinence!
Of course there’s the other problems, such as the girl saying she doesn’t care that he is a killer and dangerous, that she is willing to be eternally damned as a vampire with him, that it’s okay for a man to be stalking you and showing up in your bedroom while you sleep. There were so many bad messages that there is no way I can see any value in this film, regardless of the Christian reviewers who make a big deal of the family unity of the vampires.
Another blogger brought to my attention about how the Christian Stay at Home Moms blog removed all comments that spoke against Twilight because they thought it was a great movie. My suggestion for these CSAHMs is to spend their time delving more into the Scripture rather than promoting the “fruitless deeds of darkness.”
Making "blanket decisions for everyone” is not what we do when we warn against things that are spiritually harmful to the flock. We don’t say you “can’t” see this movie, we just tell you the harmful messages it presents and then say that is why you “shouldn’t” see this movie. My authority would be passages such as Proverbs 4:23, Psalm 101:3 and Ephesians 5:11-12.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Emerging Into Homosexuality?
The Emergent Church leadership are continuing rapidly in their run to apostasy. A case in point is their acceptance of homosexual behavior.
The latest of the “emerging” leaders to whitewash the sin of homosexual behavior is the former national coordinator of Emergent Village, Tony Jones. Tony Jones has decided that “gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am…I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.” (For an excellent article about this, see http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mwest/081201)
We previously had Brian McLaren saying, "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say 'it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.' That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think."
I don’t know what Bible these people are reading, but my Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin before God, so I don’t understand McLaren’s confusion over the issue. Furthermore, to say that people practicing sexual perversions can live “in accord with biblical Christianity” is certainly a far cry from Jesus’ charge to the adulteress to “go and sin no more.”
I have read many articles in which members of the various “Emergent Church” branches go soft on the issue of homosexuality. It seems they want to be politically-correct rather than biblically-correct.
The Emergent Church movement is one that is apostate in many ways, and often heretical. We need to be alert for its intrusions into our local assemblies and identify it for the evil it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
