Presbyterian Church (USA) Continues Slide to Hell

Here we go again. The Presbyterian Church (USA) continues its downhill slide to total apostasy as it more firmly embraces and approves of the homosexual lifestyle.

Today’s Cedar Rapids Gazette, p.7B, has an article by religion writer Molly Rossiter, telling about three proposals by the Presbytery of East Iowa which will be sent to the General Assembly in July. Two of the proposals are to change the language defining marriage as “between a man and a woman,” to the new definition as between “two people.” The other proposal is to make possible the ordination of homosexual men and women in the PCUSA.

The first two proposals were written by the Presbytery of Des Moines and endorsed by the Presbytery of East Iowa. The third was written by a committee of a Presbyterian Church in Iowa City (a city which is very liberal politically, with a very large homosexual population) after being tasked to do so by the Presbytery of East Iowa.

“The same-gender question has been a matter of some conflict and controversy,” said Rev. Sam Massey, pastor of the Iowa City church.

Well, Mr. Goatherd Massey, where in Scripture do you find any “conflict and controversy”? God’s Word is very perspicuous - it says homosexual behavior is wrong, period. No question to be left unanswered, no conflict between opinions, and no controversy over whether it is right or wrong. Why is this so difficult to understand?

A question I have for the new definition of marriage, is, why stop at “two people”? Why not three or four? Or why not a person and their pet? There is no moral foundation for approving the first and not approving the last two - are they not being intolerant?

As many years as the PCUSA has been sliding down the hill to hell, can there be any real Christians left in that denomination? If there are, then --- WHY?

Get Rid of the Leaven!

Evil is never static. It must defend its lies by adding more lies. Legalism is like garlic; there is no such thing as a little of it. If a few people in a church hold false doctrine, they will get more and more followers, unless sternly dealt with. William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, Galatians 5:9

This is why I firmly believe pastors should expose false teachers regularly from the pulpit; tell the flock about the poison they will find in the Christian book stores and on the TV!  Expose the Gothards, Ezzos, Pearls, the Beth Moores, the Benny Hinns, the Joel Osteens, etc!  Expose Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare and Deliverance Ministries!  Report on the Emergent church!

Too many pastors say all we have to do is teach the truth so they will recognize error, but experience has proven that to be totally inadequate.   There are too many cultish teachers and groups who have a very tasty outer shell which hides poison on the inside.  Sometimes the doctrine is good but the application is heavy with legalism.  EXPOSE IT FOR WHAT IT IS!!!

What Entertains You?

One of the things I find disturbing is that Christians don’t think a whole lot about their entertainment, and whether or not they are enjoying something that God would disapprove. I am only, at this time, discussing the media: movies, television, computer games, etc. I have noticed that Christians, more often than not, will justify just about anything if they like it. So we become entertained by that which Christ died to save us from.

Take for example movies. How many Christians watch R-rated movies where nudity is displayed and where sexual immorality is the norm? I have heard many times the line, “But it was a good movie!” I have to admit there are movies even I have enjoyed that push the limit (the only R-rated movies I do are those such as We Were Soldiers and Blackhawk Down which are R-rated due to war violence and language). But as time goes by I am hearing more and more Christians discussing the latest stuff they’ve been watching or listening to, which they really shouldn't be doing.

What I think we should be doing as Christians, is filtering what we see or hear through a grid of Scripture. Many years ago I set up such a grid for my children, and I’d like to share it with you here (the Bible version I use is that which I think is most pointed - most clear as to the intent - or one I like best).

I will not put anything wicked in front of my eyes. Psalm 101:3a (GWN)
More than all that your guard, guard your mind, for it is the source of life. Proverbs 4:23 (Tanakh)
Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness. Romans 6:13 (NIV)
But sexual immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of among you, as is proper for saints. And coarse and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable.  Ephesians 5:3-4 (HCSB)

Now, I don’t mean get all legalistic about it, because then you would be hard-pressed to find any movie acceptable! But we should at least give pause for thought if we are about to watch our favorite TV show or see the latest movie or listen to the last rock album. I know there are those who say we should avoid all forms of entertainment anyway because ALL of them have wickedness in them, and perhaps they are correct, but I will not push it that far.

Just to put things in perspective, let’s look at some thoughts from the early church. These quotes come from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.

Neither may we watch the other spectacles [i.e., the theaters], lest our eyes and ears be defiled by participating in the utterances that are sung there. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten. And as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honors and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas. Theophilus (c. 180)

Let spectacles, therefore, and plays that are full of indecent language and abundant gossip, be forbidden. For what base action is there that is not exhibited in the theaters? Clement of Alexandria (c.195)

Are we not, in like manner, commanded to put away from us all immodesty? On this ground, again, we are excluded from the theater, which is immodesty’s own peculiar abode. … The very harlots, too, victims of public lust, are brought upon the stage…. Let the Senate, let all ranks, blush for shame!… Is it right to look on what is disgraceful to do? How is it that the things that defile a man in going out of his mouth, are not regarded as doing so when they go in his eyes and ears? Tertullian (c.197)

If, again, we despise the teaching of secular literature as being foolishness in God’s eyes, our duty is plain enough in regard to those spectacles that come from this source: the tragic and comic plays. Tragedies and comedies are the bloody, wanton, impious, and licentious inventors of crime and lusts. Yet, it is not good for us to dwell on anything that is atrocious or vile. What you reject in deed, you are not to welcome in word. Tertullian. (c.197)

The father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter’s ears from every polluting word, takes her to the theater himself - exposing her to all its vile words and attitudes. Tertullian (c.197)

In the theaters also, you will behold what may well cause you grief and shame…. The old horrors of parental murders and incest are unfolded in action calculated to resemble reality…. Things that have now ceased to be actual deeds of vice become examples…. Adultery is learned while it is seen…. The matron who has perhaps gone to the spectacle as a modest woman, returns from it immodest. What a degradation of morals it is! What stimulus to abominable deeds, what food for vice! Cyprian (c.250)

In like manner, the tragedies place before the eyes [of the audience] the incests and parental murders of wicked kings. They also portray dire crimes…. And what effect do the immodest gestures of the actors produce, except to teach and incite lust? The actors’ weakened bodies are rendered effeminate after the gait and dress of women. They imitate unchaste women by their disgraceful gestures. Why should I even mention the mimes, who instruct others in corrupting influences. They teach adulteries while they act them out. By pretended actions, they train their audience to do those actions that are real. What can young men or virgins do when they see that these things are practiced without shame and are willingly watched by all? Lactantius (c.304-313)

I think that last citation really sums it up. What about you?

Misuse of Scripture is Nothing New!

One of the books on my shelves is a very interesting collection of teachings from the early church, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot. I have found it to be a very useful reference on many matters, and I highly recommend it to all believers. Today I was looking for information on something and came across this highlighted quote (I can’t read without a highlighter) from Clement of Alexandria (c.195 AD):

Those who give themselves up to pleasures, twist Scripture in accordance with their lusts. … Such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points. As you might expect, they do not have the faculty for judging what is true and false…. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures…. We also give a complete explanation of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves. From faith, we are persuaded by demonstration. However, when those who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures, [they do the following]: In the first place, they do not use all the Scriptures. Secondly, they do not quote them entirely. Finally, they do not quote them as the body and context of prophecy prescribes. Rather, selecting ambiguous expressions, they twist them to suit their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there. Instead of looking to the sense, they make use of the mere words.

It just goes to show you that the “cult cocktail” (Scripture with a twist) is something the Church has been dealing with for a very long time. In fact, let’s all remember what Peter said:

[Paul] speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16 , HCSB)

The thought that false teachers twist the Scriptures “to their own destruction” should make them reflect on what they are doing.

In Christ Alone

Another of my favorite contemporary hymns is In Christ Alone, by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty. As with others I like, this song has some really good doctrinal “meat.”

In Christ alone my hope is found,
He is my light, my strength, my song;
this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,
firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All in All,
here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain:
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave he rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me,
For I am His and He is mine -
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath.
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand.

What is “Church” For?

What is the reason we assemble together as believers? What was the biblical purpose for assembling, and should it still be the purpose?

Whenever the Bible speaks of the Christians assembling together, what do we see taking place? There really isn’t a whole lot in the Bible about their assemblies for worship, but let’s start with a look at Acts.

Chapter 2, verse 42 we find “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers.”

Continuing to chapter 20, verses 7-11 we find: “On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread. Paul spoke to them, and since he was about to depart the next day, he extended his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were assembled, and a young man named Eutychus was sitting on a window sill and sank into a deep sleep as Paul kept on speaking. When he was overcome by sleep he fell down from the third story, and was picked up dead. But Paul went down, threw himself on him, embraced him, and said, ‘Don’t be alarmed, for his life is in him!’ After going upstairs, breaking the bread, and eating, he conversed a considerable time until dawn. Then he left.”

1 Corinthians 11:17-26 is a discussion by Paul about their misuse of the Lord’s table, and he gives them appropriate instructions. This tells me that the Lord’s table (or as many call it, Communion) was a common part of their gathering.

In Romans 12:6-8, Paul mentions the various gifts among the members of the church: “According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts: If prophecy, use it according to the standard of faith; if service, in service; if teaching, in teaching; if exhorting, in exhortation; giving, with generosity; leading, with diligence; showing mercy, with cheerfulness.”

In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul again discusses various gifts among the body of believers. Starting at verse 4 he says, “Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are different activities, but the same God is active in everyone and everything.  A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person  to produce what is beneficial:” He then lists various gifts, ministries and activities, but he says they are to “produce what is beneficial,” meaning beneficial to the body of Christ. A few passages later Paul tells of the various types of people and gifts that have been put in the Church by God:  “Now you are the body of Christ,  and individual members of it. And God has placed these in the church:  first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next, miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, managing, various kinds of languages.” (vs. 27-28). But the whole discussion is in the context of everyone in the assembly needing everyone else because not everyone is blessed with the same gifts.

Now look at what Paul says at 1 Corinthians 14: “Therefore if the whole church assembles together, and all are speaking in other languages, and people who are uninformed or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all are prophesying, and some unbeliever or uninformed person comes in, he is convicted by all and is judged by all. The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall down on his face and worship God, proclaiming, ‘God is really among you.’ How is it then, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, another language, or an interpretation.  All things must be done for edification.” (vs. 23-26) He says “ALL” things must be done for edification. And he speaks about unbelievers who might come in, not that unbelievers are invited in or are part of the normal assembly, which is why all things must be done in an orderly fashion.

The last Scripture at which I want to look is Ephesians 4: 11-16:  “And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. Then we will no longer be little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching, by human cunning with cleverness in the techniques of deceit. But speaking the truth in love, let us grow in every way into Him who is the head—Christ. From Him the whole body, fitted and knit together  by every supporting ligament, promotes the growth of the body for building up itself in love by the proper working of each individual part.” [my bold emphasis]

So what have we learned about the New Testament assemblies? The assembled saints met to hear the apostles’ teachings, for breaking of bread (including the Lord‘s table), for singing psalms, for fellowship and prayer. They had been given gifts for the building up of the body: encouragement, edification and discipling. Is there anywhere mentioned that the assembled saints were to use their meeting times to evangelize?

I think the Church has become very much misdirected as to the purpose of their assembling together on Sunday mornings. Too often the services are “seeker sensitive,” entertainment-oriented so as to appeal to unbelievers. Too often we are told to bring our unsaved friends and acquaintances to church.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, the assembly is where we come to meet for corporate worship and fellowship and discipleship. When this is compromised by making it a time to bring in unbelievers, we do not properly build up the body. Evangelization is not for the church assembled or for the sermon, rather evangelization is what the individual believers should be equipped to be doing outside the assembly.

[All Scripture is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible]

Some Thoughts on Hymns

Of the hymns we sang in church this morning, two stood out for a couple reasons.

Grace Like Rain. This song takes a wonderful old hymn, Amazing Grace, puts it to a dirge-like tune, and then a chorus typical of contemporary Christian music. My big question is, WHY? Why take a well-known, traditional hymn and re-do it for modern tastes? And to top it off, the new version leaves out important verses! What is really disappointing is that this version has virtually replaced the original in the church.

I’m a firm believer that music should be congruent with the lyrics. For example, one certainly wouldn’t write lyrics for a love song and then put it to a Sousa march, nor would a military fighting song be put to a slow waltz. The traditional music for Amazing Grace reflects the testimony and praise behind the words. Grace Like Rain has music which is dirge-like, without any real melody, as if the singer isn’t very thrilled with the testimony - until the chorus of course. Can you imaging anyone asking for this version to be played at a funeral or other memorial ceremony? My bagpipes will only ever play the traditional version!

The other hymn we sang, which I want to mention, is one I also play on the bagpipes - The Love of God. The tune is really very congruent with the lyrics, and the lyrics are meaty. For that reason, I will close this commentary with the lyrics to this wonderful hymn.

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.

Refrain:
Oh, love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

When hoary time shall pass away,
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade;
To write the love of God above
Would drain the ocean dry;
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

To Train Up A Child?

This week I was asked what I knew about Mike & Debi Pearl, of “No Greater Joy” ministries. The outcome of this question led to my supplying a review of their book, To Train Up A Child, which I did several years back.

“No Greater Joy” is another one of those ministries which tend to divide churches due to legalism. The Pearls were one of the dividing issues in the last church we left, and they have a virtual cult following among home-schoolers. I will say right up front that they have some good teachings, but I can not recommend them.

So now I am going to give you my review of To Train Up A Child. The page numbers are from their 13th Printing, revised August 2000, so if you have a different edition, the page numbers may be different.

For the most part this book has some very good advice on raising children. I can’t recommend it though, because it also has many problems. One of the things that bothered me throughout the entire text was the attitude expressed: they are the experts to be consulted by all. They also project the philosophy that all children need to be spanked (for them it means use of a “switch”) which, from personal experience, is definitely not the case. There are also instances of Scripture-twisting and claiming to know the mind of God. The following are the areas I found problematic:

P. 1 SWITCH YOUR KIDS: "consistently rewarding every transgression with a switching" shows lack of compassion or common sense. Not every transgression warrants harsh punishment. There are many other corrective measures available.

P. 2 OBEDIENCE TRAINING: The book starts with bad philosophy by comparing child training with dog training. If you train a child the same way you train a dog, then you will end up with a child that is not much more than a pet.

P. 2 "TENNN-HUTT!!": Another philosophical problem. Children should not be trained like soldiers. Anyone who has ever watched the movie, The Sound Of Music, will see the problem of training children by military methods. You may get good soldiers, but not good children.

P. 4 TRAINING NOT TO TOUCH: The Pearls call this “training,” but it is more appropriately defined as "conditioning." I call it abuse to set up a scenario waiting for the child to disobey just so you can "switch" him.

P. 5 PLANT YOUR TREE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN: There is no indication in the Bible that God put the tree in the Garden of Eden in order to "train the couple." Reading that purpose from the Scripture is eisegesis. The suggestion is to set some object out to entice the child into a "training session." This is a dishonest technique and can lead to distrust by the child. Why not wait for a real situation for the training? "Switching" the hand is excessive in my opinion; why not just smack the hand?

The next section continues this thought of "baiting for training," but then adds the idea that you want to have your child associate the word "no" with pain. This is not training; it is conditioning. I wouldn't want my child to associate any word with pain.

P. 6-7 OBEDIENCE TRAINING - BITING BABIES: The teaching is to inflict pain on the child who bites while nursing. My wife only responded with, "OW!", which startled the baby, causing cessation of the biting. If the baby bit again, she again said, "OW!" or "that hurt", which again would startle the baby. This method worked with both children and they never suffered any punishment or pain!

P. 7 COME WHEN I CALL YOU: The "booty camp." This is just plain ridiculous; it is a game that is dishonest to the child. Again, the use of real situations is better, because the child will learn the purpose is for protection rather than blind bullying.

P. 8 NEVER TOO YOUNG TO TRAIN: The claim is that a baby's crying is self-centered and manipulative. This is utter nonsense. A baby is in a new and scary world and needs comfort and security. NEVER abandon a child to cry.

P. 8 STEPS TO OBEDIENCE: "Switching" a 5-month-old child for anything is unconscionable. Block the stairs with a gate to protect the child. Punishment is for disobedience, and a 4-month-old doesn't understand the concept yet. If you want Pavlov's dog, then conditioning a 5-month-old is fine, but I prefer to treat the child as what he is; an innocent being exploring a new world.

P. 14-15 GOD-GIVEN SELF-CENTEREDNESS; TO BLAME OR NOT TO BLAME: This section starts with an unscriptural assumption: "For the purpose of moral development, God created us to exist in a constant state of need and dependence." There is no scriptural basis for this claim, so it then becomes a claim of knowing the mind of God! A baby is not really "self-centered" except for the fact that he only knows he has needs. Self-centeredness is a choice of sinful attitude, and that is not what a baby has.

P. 18 WHEN DRIVES BECOME SIN: Pearls say, "God will not condemn a child until he has grown into a state of accountability. However, during this transition, which occurs between the ages of about two and fourteen..." They should have said they believe God will do this, but the Scripture doesn't tell us. Being dogmatic here is claiming extra-biblical revelation. I also believe this to be true, but I certainly think two is an unreasonable age to suggest. I would think more in the line of seven or eight. Pearls then suggest that "responsibility for sin is not imputed unto him until his moral soul is fully functional." We just don't know this, and claiming it authoritatively is wrong.

P. 37 SUMMARY: Infants do not "falsely [represent their] needs to" "get [their] wants met as well." They can't reason in that fashion. What she calls false representation is nothing more than a felt need for security. The whole paragraph is full of this inane thinking.

P. 38-40 GUILT AND SELF-LOATHING; GUILT: Their theory of guilt is much like common psychobabble. It ascribes feelings to children that most likely are not there.

P. 40 THE POWER OF "ABSOLUTION": The assumption that spanking always takes away guilt is unfounded. In fact, there may be nothing wrong for still feeling guilt about something for which one is punished; it may help prevent a recurrence.

P. 42 THE CANE, NOT THE CORNER: This section is definitely only an opinion, with no factual basis. "Dark corners and dark closets breed darkness in the soul. An empty room and a pouting child incubate guilt and anger. Only the rod and reproof bring correction. Somehow children know the rod is their just due." So how were we able to train my children with very little use of the rod (actually, the hand)? We even used the corner and the empty room!

P. 43 TO DO MY DUTY: I think 5-10 swats with the "rod" is excessive. It doesn't take that much to get the point across.

P. 44 INSTRUMENTS OF LOVE: "under one-year-old" should NOT be spanked! Also, the hand is just fine for spanking; it is easier to tell that way how much pain is being inflicted.

P. 46 "Reproof without the rod is equally unbalanced, for it leaves the impression that the law has no teeth." The Pearls obviously have no imagination if they think the rod is the only way to show that the law has "teeth."

P. 48 "Use of the rod is not optional with a Bible believer." Can the Pearls back this up with Scripture? The rod has its place, but if the rod is not warranted, it IS optional.

P. 50 THE OLDER SISTER (begins on P.49): There is no biblical support for the contention that God put the tree in the garden as a temptation - to see what would happen. God knew what would happen.

P. 53-54 STRIKING OUT: Trading blows with a toddler is nonsense. The first time he hits, the object is to be removed from his hand as he is told "NO!" If he repeats the action he should be spanked then and there for the disobedience. Waiting until he has done it for 10 times is ludicrous. The Pearl's reasoning was that he wasn't being mean so it was "training" vs "discipline." Mean or not, the child was behaving in a wrong manner and must be stopped immediately; once he was told "no" it would be rebellion.

P. 56 THE PROPER RESPONSE (begins on p.55): Again the recommendation is 10 "licks". Why so many? The purpose can be accomplished without so much pain being inflicted. It would have to be an unusually stubborn child to need that much corrective action.

P. 57 A SWITCH AT NAP TIME SAVES MINE: Putting an infant down for a nap. The first question would have to be, how old is the "infant"? Babies should be held by Mom or Dad until they are asleep. They can also be carried in a frontal carrier so as to feel the security of the parent. A young child can be cuddled either in a bed or on a sofa while they fall asleep. Again, it is the sense of security and trust that is being inculcated; children need to be comforted even when they are tired.

P. 57 OBEDIENCE: A one-year-old child should never be spanked for not wanting to nap. Spanking should be reserved only for disobedience or rebellion. You can't order a child to sleep when he is not sleepy. Rather than "putting the child down" for a nap, sit with the child, cuddling him and maybe even reading or singing to him to help him get sleepy.

Chapter 10, SAFETY TRAINING: The guy sounds like an ex-drill sergeant. While his method will definitely work, it is unnecessary. Our training was done with real situations as they presented themselves, and it was just as effective.

Chapter 11, POTTY TRAINING: Their philosophy on potty training is, in my opinion, just plain stupid. Using "bathroom" words such as "pee pee" and "doo doo" is inane and unnecessary. We used the words "wet" and "bowel movement." If a child is not ready to be potty-trained it will be frustrating for both child and parent, and can often lead to the child "training" the parent! A three-week-old child, as implied in the one paragraph, is much too young to try potty-training; it is foolishness to suggest otherwise! Even 3-months old is too young. Hosing a child is inappropriate and abusive. I could think of much better ideas that would work just as well for a late-comer.

Our daughter was enticed to begin potty-training when she was about 2 years old because she wanted to wear pretty panties. Our son cared nothing about it until he was almost 3, and, if I remember correctly, he also wanted to wear underwear instead of diapers.

P. 75-76 THEY BETTER NOT MISTREAT MY BABY: This whole section is inane at best. The idea that if you defend your child you make him a "sissy" is utter nonsense. Protecting one's child gives that child security! It matters not that the world is unfair, Christians still must teach fairness because that's how we are to treat others. We do indeed deserve equality, and to teach otherwise is harmful.

P. 80 TOUGH TEENS: "When I was yet young I determined that I would rear no sissies." This tells a lot about the author's thought processes. The idea of ignoring children's falls and injuries to "toughen them up" is ludicrous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comforting a child who is injured. Yes, teach the child the difference between a real and feigned injury, but the latter should not be a problem with a child who has been raised right to begin with. For example, when a child falls down, checking to see if he is okay gives him assurance that you care about his well-being, even if he is not injured. If he is crying from a minor fall, he can be examined, pronounced uninjured, and sent on his way. Crying at a young age is usually the result of being startled about the fall, and will cease once the child sees he is okay. Comforting a child that is injured teaches that child compassion. It appears that Mr. Pearl is a regular "Mr. Macho" and wants his kids to be the same. One doesn't have to be "Mr. Macho" to not be a "sissy."

Chapter 15: The claim that a pacifier or bottle for grumpiness is leading to obesity is downright silly. The whole of chapter 15 is pure psychobabble, with mainly cause and effect non sequiturs.

Chapter 19: To say, "Never even consider sending your children to private Christian schools" is irresponsible. Why not consider a good Christian school as an alternative to home schooling? Not everyone has the ability to teach at home, regardless of what the Pearls think. And not all home schooling is of good quality! Whether you consider public school would be based on many, many variables. I do believe that public school, in general, is no place for Christians, but I do know that there are rare instances of public schools that don't conform to the norm. This would be a consideration if home school is not an option. And what about states which make home-schooling virtually impossible?

Chapter 20. This chapter is actually very good. The problems with it are primarily in his attitude towards
education, such as saying it should be finished by age 12 or 13, and a few other comments. He is also very strict on eating likes/dislikes and the ownership of toys.

Well, there you have my analysis of the Pearl’s child training ideas. While my words may sometimes seem harsh (“ludicrous,” “inane,” “ridiculous,” “stupid,” “nonsense,”), I have very little patience with people who abuse children in the manner the Pearls teach, and justify it by their legalistic interpretation of Scripture. While they are not as bad as the Ezzos, I could never recommend such abusive treatment of children in the name of "training up a child."

UPDATE 12/20/10:  I have read an advertisement for this book in a Pearl publication, which says this book teaches "God's way of parenting."  Once you claim something is "God's way" and it isn't in the Bible, you've just claimed direct revelation from God and approval from God, and that if anyone disagrees with this book, they are therefore disagreeing with God.  This is very dangerous ground.

Galatians 1:8-9

We are not to be dazzled, as many people are, by the person, gifts or office of teachers in the church. They may come to us with great dignity, authority and scholarship. They may be bishops or archbishops, university professors or even the pope himself. But if they bring a gospel other than the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament, they are to be rejected. We judge them by the gospel; we do not judge the gospel by them. As Dr. Alan Cole expresses it, “The outward person of the messenger does not validate the message; rather, the nature of the message validates the messenger.” John Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians, pp.27, 28.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

What About My Apologetics Qualifications?

Someone asked about my qualifications to be an apologist.  Please forgive the length of this post and I will try not to bore you too much, but in order to explain 35 years of apologetics study it takes more than a couple pages!

After I was born-again in January 1974 I struggled often with the Mormon teachings coming back to mind and I had to continually compare what they said with the Bible. I went to the base library and found some material about the Mormons and someone in the Navigators got me a tape of Dr. Walter Martin teaching about them. I then began thinking that I should try to tell other Mormons of their error and from then on I wanted to study as much as possible about the Mormons so as to reach those in the LDS, as well as prevent people from joining. That was my first thought about apologetics. (This eventually led to my acquiring a sizable collection of books and journals on the subject and many official LDS publications, as well as their “Gospel Link” CD).

Time went by but my first meeting with Mormons coming to our door wasn’t until 1979 in Aurora, IL. That same year we had Jehovah’s Witnesses come to our door so I studied about them for future encounters. As the years went by I began slowly learning more and more about these two cults because I felt I could reach them. Books about these groups were some of the first in my library.

From the time I became a believer I tried to read the Bible through at least once a year. But, as noted in my church history, I didn’t go to church (except with Jill’s parents on Easter and Christmas) until 1988. I studied the Bible and listened to Moody radio regularly but it wasn’t until late 1986 that I began researching denominational doctrines compared to what the Bible said. Of course this meant I had to study the Bible even more thoroughly. And, as noted in my previous article, this was when I also spent a lot of time studying Roman Catholicism. When I decided the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, was viable, I bought and studied their Book of Concord.

In the Spring of 1988 I bought the first of the many commentaries I‘ve acquired over the years. And while listening to Moody I heard a program called Science Asks, God Answers, about evolution, and my interest was raised in this subject (I had learned the “Gap Theory” from the Navs but that theory kept bugging me) so that required the purchase of books about creation.

I’m not positive, but I think it was in 1988, or that period, when the local TV station did a program on Willow Creek and their “market-driven” philosophy. As I watched the program, I was appalled that any church would see this as a way to bring in members. Little did I know then that this would be a major movement.

In the fall of 1988 we began worship at a Lutheran church in Batavia, IL. My wife and I became Sunday School teachers for elementary students (although I changed to high school after a year and a half).

When I was studying with the Navigators we used the NAS Bible. But while at this Lutheran church I discovered the NIV and bought one (this was the first of a collection that now includes over two dozen English versions). In the church library I began to find more information on Mormons and JWs and even more about the creation/evolution issue. I also found a copy of Kingdom of the Cults, then purchased my own and began studying apologetics as an interest.

Some of the church members knew I studied the Mormons and JWs and I was frequently asked to come to their homes when they had these “missionaries” come to their doors. And of course we had our own visits. I acquired more books and, while studying the Mormons, I kept coming across references to a connection with Freemasonry. This lead me to buy and study books on that subject.

We arrived at our new Lutheran church in the fall of 1992 just in time for me to fill an opening for a teacher for their catechism classes. Jill and I again became Sunday School teachers almost immediately, with me again taking the high-schoolers, who hadn’t had Sunday School for years due to a lack of teaching volunteers. Some of my first classes were on cults and I taught a lot about biblical worldview and how to apply one’s faith in daily living.

In September 1992, after I had been studying Water Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, the local newspaper had an article about Christian Scientists which built that faith up as a true Christian denomination. I had been a regular opinion page contributor on various social issues but this time I wrote a letter exposing the teachings of Christian Science compared to orthodox Christianity. It was then I realized I could be doing this sort of thing regularly. From that point on I began looking for every time someone misused Scripture in the newspaper and I would write letters to correct the errors. Over the following years this would give me a lot of experience in researching and properly contending for the faith, and it has indeed been a learning experience! Looking back, I can see how the Lord used this to prepare me for future ministry.

In 1993 I discovered Hank Hanegraaff’s Christianity in Crisis where I learned about Word of Faith teachings. It was shortly after this, in January 1994, that we began home schooling and the local group we belonged to had some followers of the Word of Faith. It was as if God had prepared me to deal with this teaching. (Since then I have acquired more books on the subject.)

Meanwhile, over the next couple years, it seemed that there was always some other cult or aberrational teaching that was brought to my attention by friends, relatives or co-workers and my library kept growing with various reference materials to be able to teach against such false teachers and doctrine, and to learn proper hermeneutics. And I also got more interested in worldview teachings, starting with Francis Schaeffer’s, How Should We Then Live?

Wanting to leave Lutheranism, for our first Sunday in the Cedar Rapids area in December 1995 we went to church with our realtor to River of Life. It was an eerie experience because they are what is known as a “signs and wonders“ church, but I learned some important apologetic information there and the experience led me to find out what I could about their pastor, Francis Frangipane.

Our next church was a Bible Church. Here I learned that even Bible churches with good teaching can have a love affair with the world and aberrant teachings; they had many members involved in Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare and the church itself became the major market-driven church in the area. So after six months we began searching until we found another Bible Church (although my son got involved with the Christian Service Brigade here for the next couple of years and I was able to teach that group about cults and false teachings such as SLSW).

It seemed that the Lord kept bringing more false teachings to my attention and it was during that first year in Iowa where I learned about the Jesus Seminar. Also during that first year I took an interest in the field of psychology and counseling (a fellow employee gave me his college Psychology 101 textbook and I was appalled at what I read in it). What I didn’t realize was that this apparently was more preparation for a future ministry.

Well, we moved right into the thick of things at that new church. Their new pastor, who arrived the same time we did, wanted to bring in some strange teachings from the Toronto and Pensacola Revival, which I hadn’t heard of yet. But since so much of what he was teaching was similar to the Word of Faith, I began researching into the whole thing. The Lord obviously felt I needed to know about these “revivals” and “Promise Keepers” (which most of the men there seemed to be involved with). A lady in the congregation, learning of my meetings with the pastor, gave me a book on the “revival,” by Pastor Bill Randles. I went to meet Bill, who gave me more of his books and pointed me to Media Spotlight apologetics ministry for more information. Another member began giving me copies of his Berean Call monthly teaching letter until I subscribed to it.

My library began growing by leaps and bounds and I began doing much more with apologetics. I subscribed to the Christian Research Institute’s Journal and began alerting people to aberrant teachings, while doing classes for high school Sunday School on cults and false teachings. I became very zealous for this and I wanted to get the truth to everyone who would be seeing false teachings.

The issue of the “revival” finally led to a church split in early 1997. I worked with the elders during this time to attempt to get the pastor (who was worshipping on Saturdays at River of Life) to change what he was bringing in but he ended up resigning. Without a senior pastor the elders took turns teaching and brought in guest pastors over the next year’s time. Even with this, the revival influence was bringing about dissent among the congregation and the elders didn’t want to address the situation. This left us looking for a place of worship in November of 1998. (This church has since called a new pastor who has been doing an excellent job of bringing in some stability and sound teachings.)

For the next six months we began church searching again, spending a few weeks at various places while hoping to find a place that wasn’t worldly or aberrant or following after every new fad. We found some that were pretty good and were trying to decide where to choose when friends we had met in October suggested their church, a Plymouth Brethren Assembly. We began attending there the first Sunday of July 1999.

During our first Sunday two gentlemen approached me about going to a Bill Gothard conference. I had previously heard the name and had seen some materials at home schooling conventions but I didn’t know much about Gothard other than that he had some home school curriculum. I told them I wasn’t interested.

The couple who had invited us to this church later told me that Gothard had some very legalistic teachings and they showed me some material they had gotten in the past. On the following Sunday I noticed the two men approaching another young man and as the other young man claimed non-interest they began pressuring him that it was something he really needed for his young family. At that point I stepped in and commented about what legalism I knew of and suggested they not pressure anyone.

The high-pressure tactics reminded me of cults so the next day I called Christian Research Institute and asked if they had any information on Bill Gothard. They had none but knew of work Midwest Christian Outreach had done with him and so sent me there. I then contacted MCO and they provided me with some good materials. Meanwhile, another individual from church, learning of my investigation, pulled an article off the Internet from Personal Freedom Outreach. I then contacted PFO, who sent me another packet. Both these organizations have excellent journals to which I began subscribing.

My contact with these last two organizations finally made me realize that it was quite possible that the Lord was leading me into apologetics as a ministry. It was in the spring of 2000 that I asked Jill about starting an apologetics ministry and, although she wasn’t as interested in apologetics as I was, she was always very supportive and she readily agreed to the idea. So we commissioned “The Watchman Ministry,” with the name being based on the passages about the watchman in Ezekiel and wrote up a mission statement (at that time I thought I had a unique idea - so funny to find many other similar names in the apologetics field!).

Over the next two years at this church I taught several evening classes on cults and at the same time I began general apologetics studies through my connections with various ministries. I began learning more and more about how to properly teach and how to discern and, more importantly, how to properly communicate the truth. I also got some very beneficial experience putting together sermons since I had the opportunity to teach in the assembly on four occasions. The elders accepted my suggestion of how to keep the congregation alert to false teaching fads and I was able to put out a “Spiritual Danger Alert” when something new came up (The Prayer of Jabez and The Alpha Course were my first two).

Unfortunately, this church began having some power struggles among the leadership, and the teaching was becoming “hit-or-miss.” Gothardism was very prevalent and some of the members were pushing Ezzo’s Growing Kids God’s Way. Then there was the group who were following the Pearls, so there were many controversies. The leadership didn’t want to approach any of it because they didn’t want to cause offense. Finally, there was an issue needing church discipline which the leadership refused to deal with, leading a few families to leave the assembly including me and my wife. In October 2001 we made the decision to go where we knew the leadership and teaching was good and began worshiping 26 miles from home at an excellent Bible Church.

We attended our first 3-day apologetics conference in April 2002 in St. Louis, put on by Personal Freedom Outreach. We also attended a 2-day conference for Biblical (nouthetic) counselors that November, which taught us a lot about working with people. In April 2004 we returned to another PFO conference and in February 2005 we attended another apologetics conference in Kansas City put on by another ministry at the Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary.

Shortly after the apologetics conference in February, I was asked by a friend attending seminary to team with him writing a paper on psychology versus the Christian faith. This was a very interesting research paper to do, proving the two fields to be incompatible.

For 14 weeks in the summer of 2005 I taught adult Sunday School on cults and false teachings. Later that year we attended another Biblical counselors’ conference.

We attended another PFO conference in April 2006, a Biblical counselors’ conference in April 2007, and then another PFO conference in 2008. We will be attending another PFO conference this coming April.

It was during the fall of 2007 that a pastor friend of mine told me that, since I had an apologetics ministry, I should do a blog. He is the one who helped me set it up.

My personal library now has over 1000 volumes, all of which I have studied. Subjects range from various cults and aberrant teachings to commentaries, church leadership, church history, teachings of the early church “fathers,” psychology, nouthetic counseling, social issues, worldview teachings, systematic theology, marital counseling, humanism, many journals, devotionals, creation, Intelligent Design, etc.

Members of my church congregation who are looking for information about false teachings frequently come to me, especially after I taught the adult Sunday School class. Additionally, a local pastor uses me as his resource for all apologetics needs. My wife and I have done family counseling, pre-marital counseling, marital counseling and counseling with people going through divorce.

So the question on the table is, what qualifies me to teach apologetics - what training in this field do I have? As you can see from this narrative, my education has been an eclectic one of self-study and attending various conferences and my experience with teaching the subject has been in various venues over many years, where I have been approved as an apologetics teacher by many church leaders.

I leave the question as to whether I am qualified for the apologetics ministry up to the reader of my blog.