The Doctrine of the Trinity

 

In a pluralistic and relativistic age, Christians must stand firm in proclaiming the one living and true God who is revealed in Scripture. The one true God is one in being or essence and three in person: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Triune God is holy and sovereign. These biblical truths are often attacked, and Christians must, therefore, be diligent to defend them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Apostolic Reformation ~ A discerning look at this movement

The New Apostolic Reformation .  What is it?   This is a discerning look at the New Apostolic Reformation. the Question is: Have the Apostolic gifts returned to the Church?

 

 

Another helpful resource

 

 

A new religious movement - led by apostles and prophets - has confused people, divided churches, and strained families as people are forced to make painful choices between those they love and what they believe to be the truth of God's Word. This global movement is known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).

 

Although people may not know this movement by its formal name, they are probably familiar with its leaders, like Rick Joyner (MorningStar Ministries in Fort Mill, South Carolina), Bill Johnson (Bethel Church in Redding, California), and Mike Bickle (International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Missouri). Likewise, NAR practices - such as "prayerwalking," "healing rooms," and "24/7 prayer rooms" - have permeated churches throughout the world. Read this book for a biblical response to the NAR movement and to learn how its teachings deviate from historic Pentecostal and charismatic teachings.

This book can be purchased at Christianbook.com
It can also be purchased at Amazon.com

Is Religious Freedom Under Fire ?

Is there a war in the United States against Christianity?  Find out with guest Kelly Shackelford on the show Christ in Prophecy. Legal cases after legal case is discussed in detail. This message will encourage Christians to Stand Firm in their faith.

Proverbs 29:21

He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child  shall have him become his son at the length.

Proverbs 29:21

"Here is good advice for managers. Wise and careful treatment of an employee can lead to a relationship with him similar to a family member. There is a great distance in the Bible between masters and servants, approximating employers and employees today. This significant difference in ability and position is to be preserved. But prudent managers also win affectionate loyalty, in addition to diligent obedience, from their employees.

 

The Bible teaches, defends, and promotes authority more than any other philosophy or religion, for the foundation of all human relationships is the sovereign authority of a creator God. Jehovah ordained the five spheres of human authority – husband, parent, master, magistrate, and pastor. Therefore their offices are not to be compromised (Eccl 10:5-7; Rom 13:1-7; I Cor 11:9; Eph 6:1-9; Col 3:18-25; Heb 13:7,17; I Pet 2:13 – 3:7).

But the Bible also restricts and penalizes abuse of this God-ordained authority (Ps 12:5; Eccl 5:8). Masters are limited in their authority over servants, and they are bound to treat them with a minimum level of fairness, kindness, and consistency (Lev 19:13; 25:39-46; Deut 15:12-18; 24:14-15; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1). And the doctrine of God further teaches love of neighbor, including servants, by the standard you seek to be loved (Luke 6:31; 10:27).

The older conservative and evangelical commentators understood this proverb very differently. They believed it condemned treating a servant too well in his youth, for he would be spoiled by the luxury, forget his proper place, and later presume to be equal to the heir. Since most commentators generally follow one another, they agreed with each other here. Their interpretation and application are wrong for the following reasons.

First, an ironical or sarcastic use of words should be obvious to the reader, which is not obvious here. A straightforward reading of the proverb indicates positive instruction for the wise management of servants. To take the words in the opposite sense of a sarcastic rebuke is difficult indeed, for there are no words or contextual hints to do so.

 

Second, “delicately” does not require a definition of pampering luxury, for it also means careful and tactful treatment, as in Agag coming delicately to Samuel (I Sam 15:32).

 

Third, Solomon taught elsewhere in Proverbs that a wise servant would, and therefore should, be promoted over foolish sons and given an interest in the family inheritance (Pr 17:2). And he taught that kings recognize and promote wise servants (Pr 14:35). Jesus taught that a wise and faithful servant would be highly promoted (Luke 12:41-48).

 

Fourth, Scripture warns against abusive treatment of servants and requires kind treatment of them. Moses commanded regarding servants, “Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God” (Lev 25:43). Maidservants were to be treated as daughters and given food, clothing, and the duty of marriage – regular lovemaking, or be set free (Ex 21:9-11). Moses allowed for servants loving their masters and staying with them for life (Ex 21:1-6). And Solomon admitted masters and servants ate the same (Pr 27:27).

Consider Job’s holy and perfect attitude toward servants. He said, “If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:13-15). Though slaves had no legal rights, Job granted them the right to appeal to him!

 

Abraham had such a close relationship with one of his servants – Eliezer of Damascus – he planned on making him his heir (Gen 15:2-3). He later entrusted another servant to pick a bride for his son Isaac, which resulted in Rebekah being the mother of Israel (Gen 24:1-67). And Paul told Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother-servant (Phile 1:16)!

 

Fifth, Daniel, though a captive eunuch from Israel, was affectionately treated by Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Even Belshazzar promoted him to third in the kingdom (Dan 5:29). Though a war captive, he was promoted to the inner circle of several kings. Joseph was promoted over all Potiphar’s house and then over the land of Egypt by the wise management of Potiphar and Pharaoh (Gen 39:1-6; 41:38-45).

Sixth, the history of slavery in America and other nations includes examples of servants being treated like family members with deep and abiding affection and loyalty running in both directions. Paul did not admit much difference between young sons and servants (Gal 4:1-2). There were clearly masters that practiced the gentle wisdom of this proverb.

Seventh, those holding the other interpretation were a slave-owning generation that lost sight of this merciful possibility and gracious principle. Due to the outcry against slavery in 18th century England and 19th century America, greater rigor was required to keep servants in their place, so pulpit and pen were slanted to preserve domestic tranquility.

 

Beyond the proverb’s interpretation, what is the lesson for us? Considerate and tactful treatment of employees can result in a relationship with the affection and loyalty of a family member. A common proverb declares, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” You can attract greater devotion and effort with kindness than with meanness. Christian employers should conscientiously treat their employees with discreet and prudent care at all times. They should redress all grievances in a fair and equitable way, and they should communicate openly and honestly with those in their service.

 

“Might makes right” is a foolish invention of God-haters. Wise business owners and managers win the affection and loyalty of employees with careful and tactful treatment. Service from the heart is better than service from fear or a paycheck. Husbands, parents, magistrates, and pastors will also grasp that the principle applies to them as well. Right conduct is determined and defined by scripture, not by the might of those in authority.

 

You tempt the Lord your God, a very serious offence, if you seek to enforce your authority by power and privilege alone (Eccl 5:8; Eph 6:9; Col 3:19,21; 4:1). Let every Christian reader apply the same benevolent kindness to those under their authority as their heavenly Father does to even His enemies (Matt 5:43-48; Acts 14:17). Though He is Lord of all, He is also good to all and satisfies their desires (Ps 145:9-16).

**  Quote from : Let God be True –

Naming Names

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the article titled:  Naming Names by Martin and Deidre Bobgan, PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter -Issue - March-April 2015.  Visit the ministry website at: http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/mainpage.html   PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter is a free, bimonthly publication of PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries. 

Naming Names 

By Martin and Deidre Bobgan 

Some people have wondered why we don’t just expose the spiritual dangers of clinical psychology and its psychotherapies without naming names.  They evidently think that simply describing the unbiblical teachings would suffice.  But, would that be enough?  Why do we name names? 

We began naming names shortly after 1979, when our first of 21 books, The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way, was published.(1) In that book we described how psychological counseling theories and therapies were coming into the church, but did not identify by name those Christian leaders who were guilty of what we later called “psychoheresy.” We mistakenly thought that Christian readers would make the applications.(2)   However, without names attached to what we  saw happening in the church, very few Christians seemed to be able to connect what we were saying to the many pastors and church leaders who were guilty of replacing or supplementing the soul care ministry of the saints to one another with counseling psychology.  

As clear as we thought we were and as much as we naively believed that our book would stem the rising tide of counseling psychology in the church, it didn’t happen.  On the contrary, the problem grew rapidly and those whom we did not identify became more popular.  What puzzled us at the time was how some Christians could express agreement with us and yet support Gary Collins, Larry Crabb, James Dobson, Paul Meier, Frank Minirth, and other integrationists.  Therefore, we began naming Christian leaders who were guilty of psychoheresy and who were spiritually seducing those in the church with their false teachings. 

We do not take lightly the responsibility for naming names, but do so out of deep concern that psychoheresy has eroded a central belief of the church that existed until the rise of the psychological counseling movement less than 60 years ago. In their book The Practice of Psychology:  The Battle for Professionalism, the authors trace the history of the recent rise of the practice of psychotherapy.  They report: “The independent provision of psychological services was virtually nonexistent prior to and during World War II.” (3)  This is confirmed in the book The Romance of American Psychology, in which the author says, “Before World War II, professional healers and counselors were few; most individuals allied with psychology did work unrelated to “helping’” The author reveals: “Throughout the entire post war era, the United States has trained and employed more psychological experts, per capita, than any other country in the world.” (4)

Prior to this modern phenomenon of professional counseling and prevalent throughout church history, there was a ministry to suffering souls within the church.  John T. McNeill traces this history in his book  A History of the Cure of Souls.(5)  Then during the last century, the basis for the care of souls shifted from faith in the sufficiency of Scripture to faith in secular notions posing as science.  Like the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent, the clinical psychology that existed in the universities nosed itself into the church and shortly thereafter the whole camel came in and eclipsed a biblically-based care of souls. 

While one can read about what happened, there is almost no concern about the fact that it did happen and especially that there was no identifying by name those involved in the wholesale substitution of talk therapy for the almost 2000-year-old ministry of soul care. As we have often said and repeatedly demonstrated: The present-day church has strained at many theological gnats but swallowed the camel of psychotherapy to such an extent that the sufficiency of Scripture for the issues of life has been overlooked for “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1Tim. 6:20), which is an apt description of psychoheresy. 

When we wrote the original edition of our book Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity over 25 years ago we named many popular Christian leaders.  Dr. Jay Adams endorsed the book and said: 

Some people will say the Bobgans are hitting too hard--naming names and all that--but I don’t think so. Whenever someone writes for the Christian public he sets forth his views to the scrutiny of others, but if others think what he says is dangerous to the church they, like Paul (who named names too), have an obligation to say so. (6) 

In another place Adams said: 

Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1).  If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught.  Such public warning or debate on a topic should not be considered a personal attack at all….  What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation;  he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place. (7) 

Both in church history and in the Bible names were named, for example: Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, and Socinius.  All were named publicly and extensively.  History reveals that public critiquing was always part of the church.  In fact, the various church councils often included fiery debates between various men.  During the Reformation there was much public naming of names and open debates.  That’s what the 95 theses on the Wittenberg door were all about.  Luther named and debated men publicly so that others could judge. 

In the Bible itself we read that Jesus (Rev.2:20), Paul (Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 1:19-20;  2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17, 4:10, 4:14),  and John (3 John 1:9-10) all named names.  In Acts 7 the Bereans checked the apostle Paul’s teachings with the Scriptures.  In Galatians we read how the apostle Paul faced off with the apostle Peter.  Paul says,  “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11) and  “I said unto Peter before them all,  If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”  (Gal. 2:14).  

These naysayers on naming names, who say such things as “touch not God’s anointed” and “judge not that ye be judged,” need to learn a lesson from this one biblical interchange, unless they believe that the apostle Peter was not God’s anointed and that Paul was not judging!  What the Bible does speak out against, however, is division caused by elevating personalities (1 Corinthians 1); infighting not having to do with essential doctrine, but motivated by selfish desires--having one’s own way (3 John); and division caused by heresy (Galatians 1 and 2 Peter 2).  

Following biblical examples and church history, one should name names publicly regarding public teachings and examples when they are in serious conflict with Scripture. Moreover, Scripture directs us to name names: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them”  (Romans 16:17).  How else can one mark those whose teachings and practices are “offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” without naming names?  And, how serious are these psychological counseling theories and therapies as “offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned”?  The denial of the sufficiency of Scripture for living the Christian life is a serious violation of both Scripture and the historic care of souls that is based upon the Word of God!  Psychotherapy is not based upon the Word of God; psychotherapy is based upon the fallen and failing words of men after the flesh.  Thus, we need to heed Paul’s final instruction in Romans 16:17: “avoid them”!  Have nothing to do with them!  Quit looking for something that might appear to be useful in their teaching.  

Some have suggested, on the basis of Matthew 18, that all criticism of teachings should be done on a one to one basis.  However, Matthew 18 applies to personal offenses rather than important doctrinal problems that affect the lives of many believers.  Matthew 18 does not apply to warning the sheep of serious doctrinal error.  For us there was no personal offense.  Moreover, pointing out doctrinal error privately will not protect the sheep if the perpetrator of that teaching does not repent publicly and effectually.

Instead of questioning those of us who name names, one should question why there is not more questioning by name those popular pastors and organizations that are in serious violation of the very Word of God that they claim to follow.  The most loving thing to do for the Body of Christ is to warn believers of those who propagate false teachings, and the most loving thing to do for the perpetrators of psychoheresy is to continue to speak forth in hopes that they will repent.  As we often say, we should never replace the God of the anointing with the present-day “anointed of God” by showering them with unwholesome adoration and unnecessary protection.  

While some Christian leaders are speaking out and condemning what we call psychoheresy, they typically refrain from speaking out specifically by naming names.  Rarely do we hear even those Christian leaders who agree with us name the names of individuals or organizations that are guilty. Where are the pastors, theologians, and church leaders who are willing to speak out against psychoheresy specifically by naming names? 

Not only must we name the names of leaders and organizations that condone and promote psycho heresy, we need to examine ourselves to see if we are allowing psycho heresy to creep into our thinking and living. The more secularly minded Christians are in their day-to-day thoughts and activities, the more apt they will be to succumb to the psychological wisdom of men.  Therefore we challenge our readers to examine themselves, for if you believe that the clinical psychological wisdom of man and its resulting psychotherapies can complement or augment the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in believers’ lives, you are guilty of psychoheresy! 

© Copyright 2015 Martin and Deidre Bobgan 

PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter 

Endnotes
1. Martin and Deidre Bobgan. The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1979.
2. We coined the term psychoheresy later to describe what we saw happening in the church at the time of our first book.
3. Roger Wright and Nicholas Cummings, eds. The practice of Psychology : The Battle for Professionalism.  Phoenix, AZ : Zieg, Tucker & Theisen, Inc, 2001, p.2
4.  Ellen Herman. The Romance of American Psychology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1996, p.3
5. John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers 1951.
6. Jay E. Adams, “About this book…,” Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity, Santa Barbara, CA. : EastGate Publishers, 1987, endorsement page.
7. Jay E. Adams. Grist from Adams’ Mill. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983,p. 69.

Beware the Greed Mongers / 2015 Bible Conference Globe...

Hope For Christians Who Have Been Spiritually Abused.

Please see full article at the link below.

 

"According to authors David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen (The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse), spiritual abuse occurs when those in spiritual leadership "twist Scripture to give more authority to the leadership and keep the members under their control. One example is the use of Hebrews 13:17 as a basis for demanding unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the leaders." Johnson and VanVonderen also make the compelling case that those who are being spiritually abused are often unaware of what is happening while the abuse is occurring. Why is this so? I'm not sure why, but if I had to guess, I would say that we sheep can be so desirous of solid teaching, and aware of the value of solid teaching, that we don't recognize spiritual abuse, if it is present or if it develops. Thus, spiritual abuse doesn't occur only among the weak-minded, the undiscerning, or in cults: it can also take place inside of doctrinally solid churches, and oftentimes those experiencing it are not even aware that it is taking place."

Sola Sisters: Hope For Christians Who Have Been Spiritually Abus...: Posted by Sola Sisters  What Is Spiritual Abuse?  According to authors David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen ( The Subtle Power of Spirit...

Book Review on Stand Firm in the Faith:

Subtle Power
of Spiritual Abuse

http://standfirmbookreviews.blogspot.com/2011/09/helpful-resource-on-spiritual-abuse.html

A CURRENT EXAMPLE OF THE PROPHETIC MADNESS

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the Article below by Discernment Ministries International. Please see DMI’s website for more information http://discernmentministriesinternational.wordpress.com

A CURRENT EXAMPLE OF THE

PROPHETIC MADNESS

This deluded soul, David E. Taylor told his congregation and the world that “God” had revealed to him the winner of the Super Bowl. Even with a fifty-fifty chance he guessed wrong and ended up (1) lying in the name of the Lord he says he serves, (2) embarrassing the Church which he represents as a public minister by being exposed as one deceived and deceiving others.

 

For whatever reason he decided to promote this specific revelation from “God” on a global basis. One can only surmise that he did so in the hopes of expanding his influence among the hugely competitive prophetic marketplace. Here is a statement from his website:
 

David E. Taylor is first and foremost, a friend of Jesus Christ, which allows him to serve in all the five-fold ministry offices, in which the offices of apostle, prophet and healing evangelist are the most notable. These offices enable him to conquer spiritual territories and dethrone demonic princes and their principalities in different cities and regions he goes to on behalf of a breakthrough for God’s church the Body of Christ. They serve to equip, empower and launch sons and daughters into God’s vineyard, to minister Jesus Christ and demonstrate His Latter Rain Glory to this generation.

This man, who was completely wrong about his word from “God” would have people believe that he is an Omni-competent healing evangelist! Folks, it is people like this who bring shame and ridicule upon the Body of Christ and rightly so in cases like these if we, the Church, do not do all we can to rebuke this man in love and bring correction to him.

 Much of the foolishness taking place in the Church today is due to the tolerant attitude and silence on that part of those who are orthodox Bible believing Christian leaders. Many solid pastors vacillate between one of the following three men:

Wonderfully pious words to try to live by if you are an ostrich. The love of God compels us to warn our brothers and sisters of the grave spiritual danger they are facing by listening to the myriad of false teachers and false prophets.

Pastors especially are charged with guarding their portion of His flock by feeding them the pure Word of God. It is only through a steady diet of sound teaching that we will become equipped to discern truth from error. This implies first that pastors must teach sound doctrine and secondly, that the flock will be faithful not only to hear but to act upon the glorious truths shared!

 

 

DMI currently receives no financial support from any congregation or church body, although many pastors read our newsletters and benefit from our materials. If you are one of our “pastor” readers won’t you please consider donating to DMI on a monthly basis?

There is a desperate need to educate our members regarding the spiritual dangers posed by cults, sects, and false SINistries today. As a former pastor I recognize how difficult it is to prepare for weekly sermons, deal with congregational life, family life, personal life, etc. This is why I make myself available to come along side and assist you in educating your people about many of the spiritual dangers and flakes you may not even be aware of yourself. Certainly I am always available by phone or online to answer any specific questions you may have about a group or ministry affecting the lives of any members, family or friends.

 

　

Copyright © 2014 Robert Liichow

 

MORALOPHOBIC

This article is from Midwest Christian Outreach Journal - Fall 2013 /Winter 2014 - Volume 19 No 2,. The article is written by L.L. (Don) Veinot, Jr. & Dr. Jerry Buckner. Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the article. Please see MCO’s website for additional helpful articles and resources.

MORALOPHOBIC

In the 1930s, Roman Catholic priest and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin discovered a very effective way of discrediting people he considered political threats. He would appeal to the anti-Semitism and isolationism shared by much of his audience by denouncing various individuals as “atheistic Jews” or “imported radicals.” It mattered little to Coughlin that the sources of his “information” were often untrustworthy. He know that once he used the power of the broadcast medium to slap labels on people, those people would find them very difficult to remove from their reputations.

 

In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy used the new medium of television to boost his political career by taking advantage of Americans fear of Communism. No evidence was too slight, no testimony too tainted, no logic too specious for him to use it to label various individuals as “Communists” of “subversives.” Reputations were destroyed. Careers were ruined. For decades after McCarthy himself was discredited and died, his victims struggled to rebuild their shattered lives. McCarthyism has come to be synonymous with intimidation through labeling and blacklisting and has often been mistakenly portrayed as a “right-wing” tactic. The fact is, however, that McCarthyism is equally useful to demagogues of all political persuasions. In fact, it has become a favorite tool of the Left for stifling opposition to their agenda today.

Conservatives are often labeled “Uncle Toms,” if they are black, or “racists” if they are white, for daring to voice opposition to any aspect of the Left’s “civil rights” agenda. People who oppose gay “marriage” are labeled “homophobic.” Men and women who oppose abortion on moral grounds are dangerous “extremists,” and so it goes. Thus, opposes are allegedly motivated by “hate” or “fear” rather than rational disagreement. Name-calling, then, becomes a very effective substitute for rationally defending one’s case-- legitimate viewpoints are summarily de-legitimized and thinking is short-circuited by knee-jerk reaction to an emotional appeal. Whenever you hear someone slap a label on someone else without providing careful definitions and clear evidence, you are more than justified if you suspect you may be listening to a propagandist rather than someone who truly desires to inform the pubic. (1)

These words penned in 2003 and published in our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life are just as relevant today as they were than. The art of name-calling can often be a useful tool to marginalize or even silence those with opposing views. It masquerades as defending the rightness of a position without actually ever defending the position itself with clear, logical and actual precision. If done well, name-calling keeps those with another view so busy trying to demonstrate they have been maligned, that they rarely have the opportunity to address the actual original issue.

This is true in the area of religion, where groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs aka Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) write about “The Whore of Babylon, World Empire of False Religions” as a description of all groups which claim to be Christian., but who are not JWs. At times when confronting false teaching, I am accused of being mean, narrow-minded or even bigoted. But since I am aware of the gamesmanship here, I elect not to begin defending myself from the accusations, but instead I respond with something like; “You might be right, I might be mean. I might even be short and perhaps even fat. All of those things can be true, and we certainly can discuss them, but the question we need to answer first is: Where am I wrong?” I am often met with a blank expression at that point.
 

You Are Homophobic

In the current cultural battle, name-calling really has replaced reasoned debate and discussion. If someone holds to historic Judeo/Christian moral values--the values which have been central in the founding and history of our nation--they often find themselves or their group the object of name-calling and character assassination. Anyone who is opposed to “same-gender marriage” is labeled “homophobic.” Those opposed to abortion are “misogynists.” Is it really true those who oppose abortion hate women? I clearly remember in the days leading up to the Gore vs. Bush election in 2000 watching a woman in tears at the local Post Office begging the postal clerk to vote for Gore because, according to her, “Bush wants to kill women!!” I suppose I missed Bush’s plan for the mass extermination of women.

Is opposition to same-gender marriage actually “homophobic?” The definition of phobia is fairly straightforward and simple:

…usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. (2)

 

Of all of the people I know and with whom I have spoken, including some homosexuals, “fear” of homosexuals--much less “irrational” “fear” -- simply is not present. But many people are often cowed by the accusation; because like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar-Baby, (3) the more they fight to defend themselves against name-calling, the more stuck they become.

I have wondered: Are those who support abortion, same-gender marriage, and other “Progressive” social issues “moralphobic?” That is, do they have an irrational” “fear” of morals, or would using that term just be name-calling instead of sound, reasoned debate as well? I have come to two conclusions on this question. First, it would be name-calling and, as tempting as it may be to me, it comes across as a playground squabble ending with “So is your mother!” The accusations that Progressives and Liberals are moral phobic lacks reasoned debate and comment on the issues at hand. Second, it is actually not true. They don’t have an “irrational” “fear” of the morals which have been the fabric of our nation since its inception--the ones contained in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Rather, they have a rational fear and hatred of those morals. They are not opposed to morality per se, but they are working to change morals to accommodate the way they desire to live rather than how God says we ought to live. Fear of condemnation can be assuaged--if not eliminated altogether--by making the change. It is being accomplished a little at a time.

The big push now is to normalize same-gender, sexual relationships. The line from married to non-married sexual relations had been shifted a few decades ago. Now that unmarried sex is more acceptable, there is just a small shift in cultural thinking to embrace same-gender sexual relationships. “How can you deny someone sexual satisfaction solely because they are attracted to others of the same gender?” we are asked. The highest moral values in this area today: Personal Satisfaction. Legitimizing same-gender sex happens simply by moving the martial requirements one (albeit huge) step to include these homosexual relationships. But then, why not include polygamy or eliminate the age of consent and include children in the mix? Well, that would absolutely be met with near-complete cultural rejection …right now. However, by moving the boundaries one-step-at-a-time, it is easier to change morals. The new morality becomes, “How could you deny the right of two people who love each other ‘the right’ to marry.” Once that is accepted, it then becomes immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. The next part of the process is to create peer pressure to conform to the new morality.

 

Thought-Shapers and Peer Pressure

Changing morals across culture is perhaps an easier task than one might think. For many, the change appears to be sudden and drastic but that is really only because they have just noticed. This has been in the works for the last century as the battle between Progressives (in the early twentieth century Marxists/Socialists) and Conservatives has been waged. As we have pointed out in numerous articles in the past, those who believed in the fundamentals of the faith abandoned the colleges and universities in the 1920s and 30s, while Marxists/Socialists used those institutions to spread their philosophy pretty much unchallenged. The college student rebellion of the late 1960s and 1970s were the fruition successfully reeducating the children of the “Builder Generation.” (4) The abandoning of the faith and changing of national morals was already well underway, but we still had a Christian hangover. Many still live by Judeo/Christian morality, but it was not attached to any foundation. It would give way to the morals of self. Self-centeredness would become the guide for determining the shape of national and individual morality. What we are now witnessing is the clearing away of the hangover of Judeo/Christian morality and the codifying of the new moral expectations.

Most of the population are followers. It is not that they are unintelligent or uncaring, but they are mostly focused on the day-to-day aspects of their lives. Their opinions on big issues in life are informed mostly by the media to which they are exposed, the organizations in which they participate, and friends with whom they interact regularly. It is falsely assumed that news organizations are philosophically neutral and simply reporting the facts. Church leaders, it is believed, are there to be caretakers of the soul and guide their followers with the wisdom God has imparted whether directly from the Scriptures or not. The combination of these influences set up guidelines as to what someone should believe; and the peer pressure follows from it and enforces how one ought to behave. As our culture has made what are now substantial shifts away from Judeo/Christian values, that shift has been guided by those thought-shapers who have the biggest public voice.

The news media and government officials have been near giddy with the elevation of acceptance of the homosexual practices, and they vilify anyone who publicly expresses a contrary view. In 2012, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, was quoted as supporting the biblical definition of marriage: One man and one woman. When asked, he said he was “guilty as charged.” It became a media circus as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that these are “not Chicago’s values.” When Emmanuel made that assertion, I wondered how many Chicagoans in a one-man,-one woman marriage realized their marriage did not fall within the bounds of “Chicago values?” It wasn’t that Chick-fil-A, as a company, discriminated against homosexuals. They did not and do not ask about sexual orientation in hiring. In fact, how one is sexually satisfied is not a concern with the company as long as it isn’t being pursued on the job. It doesn’t impact promotions or in any way impact one’s employment. Chick-fil-A also does not ask customers about their preferred sexual encounters before taking their order. How someone has sex has nothing to do with whether or not they can purchase a sandwich and fries. But here is where the media and government ban together to bring peer pressure to bear: Dan Cathy and others who looked on were bullied--in no uncertain terms--that no one may have an opinion which is different than the news media and government, or they will be punished.

　

The “new morality” was forced into the military. Sexual relations between non-married troops have always been discouraged. Males and females, even if they want to have relations, are segregated when it comes to sleeping and showering arrangements. The reason is fairly understandable. It is a practical way to diminish sexual tension, as well as to protect those who would be the objects of sexual advances from potential predators. Now, it is politically correct to force the military not only to allow but to endorse those who prefer same-gender relations to publicly advertise their preferences. However, there is no segregation to alley sexual tensions from those with whom they may want to have relations. The result?

More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults. (5)

 

In 2004, roughly 12% of sexual assaults were against males. In 2012, approximately 54% of sexual assault victims were male. (6) Now, it should be noted that there are far more males in the military than females, but that was also the case back in 2004. The basic change has the implementation of the new morality by Federal fiat. In reality, if the military were to be truly fair and liberated about this social experiment, they would eliminate any reference to gender or sexual orientation and make all facilities--barracks etc, --gender-neutral. Anything less is discrimination. 

The legalization and recognition of same-gender marriage as no different than opposite-gender marriage will not be the end of the changing morals I the nation. As Denny Burke points out in “The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper,” polygamists and polyamorists are just waiting in the wings for the door to be open by same-gender marriage.

The redefinition of legal marriage in our culture will not end with same sex “marriage.” The polygamists are waiting in the wings for the opportunity to make their case--a case that will be all the more compelling as arguments for gay “marriage” take hold across the country. If marriage becomes defined as legal recognition of whoever it is that you love, on what basis will the polygamists be excluded?

But redefinition won’t end with polygamous marriage either. The polyamorists are beginning to make their case as well. In an article for Slate magazine, Jillian Keenan argues that polyamorous unions should be on an equal footing with all other marriages. The polyamorous “family” featured in the article includes two men and two women, all of whom share one another sexually. Their relationship is defined as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.” (7)

Where is The Church in All Of This?

Of course, there are many solid, biblically based churches which are horrified by what they are seeing. They receive the brunt of the name-calling and bullying by the high priests of the new morality. But there are segments of the church which are being unduly influenced and have become supporters of the new morality even though those who attend the churches--and, perhaps, even the leadership--do not agree with abortion, homosexuality or other elements of the new morality. They have become accessories to facilitating the change through their political allegiances.

 

Our friend, Advisory Board member, and co-author of the article, addresses the issue of how the Black church has been captured by what he calls, “The Cult of Black Liberation Theology.” Over 90% of the Black vote for President went to Barack Obama. Barack and Michelle Obama had been members of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, Illinois. Trinity United Church of Christ not only embraced Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (8) under the leadership of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but it was a flagship church of Black Liberation Theology. BLT was central to the teaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and it promotes Marxist idea of class warfare between “oppressed groups” and “established groups.” The United Church of Christ is the first denomination in America to ordain gays/homosexuals as ministers. The influence of BLT on the Black church along with Obama’s views on homosexuality have had a big impact upon the Black church and the Black community. Even though Black churches may lean toward being theologically conservative, they tend to be socially liberal through the influence of Black Liberation Theology. It is very difficult to be of African-American descent and go against the tide here. Those who do are called, “Uncle Tom” or are labeled as being not really Black. In this setting, one’s race is no longer a matter of ancestry, but rather one of political affiliation. The recent stand for same-gender marriage by Black pastors in Chicago claiming it is “about civil rights, not religion” (9) is a demonstration of the effective power of peer pressure to achieve the implementation of the new morality.

There is a similar assault on the White church. It is coming from the Emerging Church movement. Brian McLaren made slow moves away from affirming biblical views on sex and marriage. In 2006, he called for a five-year moratorium on asserting firm views about homosexuality:

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When dicisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing refection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course. (10)

　

Six years later, McLaren affirmed the rightness of same-gender marriage by leading the “Commitment Ceremony at Son’s Same-Sex Wedding.” (11) Rob Bell, another well-known and widely read luminary, also came out in favor of homosexual relationships and was fairly unhappy at the questions directed at his position:

“Do you believe that this is an area where actually God is ahead of the church, that affirming same-sex partnerships is actually a God thing and that we will eventually all get to see that in the course of time. Brierley asked Bell of comments he made in March.

The former Mars Hill Bible Church pastor revealed in March his acceptance of gay marriage, having said, “I believe God [is] pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and pastors and friends and neighbors and coworkers.” Previously Bell had also stated that he was for “marriage….for fidelity…for love” whether it was with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. (12)

 

The young adults and teenagers within the Evangelical, Fundamental and Confessing church read and are greatly influenced by these and other well-known leaders who are going down the same path. They are--whether intentionally or unintentionally--thumbing their noses at God. The moral code god handed to Moses (the Ten Commandments) does condemn all of us. Paul calls it “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones.” (2 Corinthians 3:7a) and writes the “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The moral code reflects God’s holiness and is not able to make us live holy lives, but rather, it was given to teach us how sinful all of us really are and to point us to the solution to our sin:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:23-25)

 

If we get to write our own moral standards, we can do it in such a way that we can come out looking righteous and those who disagree and regarded as immoral by the standards of the newly defined morality. This is not a new issue; it has been the pattern of humanity nearly since The Creation. Noah’s descendant, Nimrod, established a kingdom “in the land of Shinar” (Gen10) and his descendants turned from God to create their own religion (Gen. 11) The plan to build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves (rather than hallow God’s name) would obviously include their new moral code. We see examples of this in the leaders of the Nation of Israel when Jesus walked among them. For example, sons created a way not to have to assist parents(s) in need by keeping the money that should go to assist them, and employing it for their own use, while maintaining the appearance of being righteous. How? They developed a doctrine called Corban which means dedicated to God. As long as it was “dedicated to God,” they couldn’t give it to someone else; but they, themselves, could use it as they wished. Jesus spoke to this issue as, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:8). He went on to say:

…”You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God,’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”    (Mark 7:9-12)

 

Notice the common thread of self-centeredness as regarding the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11:4 they say, “…let us make a name for ourselves.” We find Lucifer weighing in similarly in Isaiah 4:14 as he asserts, “I will make myself like the Most High.” In Mark, the Hebrew concept of “Corban” was a demonstration of self-centeredness. Today’s equivalent of working to redefine morality is also based on self-centeredness. It comes from the now-pervasive idea that “God wants me to be happy.” Let me say for the record, God is more concerned about our holiness than He is about our happiness. For unbelievers, His focus is on their being clothed with His holiness by being redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. For believers, He is more concerned they practice the holiness to which they have been called rather than whether they are happy or not. That doesn’t mean He is unconcerned about our happiness, but He has other priorities. An example from the life of an earthly father may be helpful here. I love my son, daughter and grandchildren. There have been times when each of them have fixated on doing something which they convinced themselves would make them happy. For reasons they didn’t understand, but was in their best interests, I would prevent them from carrying out their intentions. Sometimes their response was, “I hate you,” or “You must hate me.” Neither was true. I just had something better for them. It is the same with God. He has something better for us which our self-centeredness will never fulfill. 

Is There Hope?

There is hope, but the hope should be focused toward the Lord. Left to ourselves, we will manage to spiral into the abyss of the immoral. The task of Christian leaders is to train and to shepherd their flock in understanding and living out the Word of God. Church is the place for equipping, binding up the wounds of living in a fallen world, being examples to the flock of selfless lives in service to the Master who bought us. In turn, the flock goes into the world as missionaries, or as Paul put it, “…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”    (2 Cor. 5:20)

© 2013 Midwest Christian Outreach Inc.

　

LL (Don) Veinot, Jr. is co-founder and president of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, IL with offices in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio. He and Joy, his wife of 42 years, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts including The John Ankerberg Show. He is a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Christian Outreach Inc. Journal and is co-author of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, contributing author of Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials as well as author of articles featured in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. Don is a charter member of ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics) and is also the current President of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of counter-cult/apologetics and discernment ministries from around the country.


 

 

　

Dr. Jerry L. Buckner graduated from California Baptist College in Riverside and earned his Master’s at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary where he is currently an adjunct professor. He earned his Doctorate at San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, CA.

 

Dr. Buckner lives in the San Francisco Bay Area where he serves as pastor of Tiburon Christian Fellowship hosts Contending for the Faith a live call-in-radio program that airs on KFAX (AM 1100), one of the largest Christian radio stations in Northern California.

Midwest Christian Outreach

Website Link: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/

 

 

 

ENDNOTES:

1. Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, (Midwest Christian Outreach, inc, 2003) 175-176

2. Phobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobic

3. The Tar-Baby is a fictional character in the second of the Uncle Remus stories published in 1881; it is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Be’er Rabbit. The more that Be’er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.

In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “stickly” situation” that is only aggravated by add ional contact.”

Tar-Baby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

4. Generations in our Nation; http://aimysgeneration.blogspot.com/p/buiders.html

5. Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men, Rowan Scarborough, http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all

6. Ibid

7. The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper” Denny Burke http//www.dennyburk.com/the-case-for-plural-marriage-the-slippery-slope-gets-slicker-and-steeper/

8. We discussed this in the Fall 2009 Issue of the MCOI Journal article “Barack and the Borg.” http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2010/Fall%202009%20FINAL

9. Chicago-Sun-Times April 4, 2013 , ‘Gay Marriage support about civil right, not religion, pastors say’ http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/19274300-418/gay-marriage-support-about-civil-rights-not-religion-pastors-say.html

10. Brian MaLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response; Brian McLaren; Out of UK. Christianity Today, http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

11. Brian McLaren Leads Commitment Ceremony At Son’s Same-Sex Wedding. Melissa Steffan, Christianity Today, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/09/brian_mclaren_l.html

12. Rob Bell Grows Frustrated Amid Questions on Sinfulness of Homosexuality; Nicola Menzie; The Christian Post; http://www.christianpost.com/news/rob-bell-grows-frustrated-amid-questions-on-sinfulness-of-homosexuality-95209/

 

Falling on Deaf Ears?

In a recent article by Albert Mohler called “Falling on Deaf Ears? Why So Many Churches Hear so Little of the Bible“ which focused on and quoted from an article from Christianity Today magazine , highlighting concern that contemporary Christianity has become “impatience with and resistant to the reading and preaching of the Bible.” Please read Albert Mohler’s Article Here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/10/14/falling-on-deaf-ears-why-so-many-churches-hear-so-little-of-the-bible-2/

Below are a few quotes from the article:

“The fixation on our own sense of need and interest looms as the most significant factor in this marginalization and silencing of the Word.”

“How can so many of today’s churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear: the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. “

“In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We all, both individually and congregationally, neglect God’s Word to our own ruin. As Jesus himself declared, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Profane preachers contribute to killing the conscience

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce and share this article. Below is the article by Marsha West titled: "Profane preachers contribute to killing the conscience".  After the not-so-subtle publicity stunt by Mark Driscoll see story here after he crashed the strange fire conference last week,  that Stand Firm in the Faith posts the Article below.


September 27, 2012

Profane preachers contribute to killing the conscience

By Marsha West

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. — Luke 6:45

There seems to be a growing trend in the Church for the clergy to feed the sensual appetite through their sermons. What we are dealing with are pastors who have dirty minds and potty mouths. The word that best describes them is profane.

The following definition of profane is from the Merriam Webster dictionary:

1: to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt: desecrate

2: to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

So profanity is language that shows disrespect for something sacred, such as the name of God. Not taking the Lord's Name in vain is one of the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exodus 20:7).

Some pastors use obscene language that is often sexual in nature. Telling a dirty joke qualifies as obscene. The Bible makes is clear that:

Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. ;Ephesians 5:4).

THE CUSSING PASTOR

Pastor Mark Driscoll, founder of Mars Hill Church, Seattle Washington is highly regarded in evangelical circles. Pastor Driscoll sometimes uses profanity from the pulpit and has become known for his crude stand-up comic style preaching. The self-described theological conservative and cultural liberal has been accused of trading reverence for relevance. His congregants, most of whom are young people, take delight in hearing sermons laced with crudity. Not surprisingly, early on in his ministry one of his friends referred to him as "the cussing pastor." Today he's criticized for more than cussing; he has been accused of making "disgusting comments" of "dirty talk" and turning Bible verses into punch lines for crude jokes.

Mark Driscoll holds a Master of Arts degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary so he must know that James 3:9-10 says, "bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be."

Critics of the superstar pastor say that he's coarsening the hearts and minds of generation Y. Here's an example from Pastor Driscoll writing about the biblical character of Queen Esther:

She grows up in a very lukewarm religious home as an orphan raised by her cousin. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed. She's simply a person without any character until her own neck is on the line, and then we see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.

(Source)

This is disturbing on so many levels. Because space does not allow further comment, those who wish a complete analysis of Driscoll's disgraceful teaching on Esther read Mark Driscoll's Bizarre World of Queen Esther the "Bachelorette"

TAKEN TO THE WOOD SHED

Boyce College professor Heath Lambert wrote an extensive book review of the New York Times best-selling book by Pastor Mark and his wife, Grace, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together, for the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Lambert lamented:

Make no mistake: men and women will be introduced to pornography because of this book. For almost my entire ministry I have been talking to at least one person a week who struggles with pornography. I do not live in some sheltered ministry context away from people with perverse struggles. As true as that is, the Driscolls taught me a lot about pornography I wish I never knew. The Driscolls introduce their readers to the titles of pornographic books, magazines, and videos; they provide technical names for specific kinds of pornographic films; they list the names of celebrities who have starred in pornography; they even provide web addresses where readers can meet people for sex. As I look back on that sentence I am overwhelmed that a Christian minister could be so irresponsible. I can tell you for an absolute fact that there are young men and women all across the country who will read Real Marriage, have their interest piqued by some of the details the Driscolls provide, will turn to Google for a search on those things, and will not come up for air again for hours — perhaps months and years. If you or someone you love struggles with pornography the Driscolls' book will do serious damage. (Source)

Dr. Lambert's conclusion:

I pray that you ... will spare yourself, those you love, and those in your ministry the many troubles of Real Marriage by focusing on a Christian book on marriage that is more helpful.

In Grunge Christianity Pastor and Bible expositor John MacArthur cautioned:

The problem with the "grunge" approach to religion is that it works against the sanctifying process. In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models — especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world's filthy fads — practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification. (emphasis in original)

Christianity Today had this to say about Mark Driscoll:

Though not a Baptist, he has won a following among many young Baptist ministers and church planters, particularly those who share his Reformed theology. But Driscoll's history of using risqué language, and the fact that he drinks alcohol and talks about sex, angers those who say his approach undermines his message.

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, would agree. Dr. Mohler spoke at a conference and during the lively Q&A session someone in the audience asked him to respond to the effects Mark Driscoll's teaching has on college students who listen to him preach on his website or on YouTube. The man wondered how he could best prepare to minister to them. Dr. Mohler prefaced his response by saying:

"Wherever the gospel is found, we need to be happy about that. And I'm thankful that Mark Driscoll believes in, teaches and preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I appreciate and admire his boldness and tenacity."

He went on to say that he has grave concerns over Driscoll's "excessive contextualization." After discussing the implications of this sort of teaching, he moved on to the obscenity issue:

"There are some things that gospel pastors never need to talk about, ever, because they are not on the screen of a gospel application — they're simply not there. Other things should never be talked about in the full congregation."

After explaining his reasons Mohler says:

"There are certain things that Pastor Driscoll speaks about that I would never speak to anyone about. I don't think it is the responsibility of a gospel pastor to even have to talk about some of those things."

He then lowers the boom:

"I would not be comfortable speaking the same way, nor would I want my students to do that. I think if they did, we'd have a pretty stern conversation."

Mohler's opinion of going to church on YouTube?

"It's a lousy place to go if you're not discerning and if you go for hero worship and you're [thinking] 'this guy is cool and I want to be like him.'"

He supposes Driscoll would agree that hero worship is not what anyone should do. (Source)

On one blog I visited, someone took issue with Driscoll for referring to Jesus as "dude" and snapped back, "Jesus Christ was not a dude, He was a King!"

To be fair, Mark Driscoll is not the only "foul-mouthed narcissist rock-star pastor" in the visible Church. I singled him out for three reasons: 1) His growing popularity; 2) His growing influence, even among pastors; 3) His unbiblical teaching. ( More on Mark Driscoll below)

KILLING THE CONSCIENCE

Certainly the entertainment industry has contributed to killing the conscience. But a strong case can be made that profane preachers are likewise guilty of dulling the conscience.

What we have in some of our churches — not all of them by a long shot — are crowd pleasing shepherds who seem not to worry about feeding dung to their sheep. Moreover, they make little or no attempt to "rightly divide the Word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15) In fact some of our clergy are so spiritually bankrupt that they think nothing of holding the Holy Bible while using profanity and crude examples to drive home a theological point!

It is not a stretch to say that some preachers seem to believe that the Lord Jesus is so pleased by their provocative preaching that they actually envision themselves receiving a high-five and, "Atta boy, dude!" the very moment they emerge in heaven.

HEADS UP, CLERGY

In Jesus Christ the holiness of God appeared in the flesh. God himself reminds us:

"Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be you holy: for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 20:7).

"[H]oliness is regarded by many as a moral attribute of God," says R.A. Finlayson, "having the sense, positively, of purity, and, negatively, of complete freedom from sin. It is thus a general term for the moral excellence of God, and His freedom from all moral limitations in His moral perfection, or as Habakkuk called Him: 'of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look upon sin'" (Source)

My objective continues to be to address the many issues we find in the postmodern (liberal) Church and in this case to warn that there are professing Christians such as pastors, teachers, authors, conference speakers, televangelists, and entertainers who contribute to killing the conscience. Until now, many of you were unaware that famous pastors deliberately use inappropriate language in their sermons, likewise in their blogs, emails and tweets. No doubt some of you find this hard to believe. Well, the cat is out of the bag. And, as I said, it's a growing trend.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim 4:1).

Recommended:
Mark Driscoll: Is he qualified to lead? — By Cathy Mickels

The rape of song of Solomon — By John MacArthur

John MacArthur on "Profanity in the Pulpit," and my two cents — By Greg Laurie (Note: It is disappointing that pastor and evangelist Greg Laurie felt it was important to add his two cents to what Pastor John MacArthur wrote on Mark Driscoll in 2009, and then in 2011 agree to join Driscoll and others for the Elephant Room 1 conference. Later Pastor Laurie decided to "hang out" with Mark Driscoll as you will see here.)

Highway to Hell — Pyromaniacs blog — Here you will see 2 videos of popular Pastor Perry Nobel deliberately use profanity. With him in video #2 are pastors Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald.

The Holiness of God — By Professor R.A. Finlayson

Video: (Graphic)

"I see things." Mark Driscoll claims he has a visual ability to see things that happened to people in the past. He goes into detail about what he has seen such as people being beaten, raped, molested, children dedicated into a cultic group and demons come upon them...and more. He believes this is the gift of discernment. In response to "I see things" Phil Johnson wrote: Pornographic Divination.

Video:

Mark Driscoll explains his use of profanity

© Marsha West